RadioBanter
Page 5 of 7 1234 5 67
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

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 8th 05 01:28 AM
Easier licensing
 
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Whatever. :-) First item is excellent.

I think it's awful, but that's not the point of this discussion. In
any event it's probably going to happen, good, bad or indifferent.

Second, okay.
Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the
third? What "assessments" were done in the past?

Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the
current 3 level license structure does not reflect a
good starting path for new hams because Techs are
(a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power
privileges for full 1500 watts.

Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

My personal view is
to have a beginners license with a variety of HF
and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output
(say 200 watts or less).

Makes sense to me.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Amateur radio
isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.
Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Differing
levels/classes of license only reinforce the already-
present class-distinction social divisions in U.S.
amateur radio.

Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio

2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would
exist with a single license class that required the same
knowledge

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them. There's no age
requirement, no educational requirement other than
ability to pass the test, no income requirement other
than ability to pay the testing fees (which is sometimes
waived by the VEs).

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

a recreational pursuit
done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some
artifice of social standing.

It's also done for public service.

Plenty of other
organizations exist for social climbers looking for
status and title.

In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same. Radio is
no different in that respect than, say, golf, Scrabble,
model airplanes, or almost anything else.

Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not. And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

nor is "amateur radio operation" some
kind of mystical event, requiring perfect
incantations to have some magic occur.

No magical incantations, although K0HB's idea of
sacrificing a goat in the antenna farm may have some merit ;-)

But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Unlicensed
(in radio) public safety people routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) aircraft crew routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) business people routinely do
that. Dozens of other examples are available where
unlicensed-in-radio individuals routinely operate
radio transmitters without some long "training"
period of months or years in order to be "proper"
operators in radio.

Except that's not the whole story.

The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators. They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments. In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Nor do those radio users have much if any technical responsibility
for the radios they use. That responsibility is carried by
technical people who install, test and maintain the radios.
Of course the person who uses the radio may sometimes
also be the technical person, but that is not a requirement
of use.

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. 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.

Amateur radio is completely different. A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station. In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license. So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Amateurs are also authorized to design, build, repair, and
modify their equipment without any formal certification or
type-acceptance requirements other than the spurious-emission
rules in Part 97. Most other radio services do not have
anything like that sort of freedom.

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF. And
unlike almost all other radio services, different modes
of transmission coexist on the same frequency bands.
For example, just between 7000 and 7300 kHz, one can
find amateurs using Morse Code, PSK31, RTTY, SSB,
AM, PACTOR, MFSK, SSTV, and a bunch of other modes,
without formal channelization and with only a few FCC
rules and voluntary bandplans to sort things out. Other
radio services are much more regimented, regulated, and
ordered so as to eliminate the need for user skill and
knowledge.

I see absolutely no reason for
amateur radio people engaging in a hobby to do that
sort of thing...except to salve the egos of the long-
"tenured" "senior" amateurs.

To do what sort of thing - have multiple license classes?
What's your alternative?

The current 3 licenses and privileges are the
result of piecepart change over time and the result has
some less than logical consequences regarding
privileges and entrance level testing when compared
to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50
years. YMMV.

Yet FCC says they think the 3 level system is the optimum
one. That's not just my opinion - it's clearly stated in the
NPRM.

My odometer reads the same as yours on regulations'
evolution of continuing piece-part changing. That is
a consequence of radio politics, and NOT, in my view,
of any "necessity" to have a layered system of
classes for a hobby.

Would you have just one class of license?

EM-space doesn't recognize
"classes" OR human politics; electrons, fields, and
waves are all unaffected by human regulations or
emotion or "needs" to stratify standing within some
"fellowship."

Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

The Novice class license is a failure in the long
run.

For most of its history it was a great success in its original
purpose, which was to ease the path into amateur radio. It
was perhaps *the* best idea to come out of the restructuring of 1951.

If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate. Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

While it might have been a good idea at the
beginning for some to "get their feet wet" (in radio
waters), it started off badly with the emotional
baggage of its class title, "Novice."

Only to someone like you, who attach such emotional
baggage. "Novice" simply means "beginner" and is an
accurate name for a license class aimed at beginners.

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

As viewed
from afar, it served only to initiate the completely
ferklempt with "proper" radiotelegraphy procedure
and with the "proper" jargon (which had evolved in
the particular activity of amateur radio)...not to
mention having the "proper attitude" of worship and
respect of "elders" (who thought they "ran" things).

That's just nonsense, Len.

After WW1 and before 1951, the only way to get started
in US amateur radio was to pass the Morse Code tests at
10 or 13 wpm (depending on whether the license was
earned before or after 1936) and to pass the Class B/C written
exam of about 50 questions that included essays, diagrams
and many other areas of knowledge. While people as young
as 9 years old managed to do that and earn the licenses, it
was a big investment of resources just to get started.

The Novice offered an easier entry point, with slower Morse
Code testing and a much simpler written exam - and much less
privileges. The idea was that it would be easier and better for
new hams to learn-by-doing.

But there was no requirement to start with a Novice. Anyone
who wanted to be a ham could start out with a Technician,
General or Conditional, same as the old Class B and C
licenses they replaced.

That can work on typical teen-agers who have yet to
experience more of life and the variety of humans
who exist in the real world. It does not work well
with adults.

Yet many adults started out as Novices.

Longevity of a regulation such as "novice" or
"beginner" or "entrant" in a field such as radio and
communications that has constantly been evolving over
the last half-century is not a logical necessity to
keep those regulations.

Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

Time has shown that the
newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades;
its class numbers are continuously decreasing.

No new Novices have been issued for 55 months - it's
no wonder they are decreasing.

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.
Another reason was the reduction of the Technician written testing in
1987.
The difference in requirements of the two licenses was reduced while
the
difference in privileges was so great that many either skipped the
Novice
or spent only a short time before upgrading to Technician.

Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby
field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to
"guide and educate the kids."

If true, there's nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps its a by-
product of parenthood or a surrogate for that?


It's about the future of amateur radio, and keeping
the diversity. All good things.

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Are saying we should *NOT* try to get more young
people into amateur radio? Why not?

Children don't have the monetary
base to build market sales which serve to benefit the
adults.

You'd be suprised how much buying power the under-21
folks have!

And even if they don't have the "monetary base" - so what?
Everything isn't about money. When the children grow
older, they may have more money to spend on radio.

Children don't have the experience to run
events or keep organizations (predominently adult)
together.

Very true - and amateur radio is one way for them
to see how events are run and organizations are
kept together. It can give them a view into the
world and help them learn. All good things.

At best, the drive to "get youngsters
interested" in a primarly-adult hobby seems to be
little more than eyewash, using politically-correct
psycho phrases.

Now you're just getting nasty, Len. What's your problem
with young people being hams, and with efforts to
recruit younger people?

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long. A radio amateur who is
licensed at the age of, say, 12 years and who continues as
a ham for the rest of his/her life will spend only a small
percent of their time as a "child ham".

One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education. That alone is a valid reason to recruit young people
to be radio amateurs, because the education they get from it
can be very substantial. Besides the purely technical side,
amateur radio can help teach geography, other languages,
time zones, government regulations, and much more.

On the other hand, targeting an entrance drive for
amateur radio to teenagers will tend to steer them
away from their contemporaries' activities...those
activities having evolved to fit that peer group and
not necessarily that of adults.

Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

It will serve to show
those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the
adult world ahead.

That's good! Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

It can also serve to alienate
them from their own peer group by making them
"different." That is a not-good thing among teen-
agers who seek the stability of "their" group, a
natural psychological need in that part of their life.

That's pure and utter nonsense.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different". Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved. Those
who learn a musical instrument are "different" from those
who don't. Those involved in sports are "different" from
those who aren't. Etc.

One of the main purposes of childhood and adolescence
is self-discovery. It is a good thing for young people to
try various activities to see what they enjoy and are
good at.

Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally. Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians. Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors. That doesn't mean the activities have
no value, just that the vast majority will never go beyond
the recreational level of those activities.

But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

My own experience on "entering HF" were rather drastic
in "apprenticeship" consisting only of a few days (at
most). So were the 4 newcomers with me, none of us
having been schooled on high-power HF transmitters.

But that's not the whole story, Len.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you? All
had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

You all went to microwave school, right? IIRC, that was at
least six months of intensive training, and must have included
a lot of radio theory and practice that wasn't specifically
microwave technology - didn't it?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch. While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen
and we did it.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right. You
weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

(some
of which were considerably more complicated than any
found in amateur radio operating).

Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

So did those that
came before us and those that came after us.

Right. As it should be.

Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

I was one of those kids who was curious about all things
electrical, from a very early age. By the age of 10 I was
building simple receivers, and by the age of 12 I had
built a working HF receiver. Almost all that I knew about
radio came from various books because there were no radio
amateurs or electronics types in my family or immediate
neighborhood before I came along. None of this was covered in
school back then.

I still remember the look on my fifth grade teacher's face
when she caught me reading an electrical textbook in class.
She happened to open it to a page that showed diagrams of
three-phase transformer connections, which I explained.....

Priceless.

I soon realized that in certain areas I knew far more than
my teachers did, and that I couldn't expect much in those
areas from school.

Almost all the parts for my radios came from old TV and
BC receivers, or anything else electrical or electronic that
I could get my hands on.

Simple things like figuring out the inductance of a coil
required that I teach myself some basic algebra in order
to understand the formulas. Practical stuff like soldering
and metalwork I learned from the books and from trial-and-error.

And I learned Morse Code by listening to hams on the 80
meter band, and sending to myself with a home-made code
practice oscillator.

By age 13 I had earned the Novice license. My first transmitter
was home-made - simple but effective. I had almost no
test equipment and only a few tools - a lot of things were simply
guessed at and cut-and-tried until they worked right. For example,
I had to figure out how to match the transmitter output to my
random-wire antenna using a flashlight bulb as an RF indicator.

By age 14 I'd upgraded to Advanced, acquired a better transmitter,
receiver and antenna, and was filling up log books with QSOs.

All with *no* formal training in electricity, radio, electronics,
almost no money, and the usual obligations of schoolwork,
chores, family activities, etc. My folks' contribution to my
efforts was to allow me to do them if I got everything else
done first.

I wasn't any sort of prodigy or genius, just a motivated kid
interested in radio. There were and are many like me, some
even younger.

The point of this little personal history of mine is to illustrate
how different the environment and resources of most new
amateur radio operators are. While few start out the way I did,
most are essentially working on their own, without formal
training in radio, yet with the usual obligations of life. And their
amateur radio activities are all self-funded.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

I can draw a parallel to the activities of infantry,
armor, and artillery soldiers who had to learn how to
operate radios necessary for military communications.
They did it by the thousands upon thousands of soldiers,
nearly all of them inexperienced in using any radio other
than a broadcast receiver before their service. Those
that say "they only push the button and talk" are doing
them an extreme disservice since there is considerably
more to do than that.

How much more? 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".

Radio training for line outfits
is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of
that being branch-specific procedural matters.

A couple *weeks* of intense formal training!

Now,
if they can all do that successfully in a short time,
it makes no logical sense to have class stratification
of being held in one class for a year or more.

The environments are completely different, Len. 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.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.
Only the Advanced and Extra ever had such a requirement,
and the Advanced's 1 year requirement disappeared in 1953,
while the Extra's 2 year requirement was cut to 1 year in the
early 1970s and then eliminated about 1975.

I think the entry-level license for a US ham license could be
a lot better than the current Technician. What K2UNK proposes
is a good starting point. But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.

[email protected] December 8th 05 02:08 AM
Easier licensing
 
From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed, Dec 7 2005 2:51 pm


wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message

snip

Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because
the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down
to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference
from secret tests!

Yawn.... BUT publishing the questions was never proposed
by ARRL. That being so, who in the FCC do you
attribute the change to?

Those who wanted to save money by getting FCC out of the
exam-giving process.

So the reality is that no one in the ham community pushed that.
I'll conclude then that anytime the FCC proposes a change
even if not originated in the ham community, if you view it
as a lowering of requirements then it is automatically bad
per your opinion.

"That's about the size of it..."

snip

Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading
the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and
analyzing it a la AH0A.

ARRL is perfectly capable of that I'm sure.

But somebody has to pay for it.

["it's all about money"? :-) ]

ARRL has more than enough ability to fund such a study or
simply assign the task to one of the permanent ARRL staffers.

AH0A is hardly an objective analyzer...whatever he sees
is all about morse code... :-)


And you can bet that whatever
numbers ARRL puts out, some will say they are "massaged" and
accuse the ARRL of "fraud" and such.

WHO cares? There is always someone that will take issue
with any study conclusion, analysis, ets. If you expect
a 100% agreed to set of review and analysis as the end
result, tyhen yu're expecting the impossible.

The ARRL can do no wrong.

snip

I could care less about those that might want to wait for
changes they have no assurance are coming.

But those changes have an enormous impact on the numbers.
That's the point, whether we care about it or not.

The percent of people that might ultimately wait for "possible"
(emphasis on possible as opposed to actual)
future changes is, I suspect small. Odds are that there aren't
many current techs waiting for future free upgrades nor
where there likly many that shelved their upgrade plans
when the ARRL first proposed free upgrades. (IMHO of
course).

Morsemen are prescient, see all, know all. We cannot doubt
them. [they don't let us]

[email protected] December 8th 05 02:29 AM
Easier licensing
 
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Whatever. :-) First item is excellent.

I think it's awful, but that's not the point of this discussion. In
any event it's probably going to happen, good, bad or indifferent.

Second, okay.
Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the
third? What "assessments" were done in the past?

Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the
current 3 level license structure does not reflect a
good starting path for new hams because Techs are
(a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power
privileges for full 1500 watts.

Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

My personal view is
to have a beginners license with a variety of HF
and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output
(say 200 watts or less).

Makes sense to me.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Amateur radio
isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.
Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Differing
levels/classes of license only reinforce the already-
present class-distinction social divisions in U.S.
amateur radio.

Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio

2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would
exist with a single license class that required the same
knowledge

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them. There's no age
requirement, no educational requirement other than
ability to pass the test, no income requirement other
than ability to pay the testing fees (which is sometimes
waived by the VEs).

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

a recreational pursuit
done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some
artifice of social standing.

It's also done for public service.

Plenty of other
organizations exist for social climbers looking for
status and title.

In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same. Radio is
no different in that respect than, say, golf, Scrabble,
model airplanes, or almost anything else.

Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not. And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

nor is "amateur radio operation" some
kind of mystical event, requiring perfect
incantations to have some magic occur.

No magical incantations, although K0HB's idea of
sacrificing a goat in the antenna farm may have some merit ;-)

But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Unlicensed
(in radio) public safety people routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) aircraft crew routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) business people routinely do
that. Dozens of other examples are available where
unlicensed-in-radio individuals routinely operate
radio transmitters without some long "training"
period of months or years in order to be "proper"
operators in radio.

Except that's not the whole story.

The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators. They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments. In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Nor do those radio users have much if any technical responsibility
for the radios they use. That responsibility is carried by
technical people who install, test and maintain the radios.
Of course the person who uses the radio may sometimes
also be the technical person, but that is not a requirement
of use.

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. 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.

Amateur radio is completely different. A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station. In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license. So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Amateurs are also authorized to design, build, repair, and
modify their equipment without any formal certification or
type-acceptance requirements other than the spurious-emission
rules in Part 97. Most other radio services do not have
anything like that sort of freedom.

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF. And
unlike almost all other radio services, different modes
of transmission coexist on the same frequency bands.
For example, just between 7000 and 7300 kHz, one can
find amateurs using Morse Code, PSK31, RTTY, SSB,
AM, PACTOR, MFSK, SSTV, and a bunch of other modes,
without formal channelization and with only a few FCC
rules and voluntary bandplans to sort things out. Other
radio services are much more regimented, regulated, and
ordered so as to eliminate the need for user skill and
knowledge.

I see absolutely no reason for
amateur radio people engaging in a hobby to do that
sort of thing...except to salve the egos of the long-
"tenured" "senior" amateurs.

To do what sort of thing - have multiple license classes?
What's your alternative?

The current 3 licenses and privileges are the
result of piecepart change over time and the result has
some less than logical consequences regarding
privileges and entrance level testing when compared
to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50
years. YMMV.

Yet FCC says they think the 3 level system is the optimum
one. That's not just my opinion - it's clearly stated in the
NPRM.

My odometer reads the same as yours on regulations'
evolution of continuing piece-part changing. That is
a consequence of radio politics, and NOT, in my view,
of any "necessity" to have a layered system of
classes for a hobby.

Would you have just one class of license?

EM-space doesn't recognize
"classes" OR human politics; electrons, fields, and
waves are all unaffected by human regulations or
emotion or "needs" to stratify standing within some
"fellowship."

Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

The Novice class license is a failure in the long
run.

For most of its history it was a great success in its original
purpose, which was to ease the path into amateur radio. It
was perhaps *the* best idea to come out of the restructuring of 1951.

If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate. Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

While it might have been a good idea at the
beginning for some to "get their feet wet" (in radio
waters), it started off badly with the emotional
baggage of its class title, "Novice."

Only to someone like you, who attach such emotional
baggage. "Novice" simply means "beginner" and is an
accurate name for a license class aimed at beginners.

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

As viewed
from afar, it served only to initiate the completely
ferklempt with "proper" radiotelegraphy procedure
and with the "proper" jargon (which had evolved in
the particular activity of amateur radio)...not to
mention having the "proper attitude" of worship and
respect of "elders" (who thought they "ran" things).

That's just nonsense, Len.

After WW1 and before 1951, the only way to get started
in US amateur radio was to pass the Morse Code tests at
10 or 13 wpm (depending on whether the license was
earned before or after 1936) and to pass the Class B/C written
exam of about 50 questions that included essays, diagrams
and many other areas of knowledge. While people as young
as 9 years old managed to do that and earn the licenses, it
was a big investment of resources just to get started.

The Novice offered an easier entry point, with slower Morse
Code testing and a much simpler written exam - and much less
privileges. The idea was that it would be easier and better for
new hams to learn-by-doing.

But there was no requirement to start with a Novice. Anyone
who wanted to be a ham could start out with a Technician,
General or Conditional, same as the old Class B and C
licenses they replaced.

That can work on typical teen-agers who have yet to
experience more of life and the variety of humans
who exist in the real world. It does not work well
with adults.

Yet many adults started out as Novices.

Longevity of a regulation such as "novice" or
"beginner" or "entrant" in a field such as radio and
communications that has constantly been evolving over
the last half-century is not a logical necessity to
keep those regulations.

Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

Time has shown that the
newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades;
its class numbers are continuously decreasing.

No new Novices have been issued for 55 months - it's
no wonder they are decreasing.

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.
Another reason was the reduction of the Technician written testing in
1987.
The difference in requirements of the two licenses was reduced while
the
difference in privileges was so great that many either skipped the
Novice
or spent only a short time before upgrading to Technician.

Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby
field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to
"guide and educate the kids."

If true, there's nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps its a by-
product of parenthood or a surrogate for that?


It's about the future of amateur radio, and keeping
the diversity. All good things.

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Are saying we should *NOT* try to get more young
people into amateur radio? Why not?

Children don't have the monetary
base to build market sales which serve to benefit the
adults.

You'd be suprised how much buying power the under-21
folks have!

And even if they don't have the "monetary base" - so what?
Everything isn't about money. When the children grow
older, they may have more money to spend on radio.

Children don't have the experience to run
events or keep organizations (predominently adult)
together.

Very true - and amateur radio is one way for them
to see how events are run and organizations are
kept together. It can give them a view into the
world and help them learn. All good things.

At best, the drive to "get youngsters
interested" in a primarly-adult hobby seems to be
little more than eyewash, using politically-correct
psycho phrases.

Now you're just getting nasty, Len. What's your problem
with young people being hams, and with efforts to
recruit younger people?

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long. A radio amateur who is
licensed at the age of, say, 12 years and who continues as
a ham for the rest of his/her life will spend only a small
percent of their time as a "child ham".

One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education. That alone is a valid reason to recruit young people
to be radio amateurs, because the education they get from it
can be very substantial. Besides the purely technical side,
amateur radio can help teach geography, other languages,
time zones, government regulations, and much more.

On the other hand, targeting an entrance drive for
amateur radio to teenagers will tend to steer them
away from their contemporaries' activities...those
activities having evolved to fit that peer group and
not necessarily that of adults.

Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

It will serve to show
those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the
adult world ahead.

That's good! Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

It can also serve to alienate
them from their own peer group by making them
"different." That is a not-good thing among teen-
agers who seek the stability of "their" group, a
natural psychological need in that part of their life.

That's pure and utter nonsense.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different". Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved. Those
who learn a musical instrument are "different" from those
who don't. Those involved in sports are "different" from
those who aren't. Etc.

One of the main purposes of childhood and adolescence
is self-discovery. It is a good thing for young people to
try various activities to see what they enjoy and are
good at.

Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally. Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians. Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors. That doesn't mean the activities have
no value, just that the vast majority will never go beyond
the recreational level of those activities.

But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

My own experience on "entering HF" were rather drastic
in "apprenticeship" consisting only of a few days (at
most). So were the 4 newcomers with me, none of us
having been schooled on high-power HF transmitters.

But that's not the whole story, Len.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you? All
had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

You all went to microwave school, right? IIRC, that was at
least six months of intensive training, and must have included
a lot of radio theory and practice that wasn't specifically
microwave technology - didn't it?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch. While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen
and we did it.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right. You
weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

(some
of which were considerably more complicated than any
found in amateur radio operating).

Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

So did those that
came before us and those that came after us.

Right. As it should be.

Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

I was one of those kids who was curious about all things
electrical, from a very early age. By the age of 10 I was
building simple receivers, and by the age of 12 I had
built a working HF receiver. Almost all that I knew about
radio came from various books because there were no radio
amateurs or electronics types in my family or immediate
neighborhood before I came along. None of this was covered in
school back then.

I still remember the look on my fifth grade teacher's face
when she caught me reading an electrical textbook in class.
She happened to open it to a page that showed diagrams of
three-phase transformer connections, which I explained.....

Priceless.

I soon realized that in certain areas I knew far more than
my teachers did, and that I couldn't expect much in those
areas from school.

Almost all the parts for my radios came from old TV and
BC receivers, or anything else electrical or electronic that
I could get my hands on.

Simple things like figuring out the inductance of a coil
required that I teach myself some basic algebra in order
to understand the formulas. Practical stuff like soldering
and metalwork I learned from the books and from trial-and-error.

And I learned Morse Code by listening to hams on the 80
meter band, and sending to myself with a home-made code
practice oscillator.

By age 13 I had earned the Novice license. My first transmitter
was home-made - simple but effective. I had almost no
test equipment and only a few tools - a lot of things were simply
guessed at and cut-and-tried until they worked right. For example,
I had to figure out how to match the transmitter output to my
random-wire antenna using a flashlight bulb as an RF indicator.

By age 14 I'd upgraded to Advanced, acquired a better transmitter,
receiver and antenna, and was filling up log books with QSOs.

All with *no* formal training in electricity, radio, electronics,
almost no money, and the usual obligations of schoolwork,
chores, family activities, etc. My folks' contribution to my
efforts was to allow me to do them if I got everything else
done first.

I wasn't any sort of prodigy or genius, just a motivated kid
interested in radio. There were and are many like me, some
even younger.

The point of this little personal history of mine is to illustrate
how different the environment and resources of most new
amateur radio operators are. While few start out the way I did,
most are essentially working on their own, without formal
training in radio, yet with the usual obligations of life. And their
amateur radio activities are all self-funded.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

I can draw a parallel to the activities of infantry,
armor, and artillery soldiers who had to learn how to
operate radios necessary for military communications.
They did it by the thousands upon thousands of soldiers,
nearly all of them inexperienced in using any radio other
than a broadcast receiver before their service. Those
that say "they only push the button and talk" are doing
them an extreme disservice since there is considerably
more to do than that.

How much more? 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".

Radio training for line outfits
is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of
that being branch-specific procedural matters.

A couple *weeks* of intense formal training!

Now,
if they can all do that successfully in a short time,
it makes no logical sense to have class stratification
of being held in one class for a year or more.

The environments are completely different, Len. 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.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.
Only the Advanced and Extra ever had such a requirement,
and the Advanced's 1 year requirement disappeared in 1953,
while the Extra's 2 year requirement was cut to 1 year in the
early 1970s and then eliminated about 1975.

I think the entry-level license for a US ham license could be
a lot better than the current Technician. What K2UNK proposes
is a good starting point. But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.

[email protected] December 8th 05 02:42 AM
Easier licensing
 
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Whatever. :-) First item is excellent.

I think it's awful, but that's not the point of this discussion. In
any event it's probably going to happen, good, bad or indifferent.

Second, okay.
Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the
third? What "assessments" were done in the past?

Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the
current 3 level license structure does not reflect a
good starting path for new hams because Techs are
(a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power
privileges for full 1500 watts.

Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

My personal view is
to have a beginners license with a variety of HF
and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output
(say 200 watts or less).

Makes sense to me.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Amateur radio
isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.
Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Differing
levels/classes of license only reinforce the already-
present class-distinction social divisions in U.S.
amateur radio.

Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio

2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would
exist with a single license class that required the same
knowledge

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them. There's no age
requirement, no educational requirement other than
ability to pass the test, no income requirement other
than ability to pay the testing fees (which is sometimes
waived by the VEs).

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

a recreational pursuit
done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some
artifice of social standing.

It's also done for public service.

Plenty of other
organizations exist for social climbers looking for
status and title.

In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same. Radio is
no different in that respect than, say, golf, Scrabble,
model airplanes, or almost anything else.

Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not. And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

nor is "amateur radio operation" some
kind of mystical event, requiring perfect
incantations to have some magic occur.

No magical incantations, although K0HB's idea of
sacrificing a goat in the antenna farm may have some merit ;-)

But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Unlicensed
(in radio) public safety people routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) aircraft crew routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) business people routinely do
that. Dozens of other examples are available where
unlicensed-in-radio individuals routinely operate
radio transmitters without some long "training"
period of months or years in order to be "proper"
operators in radio.

Except that's not the whole story.

The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators. They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments. In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Nor do those radio users have much if any technical responsibility
for the radios they use. That responsibility is carried by
technical people who install, test and maintain the radios.
Of course the person who uses the radio may sometimes
also be the technical person, but that is not a requirement
of use.

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. 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.

Amateur radio is completely different. A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station. In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license. So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Amateurs are also authorized to design, build, repair, and
modify their equipment without any formal certification or
type-acceptance requirements other than the spurious-emission
rules in Part 97. Most other radio services do not have
anything like that sort of freedom.

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF. And
unlike almost all other radio services, different modes
of transmission coexist on the same frequency bands.
For example, just between 7000 and 7300 kHz, one can
find amateurs using Morse Code, PSK31, RTTY, SSB,
AM, PACTOR, MFSK, SSTV, and a bunch of other modes,
without formal channelization and with only a few FCC
rules and voluntary bandplans to sort things out. Other
radio services are much more regimented, regulated, and
ordered so as to eliminate the need for user skill and
knowledge.

I see absolutely no reason for
amateur radio people engaging in a hobby to do that
sort of thing...except to salve the egos of the long-
"tenured" "senior" amateurs.

To do what sort of thing - have multiple license classes?
What's your alternative?

The current 3 licenses and privileges are the
result of piecepart change over time and the result has
some less than logical consequences regarding
privileges and entrance level testing when compared
to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50
years. YMMV.

Yet FCC says they think the 3 level system is the optimum
one. That's not just my opinion - it's clearly stated in the
NPRM.

My odometer reads the same as yours on regulations'
evolution of continuing piece-part changing. That is
a consequence of radio politics, and NOT, in my view,
of any "necessity" to have a layered system of
classes for a hobby.

Would you have just one class of license?

EM-space doesn't recognize
"classes" OR human politics; electrons, fields, and
waves are all unaffected by human regulations or
emotion or "needs" to stratify standing within some
"fellowship."

Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

The Novice class license is a failure in the long
run.

For most of its history it was a great success in its original
purpose, which was to ease the path into amateur radio. It
was perhaps *the* best idea to come out of the restructuring of 1951.

If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate. Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

While it might have been a good idea at the
beginning for some to "get their feet wet" (in radio
waters), it started off badly with the emotional
baggage of its class title, "Novice."

Only to someone like you, who attach such emotional
baggage. "Novice" simply means "beginner" and is an
accurate name for a license class aimed at beginners.

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

As viewed
from afar, it served only to initiate the completely
ferklempt with "proper" radiotelegraphy procedure
and with the "proper" jargon (which had evolved in
the particular activity of amateur radio)...not to
mention having the "proper attitude" of worship and
respect of "elders" (who thought they "ran" things).

That's just nonsense, Len.

After WW1 and before 1951, the only way to get started
in US amateur radio was to pass the Morse Code tests at
10 or 13 wpm (depending on whether the license was
earned before or after 1936) and to pass the Class B/C written
exam of about 50 questions that included essays, diagrams
and many other areas of knowledge. While people as young
as 9 years old managed to do that and earn the licenses, it
was a big investment of resources just to get started.

The Novice offered an easier entry point, with slower Morse
Code testing and a much simpler written exam - and much less
privileges. The idea was that it would be easier and better for
new hams to learn-by-doing.

But there was no requirement to start with a Novice. Anyone
who wanted to be a ham could start out with a Technician,
General or Conditional, same as the old Class B and C
licenses they replaced.

That can work on typical teen-agers who have yet to
experience more of life and the variety of humans
who exist in the real world. It does not work well
with adults.

Yet many adults started out as Novices.

Longevity of a regulation such as "novice" or
"beginner" or "entrant" in a field such as radio and
communications that has constantly been evolving over
the last half-century is not a logical necessity to
keep those regulations.

Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

Time has shown that the
newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades;
its class numbers are continuously decreasing.

No new Novices have been issued for 55 months - it's
no wonder they are decreasing.

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.
Another reason was the reduction of the Technician written testing in
1987.
The difference in requirements of the two licenses was reduced while
the
difference in privileges was so great that many either skipped the
Novice
or spent only a short time before upgrading to Technician.

Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby
field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to
"guide and educate the kids."

If true, there's nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps its a by-
product of parenthood or a surrogate for that?


It's about the future of amateur radio, and keeping
the diversity. All good things.

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Are saying we should *NOT* try to get more young
people into amateur radio? Why not?

Children don't have the monetary
base to build market sales which serve to benefit the
adults.

You'd be suprised how much buying power the under-21
folks have!

And even if they don't have the "monetary base" - so what?
Everything isn't about money. When the children grow
older, they may have more money to spend on radio.

Children don't have the experience to run
events or keep organizations (predominently adult)
together.

Very true - and amateur radio is one way for them
to see how events are run and organizations are
kept together. It can give them a view into the
world and help them learn. All good things.

At best, the drive to "get youngsters
interested" in a primarly-adult hobby seems to be
little more than eyewash, using politically-correct
psycho phrases.

Now you're just getting nasty, Len. What's your problem
with young people being hams, and with efforts to
recruit younger people?

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long. A radio amateur who is
licensed at the age of, say, 12 years and who continues as
a ham for the rest of his/her life will spend only a small
percent of their time as a "child ham".

One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education. That alone is a valid reason to recruit young people
to be radio amateurs, because the education they get from it
can be very substantial. Besides the purely technical side,
amateur radio can help teach geography, other languages,
time zones, government regulations, and much more.

On the other hand, targeting an entrance drive for
amateur radio to teenagers will tend to steer them
away from their contemporaries' activities...those
activities having evolved to fit that peer group and
not necessarily that of adults.

Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

It will serve to show
those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the
adult world ahead.

That's good! Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

It can also serve to alienate
them from their own peer group by making them
"different." That is a not-good thing among teen-
agers who seek the stability of "their" group, a
natural psychological need in that part of their life.

That's pure and utter nonsense.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different". Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved. Those
who learn a musical instrument are "different" from those
who don't. Those involved in sports are "different" from
those who aren't. Etc.

One of the main purposes of childhood and adolescence
is self-discovery. It is a good thing for young people to
try various activities to see what they enjoy and are
good at.

Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally. Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians. Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors. That doesn't mean the activities have
no value, just that the vast majority will never go beyond
the recreational level of those activities.

But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

My own experience on "entering HF" were rather drastic
in "apprenticeship" consisting only of a few days (at
most). So were the 4 newcomers with me, none of us
having been schooled on high-power HF transmitters.

But that's not the whole story, Len.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you? All
had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

You all went to microwave school, right? IIRC, that was at
least six months of intensive training, and must have included
a lot of radio theory and practice that wasn't specifically
microwave technology - didn't it?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch. While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen
and we did it.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right. You
weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

(some
of which were considerably more complicated than any
found in amateur radio operating).

Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

So did those that
came before us and those that came after us.

Right. As it should be.

Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

I was one of those kids who was curious about all things
electrical, from a very early age. By the age of 10 I was
building simple receivers, and by the age of 12 I had
built a working HF receiver. Almost all that I knew about
radio came from various books because there were no radio
amateurs or electronics types in my family or immediate
neighborhood before I came along. None of this was covered in
school back then.

I still remember the look on my fifth grade teacher's face
when she caught me reading an electrical textbook in class.
She happened to open it to a page that showed diagrams of
three-phase transformer connections, which I explained.....

Priceless.

I soon realized that in certain areas I knew far more than
my teachers did, and that I couldn't expect much in those
areas from school.

Almost all the parts for my radios came from old TV and
BC receivers, or anything else electrical or electronic that
I could get my hands on.

Simple things like figuring out the inductance of a coil
required that I teach myself some basic algebra in order
to understand the formulas. Practical stuff like soldering
and metalwork I learned from the books and from trial-and-error.

And I learned Morse Code by listening to hams on the 80
meter band, and sending to myself with a home-made code
practice oscillator.

By age 13 I had earned the Novice license. My first transmitter
was home-made - simple but effective. I had almost no
test equipment and only a few tools - a lot of things were simply
guessed at and cut-and-tried until they worked right. For example,
I had to figure out how to match the transmitter output to my
random-wire antenna using a flashlight bulb as an RF indicator.

By age 14 I'd upgraded to Advanced, acquired a better transmitter,
receiver and antenna, and was filling up log books with QSOs.

All with *no* formal training in electricity, radio, electronics,
almost no money, and the usual obligations of schoolwork,
chores, family activities, etc. My folks' contribution to my
efforts was to allow me to do them if I got everything else
done first.

I wasn't any sort of prodigy or genius, just a motivated kid
interested in radio. There were and are many like me, some
even younger.

The point of this little personal history of mine is to illustrate
how different the environment and resources of most new
amateur radio operators are. While few start out the way I did,
most are essentially working on their own, without formal
training in radio, yet with the usual obligations of life. And their
amateur radio activities are all self-funded.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

I can draw a parallel to the activities of infantry,
armor, and artillery soldiers who had to learn how to
operate radios necessary for military communications.
They did it by the thousands upon thousands of soldiers,
nearly all of them inexperienced in using any radio other
than a broadcast receiver before their service. Those
that say "they only push the button and talk" are doing
them an extreme disservice since there is considerably
more to do than that.

How much more? 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".

Radio training for line outfits
is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of
that being branch-specific procedural matters.

A couple *weeks* of intense formal training!

Now,
if they can all do that successfully in a short time,
it makes no logical sense to have class stratification
of being held in one class for a year or more.

The environments are completely different, Len. 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.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.
Only the Advanced and Extra ever had such a requirement,
and the Advanced's 1 year requirement disappeared in 1953,
while the Extra's 2 year requirement was cut to 1 year in the
early 1970s and then eliminated about 1975.

I think the entry-level license for a US ham license could be
a lot better than the current Technician. What K2UNK proposes
is a good starting point. But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.

[email protected] December 8th 05 02:44 AM
Easier licensing
 
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Whatever. :-) First item is excellent.

I think it's awful, but that's not the point of this discussion. In
any event it's probably going to happen, good, bad or indifferent.

Second, okay.
Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the
third? What "assessments" were done in the past?

Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the
current 3 level license structure does not reflect a
good starting path for new hams because Techs are
(a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power
privileges for full 1500 watts.

Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

My personal view is
to have a beginners license with a variety of HF
and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output
(say 200 watts or less).

Makes sense to me.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Amateur radio
isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.
Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Differing
levels/classes of license only reinforce the already-
present class-distinction social divisions in U.S.
amateur radio.

Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio

2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would
exist with a single license class that required the same
knowledge

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them. There's no age
requirement, no educational requirement other than
ability to pass the test, no income requirement other
than ability to pay the testing fees (which is sometimes
waived by the VEs).

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

a recreational pursuit
done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some
artifice of social standing.

It's also done for public service.

Plenty of other
organizations exist for social climbers looking for
status and title.

In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same. Radio is
no different in that respect than, say, golf, Scrabble,
model airplanes, or almost anything else.

Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not. And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

nor is "amateur radio operation" some
kind of mystical event, requiring perfect
incantations to have some magic occur.

No magical incantations, although K0HB's idea of
sacrificing a goat in the antenna farm may have some merit ;-)

But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Unlicensed
(in radio) public safety people routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) aircraft crew routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) business people routinely do
that. Dozens of other examples are available where
unlicensed-in-radio individuals routinely operate
radio transmitters without some long "training"
period of months or years in order to be "proper"
operators in radio.

Except that's not the whole story.

The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators. They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments. In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Nor do those radio users have much if any technical responsibility
for the radios they use. That responsibility is carried by
technical people who install, test and maintain the radios.
Of course the person who uses the radio may sometimes
also be the technical person, but that is not a requirement
of use.

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. 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.

Amateur radio is completely different. A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station. In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license. So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Amateurs are also authorized to design, build, repair, and
modify their equipment without any formal certification or
type-acceptance requirements other than the spurious-emission
rules in Part 97. Most other radio services do not have
anything like that sort of freedom.

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF. And
unlike almost all other radio services, different modes
of transmission coexist on the same frequency bands.
For example, just between 7000 and 7300 kHz, one can
find amateurs using Morse Code, PSK31, RTTY, SSB,
AM, PACTOR, MFSK, SSTV, and a bunch of other modes,
without formal channelization and with only a few FCC
rules and voluntary bandplans to sort things out. Other
radio services are much more regimented, regulated, and
ordered so as to eliminate the need for user skill and
knowledge.

I see absolutely no reason for
amateur radio people engaging in a hobby to do that
sort of thing...except to salve the egos of the long-
"tenured" "senior" amateurs.

To do what sort of thing - have multiple license classes?
What's your alternative?

The current 3 licenses and privileges are the
result of piecepart change over time and the result has
some less than logical consequences regarding
privileges and entrance level testing when compared
to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50
years. YMMV.

Yet FCC says they think the 3 level system is the optimum
one. That's not just my opinion - it's clearly stated in the
NPRM.

My odometer reads the same as yours on regulations'
evolution of continuing piece-part changing. That is
a consequence of radio politics, and NOT, in my view,
of any "necessity" to have a layered system of
classes for a hobby.

Would you have just one class of license?

EM-space doesn't recognize
"classes" OR human politics; electrons, fields, and
waves are all unaffected by human regulations or
emotion or "needs" to stratify standing within some
"fellowship."

Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

The Novice class license is a failure in the long
run.

For most of its history it was a great success in its original
purpose, which was to ease the path into amateur radio. It
was perhaps *the* best idea to come out of the restructuring of 1951.

If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate. Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

While it might have been a good idea at the
beginning for some to "get their feet wet" (in radio
waters), it started off badly with the emotional
baggage of its class title, "Novice."

Only to someone like you, who attach such emotional
baggage. "Novice" simply means "beginner" and is an
accurate name for a license class aimed at beginners.

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

As viewed
from afar, it served only to initiate the completely
ferklempt with "proper" radiotelegraphy procedure
and with the "proper" jargon (which had evolved in
the particular activity of amateur radio)...not to
mention having the "proper attitude" of worship and
respect of "elders" (who thought they "ran" things).

That's just nonsense, Len.

After WW1 and before 1951, the only way to get started
in US amateur radio was to pass the Morse Code tests at
10 or 13 wpm (depending on whether the license was
earned before or after 1936) and to pass the Class B/C written
exam of about 50 questions that included essays, diagrams
and many other areas of knowledge. While people as young
as 9 years old managed to do that and earn the licenses, it
was a big investment of resources just to get started.

The Novice offered an easier entry point, with slower Morse
Code testing and a much simpler written exam - and much less
privileges. The idea was that it would be easier and better for
new hams to learn-by-doing.

But there was no requirement to start with a Novice. Anyone
who wanted to be a ham could start out with a Technician,
General or Conditional, same as the old Class B and C
licenses they replaced.

That can work on typical teen-agers who have yet to
experience more of life and the variety of humans
who exist in the real world. It does not work well
with adults.

Yet many adults started out as Novices.

Longevity of a regulation such as "novice" or
"beginner" or "entrant" in a field such as radio and
communications that has constantly been evolving over
the last half-century is not a logical necessity to
keep those regulations.

Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

Time has shown that the
newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades;
its class numbers are continuously decreasing.

No new Novices have been issued for 55 months - it's
no wonder they are decreasing.

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.
Another reason was the reduction of the Technician written testing in
1987.
The difference in requirements of the two licenses was reduced while
the
difference in privileges was so great that many either skipped the
Novice
or spent only a short time before upgrading to Technician.

Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby
field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to
"guide and educate the kids."

If true, there's nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps its a by-
product of parenthood or a surrogate for that?


It's about the future of amateur radio, and keeping
the diversity. All good things.

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Are saying we should *NOT* try to get more young
people into amateur radio? Why not?

Children don't have the monetary
base to build market sales which serve to benefit the
adults.

You'd be suprised how much buying power the under-21
folks have!

And even if they don't have the "monetary base" - so what?
Everything isn't about money. When the children grow
older, they may have more money to spend on radio.

Children don't have the experience to run
events or keep organizations (predominently adult)
together.

Very true - and amateur radio is one way for them
to see how events are run and organizations are
kept together. It can give them a view into the
world and help them learn. All good things.

At best, the drive to "get youngsters
interested" in a primarly-adult hobby seems to be
little more than eyewash, using politically-correct
psycho phrases.

Now you're just getting nasty, Len. What's your problem
with young people being hams, and with efforts to
recruit younger people?

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long. A radio amateur who is
licensed at the age of, say, 12 years and who continues as
a ham for the rest of his/her life will spend only a small
percent of their time as a "child ham".

One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education. That alone is a valid reason to recruit young people
to be radio amateurs, because the education they get from it
can be very substantial. Besides the purely technical side,
amateur radio can help teach geography, other languages,
time zones, government regulations, and much more.

On the other hand, targeting an entrance drive for
amateur radio to teenagers will tend to steer them
away from their contemporaries' activities...those
activities having evolved to fit that peer group and
not necessarily that of adults.

Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

It will serve to show
those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the
adult world ahead.

That's good! Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

It can also serve to alienate
them from their own peer group by making them
"different." That is a not-good thing among teen-
agers who seek the stability of "their" group, a
natural psychological need in that part of their life.

That's pure and utter nonsense.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different". Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved. Those
who learn a musical instrument are "different" from those
who don't. Those involved in sports are "different" from
those who aren't. Etc.

One of the main purposes of childhood and adolescence
is self-discovery. It is a good thing for young people to
try various activities to see what they enjoy and are
good at.

Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally. Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians. Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors. That doesn't mean the activities have
no value, just that the vast majority will never go beyond
the recreational level of those activities.

But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

My own experience on "entering HF" were rather drastic
in "apprenticeship" consisting only of a few days (at
most). So were the 4 newcomers with me, none of us
having been schooled on high-power HF transmitters.

But that's not the whole story, Len.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you? All
had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

You all went to microwave school, right? IIRC, that was at
least six months of intensive training, and must have included
a lot of radio theory and practice that wasn't specifically
microwave technology - didn't it?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch. While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen
and we did it.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right. You
weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

(some
of which were considerably more complicated than any
found in amateur radio operating).

Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

So did those that
came before us and those that came after us.

Right. As it should be.

Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

I was one of those kids who was curious about all things
electrical, from a very early age. By the age of 10 I was
building simple receivers, and by the age of 12 I had
built a working HF receiver. Almost all that I knew about
radio came from various books because there were no radio
amateurs or electronics types in my family or immediate
neighborhood before I came along. None of this was covered in
school back then.

I still remember the look on my fifth grade teacher's face
when she caught me reading an electrical textbook in class.
She happened to open it to a page that showed diagrams of
three-phase transformer connections, which I explained.....

Priceless.

I soon realized that in certain areas I knew far more than
my teachers did, and that I couldn't expect much in those
areas from school.

Almost all the parts for my radios came from old TV and
BC receivers, or anything else electrical or electronic that
I could get my hands on.

Simple things like figuring out the inductance of a coil
required that I teach myself some basic algebra in order
to understand the formulas. Practical stuff like soldering
and metalwork I learned from the books and from trial-and-error.

And I learned Morse Code by listening to hams on the 80
meter band, and sending to myself with a home-made code
practice oscillator.

By age 13 I had earned the Novice license. My first transmitter
was home-made - simple but effective. I had almost no
test equipment and only a few tools - a lot of things were simply
guessed at and cut-and-tried until they worked right. For example,
I had to figure out how to match the transmitter output to my
random-wire antenna using a flashlight bulb as an RF indicator.

By age 14 I'd upgraded to Advanced, acquired a better transmitter,
receiver and antenna, and was filling up log books with QSOs.

All with *no* formal training in electricity, radio, electronics,
almost no money, and the usual obligations of schoolwork,
chores, family activities, etc. My folks' contribution to my
efforts was to allow me to do them if I got everything else
done first.

I wasn't any sort of prodigy or genius, just a motivated kid
interested in radio. There were and are many like me, some
even younger.

The point of this little personal history of mine is to illustrate
how different the environment and resources of most new
amateur radio operators are. While few start out the way I did,
most are essentially working on their own, without formal
training in radio, yet with the usual obligations of life. And their
amateur radio activities are all self-funded.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

I can draw a parallel to the activities of infantry,
armor, and artillery soldiers who had to learn how to
operate radios necessary for military communications.
They did it by the thousands upon thousands of soldiers,
nearly all of them inexperienced in using any radio other
than a broadcast receiver before their service. Those
that say "they only push the button and talk" are doing
them an extreme disservice since there is considerably
more to do than that.

How much more? 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".

Radio training for line outfits
is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of
that being branch-specific procedural matters.

A couple *weeks* of intense formal training!

Now,
if they can all do that successfully in a short time,
it makes no logical sense to have class stratification
of being held in one class for a year or more.

The environments are completely different, Len. 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.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.
Only the Advanced and Extra ever had such a requirement,
and the Advanced's 1 year requirement disappeared in 1953,
while the Extra's 2 year requirement was cut to 1 year in the
early 1970s and then eliminated about 1975.

I think the entry-level license for a US ham license could be
a lot better than the current Technician. What K2UNK proposes
is a good starting point. But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.

[email protected] December 8th 05 03:05 AM
Easier licensing
 
From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed, Dec 7 2005 2:51 pm


wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message

snip

Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because
the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down
to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference
from secret tests!

Yawn.... BUT publishing the questions was never proposed
by ARRL. That being so, who in the FCC do you
attribute the change to?

Those who wanted to save money by getting FCC out of the
exam-giving process.

So the reality is that no one in the ham community pushed that.
I'll conclude then that anytime the FCC proposes a change
even if not originated in the ham community, if you view it
as a lowering of requirements then it is automatically bad
per your opinion.

"That's about the size of it..."

snip

Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading
the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and
analyzing it a la AH0A.

ARRL is perfectly capable of that I'm sure.

But somebody has to pay for it.

["it's all about money"? :-) ]

ARRL has more than enough ability to fund such a study or
simply assign the task to one of the permanent ARRL staffers.

AH0A is hardly an objective analyzer...whatever he sees
is all about morse code... :-)


And you can bet that whatever
numbers ARRL puts out, some will say they are "massaged" and
accuse the ARRL of "fraud" and such.

WHO cares? There is always someone that will take issue
with any study conclusion, analysis, ets. If you expect
a 100% agreed to set of review and analysis as the end
result, tyhen yu're expecting the impossible.

The ARRL can do no wrong.

snip

I could care less about those that might want to wait for
changes they have no assurance are coming.

But those changes have an enormous impact on the numbers.
That's the point, whether we care about it or not.

The percent of people that might ultimately wait for "possible"
(emphasis on possible as opposed to actual)
future changes is, I suspect small. Odds are that there aren't
many current techs waiting for future free upgrades nor
where there likly many that shelved their upgrade plans
when the ARRL first proposed free upgrades. (IMHO of
course).

Morsemen are prescient, see all, know all. We cannot doubt
them. [they don't let us]

Frank Gilliland December 8th 05 03:15 AM
Easier licensing
 
On 7 Dec 2005 17:28:40 -0800, wrote in
. com:

snip
But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.
snip more to this effect


I have to butt in here.....

Radio communication has two parts: 'Radio' and 'Communication'. From
what I have seen over the years, hams seem to be more concerned with
the 'radio' than the 'communication'. IOW, many hams have developed
technical skills but too few have developed communication skills for
use with the radio. The radio is just a tool -- a device that allows
the operator to communicate. Unfortunately, the written test doesn't
require an applicant to prove communication skills beyond the ability
to memorize the answers to the pool questions.

Morse Code is no exception. Knowing Morse Code does not a skilled
communicator make. All it means is that some knob-turner can tap out
the alphabet; and all that's required to pass the Morse test is a
rudimentary skill level. Or am I wrong? If a third-grader can read and
write a few words using all the letters of the alphabet, does that
make him/her a skilled communicator? Of course not..... except maybe
on a third-grade level. And a skilled communicator doesn't necessarily
need a technically complex tranceiver with all the bells and whistles.
Even a cheap CB radio can (and frequently does) get the job done if it
can be used as a means of communication (flame retardant suit on).

Personally, I think that Morse -should- be required for several
reasons, not the least of which is because it's a language that's used
and understood internationally. But if the amateur isn't required to
have the communication skills needed to use Morse to its minimum
potential, why even bother to make it a requirement? at a skill level
that has little practical application? and especially when no other
communication skills are required?

It really doesn't matter anyway. The ARRL wants to make ARS testing as
easy as possible to increase its membership; i.e, revenue. And since
they control the ARS lobby, the point is moot -- color the code gone.
It's all good though, because maybe hams will then be able to focus a
little more on the neglected aspect of radio communication.










----== 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 =----

[email protected] December 8th 05 10:01 PM
Easier licensing
 
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm


wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message


Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

To whom are you commenting? My name isn't "bill."



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? :-)

It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

How often have we heard "ham radio isn't for everyone!"

:-)


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. Amateur radio is NOT an occupation.

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.

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? "Upgrading" can be done for oneself, to
keep abrest of technology advancements (see the
old "Amateurs Code" on that).

If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

But, such a one-class system would take away all the
"fun" that some have of needing to be "better than
others!" :-)

Amateur radio isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.

No, I got that from a licensed radio amateur some
years ago. It IS parallel to the license classes
as well as the thinking of those needing rank-status-
privilege "upgrades" for longer-tenured amateurs.

Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Well now, I just don't think ANY multiple classes
should exist. ONE license. How about that?


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? :-)

What would be easier?

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.

Face it, Jimmie, all those classes GREW in order to
satisfy some POLITICAL reasons within the amateur
community. In the beginning there was only ONE license.

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them.

"Earn them?" :-) "I load sixteen tons and what do I get?"

[ol' Ern singing away a once popular song :-) ]

If there were NO classes, just ONE license, wouldn't the
applicants have "earned" those?

In the beginning there was only ONE license.


It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

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 boils down to a HOBBY.

It's also done for public service.

Jimmie, grow up. You are NOT the ARRL trying to do a snow job on
the public, trying to get more membership.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

Hobbies, ALL hobbies, can be made into a "service" for SOME of the
public.

Now, if you thought you were doing some "service" to the nation,
you are delusional. In Title 47 C.F.R., the word "service" is
used as a regulatory word meaning the type and kind of radio
activity being regulated by a Part, ALL Parts.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

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.


In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same.

"Recognition?" Tsk, now you are back to CLASS DISTINCTION
again!

Level of achievement with a no-class, one-license
system: Have a license or not have a license.


Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not.

Crap. It isn't anywhere close to rocket science.

If very ordinary young men can operate multi-control
vacuum tube transmitters of high power output with
success and rapidity with only a few days of on-the-
job instruction, then your "lot of skill and
knowledge" is crap squared.

And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

Anyone, with or without a license can operate a
RECEIVER. Crap-cubed, Jimmie.

UNLICENSED people by the thousands every day in the
USA are OPERATING TRANSCEIVERS.

Crap to the fourth power, Jimmie.


Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Crap to the fifth power, Jimmie.

Don't try that "you ain't good enough to be in the same
universe as you morsemen."

"Morse code operation in amateur radio" does NOT
involve ALL "skilled operators." Is 5 WPM rate
something that is "skilled?" Geez, Jimmie, you've
written that "20 WPM CW [code] isn't high rate."
You elevated yourself to being better than most
with morse and you deride thousands of old extras
who passed a 20 WPM test. Tsk, tsk.

The license test element 1 doesn't involve full-day
shifts of relaying messages on some net, doesn't
involve emergency messaging from ships or people in
danger, doesn't involve anything but a very simple
test of cognition. VECs can delete sending tests at
their option.

If you've looked at the ARRL home page lately you
would have seen a little Quiz box. 45.6 percent of
those who took that Quiz said they NEVER used
radiotelegraphy!


The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators.

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.

They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments.

An amateur radio license is ALSO a radio station license.
That is the difference. Amateurs ARE allowed to build
their own transmitters (within limits of regulations) but
all other radio services (some exceptions in Part 15
devices) require type-acceptance of RF emitters.

Being allowed to home-build does NOT impact USE, Jimmie.
Amateur USE is the same whether home-built or ready-
built. "Adjustment" to meet the technical requirements
of Part 97 is NOT USE.

In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

You forgot the Push-To-Talk "adjustment." :-)

In case you are wondering about some boat or aircraft
owners, take a look at a popular seller of private
marine radios, SGC in Belleview, WA. Their SGC 2020
model is for both marine and amateur HF bands, the
chief difference being in frequency control ranges. The
front panel controls are the same and not as simple as
you describe. [there's plenty of other examples,
especially in small-boat radar] 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." Toss in the transponder and
its operation (not complex, but woe if you squawk the
wrong code these days!).

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Crap to the sixth power, Jimmie. The REGULATIONS were
SIMPLIFIED to streamline them by removing old, antiquated
regulations that no longer benefitted anyone. The
governments (worldwide) did that.

This isn't 1920 and some ship's radio room with a single
"skilled" radio operator the only one "qualified" to
operate a spark transmitter and crystal set receiver.
Times have changed.


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!

Each and every radio service has their own set of jargon
and lingo, plus communications procedures. shrug So?
They generall use the same lingo and jargon when using
wired telephones. It is JOB-SPECIFIC.

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 FAA makes the regulations for flying/piloting, Jimmie.

Amateur radio is completely different.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY. 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.

Completely different. I agree.


A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station.

Tsk, the vast majority have NO means except a contact at
the other end of the radio circuit, NO way of insuring
that their RF emitters meet the prescribed technical
characteristics given in Part 97.

In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license.

Yeah, they pay by plastic, perhaps follow the maker's
instructions and fumble around until things sound right.

So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Crap to the seventh order, Jimmie.

"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. :-)

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Oh, back to lower-order CRAP, Jimmie. After an hour's
instruction (maybe less) I was QSYing a BC-339 1 KW HF
transmitter. It had MORE "technical adjustments and
controls" than the average amateur transmitter of
comparable power. Wanna see what those looke like? He

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/BroadcastHistory/uploads/
My3Years.pdf


Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF.

Except the "60m band."

Except for all those VHF and UHF repeaters which have
been frequency-coordinated.

snip of squealing to the chorus

Would you have just one class of license?

Yes. NO class, ONE license.

If you need gold stars or pretty certificates, get those at
Office Depot.



Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

Reducto ad absurdum "questions" don't win you anything.



If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate.

What do you mean "occasionally operate?" And just what is
YOUR experience at ham bands of 220 MHz and up? Especially
right after WW2.

Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

Funny thing about your sneer, Jimmie, it almost makes you smile,
but not quite.

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.

Newcomers to amateur radio are entering through the no-code-test
Technician class level...because it has NO code test.

Sunnuvagun!

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

In 1951 I would have accepted that "Novice" grading...as a teen-
ager. Maybe in early 1953 at age 20 when learning to operate
high-power HF transmitters. NOT by late 1954 as an E-5 and
supervisor of an operating team. Sure as hell NOT by early
1956 after being a supervisor of microwave radio relay
equipment vital to the linkage of all parts of a military
radio station.

You call me a "beginner" in radio now you will get laughed at
and become a target for rotten tomatoes.

Get the picture?


"history" lesson omitted from one who wasn't there then


Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

More crap of no particular order.

You are stuck in an endless loop of repeating past regulatory
standards AS IF time and attitudes have not changed. For
example of blindness to actual fact:

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.

Just ordinary crap. The Novice class started before "repeaters"
were numerous in major urban areas.

After 1990, newcomers were shunning "Novice" and going for the
NO-CODE-TEST Technician class license. Sure, it was straight-
jacketed to VHF and above but it was fun for most in urban
areas and the equipment makers had equipment on the shelves
for them to buy.

snip to Jimmie mumbling about kiddies

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Goodie...have fun attending nursery school activities with
all the kiddies.


Now you're just getting nasty, Len.

No, I've only touched on your apparent pedophilia.


The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long.

Remarkable! You've made a DISCOVERY!

Ah, but you've talked only about their physicality. Mentally
some NEVER outgrow their childhood...keeping the kiddie thoughts
and pretending to be grown-ups long into their old age.


One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education.

In case you haven't noticed, the FCC was NEVER chartered as
an educational institution.

FCC say "SELF-education," Jimmie. About radio.

"Teach goegraphy?" What are public schools for? Recess?

"Other languages?" Morsemen say "morse code is an
international language" therefore only ONE is needed.

"Time zones?" WTF you tawkin bout?

"Government regulations?" BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!!!!

Part 97 is one of the SMALLEST Parts in Title 47 C.F.R.



Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

I'm sure that pedophiles love it.


Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

You've GOT to be kidding if you want to be "functional
equals" with a six-year-old Technician!!!!


Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Note: Got word from Psychology Today magazine that
your application as Editor-in-Chief has been revoked.
You really DO have to have a passing grade on Psych 101
to qualify.


Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different".

Now you are contradicting yourself.

Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved.

Here's a hint, Sherlock. BOY scouts and GIRL scouts
are/were purposely FOR children. They weren't intended
for grown-ups. If you need to wear a uniform and be in
the woods, try enlisting in the army...which you've
never done.


Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally.

Are there professionals in radiosport?

Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians.

You can't play music over the amateur bands.

Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors.

Yet some TRY to be actors (or salespeople) toward others,
trying to impress others on their lofty abilities. :-)


But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

The MAJORITY of my contemporaries in electronics got into it
WITHOUT first getting an amateur radio license.



You all had at least a high school education, didn't you?

Wasn't required then. Even literacy wasn't a requirement!
There were special classes to teach English then but that
required an extension of the service time to compensate.

All had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

No. The ONLY aptitude test given in regards to radio was
a morse code cognition test given to all recruits. Steering
of recruits in the military then was DEMAND-driven. One
goes where one is told to go.

You all went to microwave school, right?

No. Some went to Field Radio School, some went to tele-
typewriter school, a few went to inside-plant telephone
school. 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.


It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch.

Tsk. Try NOT to TELL ME what I or any contemporaries were
doing, Jimmie. You don't know dink about it.

Some DID start with no previous experience other than turning
on a broadcast receiver. One was a chemist in his 3rd year
of college (not quite old enough to escape the draft and too
young to escape drafting by the Wehrmacht!). One was a farmer
from Iowa. Others were from different occupations having
nothing to do with radio or electronics.

While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

One did, in fact, transfer out...didn't like all that
electronics snit at Monmouth and asked to go into Infantry.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right.

That's normal in the military. :-)

They didn't hold any hands or coddle lower ranks if that's
what you mean...guffaw!

You weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

Not entirely true. If ANY situation arose that required
handling, it was handled as best as one could. That is ALSO
true in ANY aspect of military experience.

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

Not entirely true. With experience, learning, paying
attention, lower rankings become higher rankings and are
thus considered "trained and experienced." :-)

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Not entirely true. But, it is useless to try to explain it
to you since you have NO similar experience and NONE in that
time frame.

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

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.

Memorizing new jargon was more "difficult", memorizing
new procedures on the order-wire teletypewriter were more
"difficult," some with bad pitch would set up the Shift on
the RTTY exciters to 425 cycles instead of the 850 cycles
standard. Jimmie, I WAS THERE, YOU WERE NOT. I've
explained all of it before. I have a nice photo essay on
it that is a free download. Did you get it?

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

What "incentives" did we have? Name them.

Do one's job well enough and one does NOT get demoted,
does NOT get Company Punishment ("Captain's Mast" in
the Navy), does NOT get **** details...although some
military tasks ARE **** details for all.

Promotion in rank an "incentive?" IF there is an
opening (not guaranteed) in the TO&E and one is
evaluated to be a responsible type, MAYBE a
promotion. Of course, such an "incentive" also
requires an additional responsibility and, with that,
a whole new set of "gradings" on performance.


Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

Describe YOUR "EME" station, Jimmie.

Military life is NOT a hobby, Jimmie. You don't understand
that and it is useless to explain it to you.


Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

We've all heard that before in here...yawn.

It sounds JUST like some cute human-interest stories
published now and then in amateur radio publications.

"priceless" ego-boo story snipped

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

Yes. Big difference. I never considered myself "superior"
to anyone except of lower rank (superiority was already
pre-defined). While all what I've described was going on,
WE (the soldiers) ALSO had to undergo periodic training
to keep up our warfighting skills. NONE of that was a
HOBBY, Jimmie.


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. How good can
you do morse keying while rattling around IN a moving tank?

Why do you think that military radios SHOULD have lots of
complicated controls with lots of time available for operators
to play with knobs, dials, and switches?

Ever "wear" an AN/PRC-9? [or its cousins PRC-8, PRC-10?).
How about carrying an AN/PRC-25 or a PRC-77? How about an
AN/PRC-104 or the SINCGARS AN/PRC-119? Ever enter the
"hopset" on a 119? I have. As a civilian.

If you want knobs, dials, switches to play with, try the old
post-WW2 USMC HF transmitter T-195 designed by Collins Radio.
First Jeep-mounted Autotune critter, first one with an
automatic antenna tuner...and enormously INEFFICIENT in terms
of DC power drain on the Jeep versus its RF power output.

I can rattle off dozens more but you won't accept any of
those that haven't appeared in the Military Ring of the
boatanchors afficionados.


The environments are completely different, Len.

NO KIDDING?!? Amateur radio is a HOBBY. Military is all
about WARFIGHTING, Jimmie.

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? Is there a whips
and chains punisher in the classroom as "teachers' aide?"

YOU tell ME EXACTLY how much compensation I got for keeping
up with the state-of-the-art in electronics (and radio, if
you insist on making those two indestinguishable fields
"separate")...and how many "intense instruction classes"
I got during my civilian career? I can tell you exactly
to both: ZERO.

Anyone who tries to apply themselves in anything MUST do a
whole helluvalot of SELF-STUDY...for their work OR for their
hobby. SELF-STUDY on one's own free time...at nights, during
lunch, anywhere keeping their eyes open and being receptive
to new things. If that means taking the trouble to go to
seminars, take extension classes without credit on one's
own wallet payments, then one does it...if they really,
really want to know more...in a hobby OR in a career.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Someone somewhere FINALLY
figured out that amateur radio was a HOBBY way back then!

Gotta love the fantasy that the amateurs had way back,
being oh-so-important communications providers to the
nation! :-) That fantasy still persists. :-(


... But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.

WHICH NPRM? FCC 05-143? You are getting mixed up on what
their discussion-on-other-Petitions have versus their
proposal to just end all morse code test requirements for
an amateur radio license.

Hey, if you wanna have a big boo-hoo on "the FCC doesn't
see YOUR way," then check the newspaper coupons at your
local market. There may be a special on Kleenex or other
tissues.

If you want some nice gold stars to paste on your Extra
license, go down to Office Depot and buy them. Then you
can explain to your friends and neighbors how so very good
you are ("see the gold stars?") and they will all gush
all over you. [Kleenex will also absorb extra gushing]

Stay dry.

[email protected] December 9th 05 01:19 AM
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
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.

It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

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.

"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? ;-)

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.

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?

k4yz December 9th 05 02:37 AM
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
On 8 Dec 2005 17:19:44 -0800, 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.

which is of course an opiton

yes that course of action has it price but cleally it benifits as well

It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

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.

yes realy

as an extra yourself you are not in postion to realy know Len and in
this case myself esp are in the best postion to know


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.

why?

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.

"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? ;-)

shove it if you are goignt o play spelling cop


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.

no it would not

Otherwise the standards would be reduced.

that isn't even true a lot of the material in the exists test drops
out iin a one class license system

and other matter become redundant as well, like obviously no need for
clas absed who can ve question and a lot fot he stuff in the test now
is pretty repitious

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.

nope he does not nor do I

I susgest a license test be created thatmeet the nees of the ARS under
the system regardless of how hard or easy it is


Is that what you want?
nope more of your strwmen
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 9th 05 07:28 PM
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
From: on Thurs, Dec 8 2005 5:19 pm

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.

"Lower?" By whose standards? Other that YOURS, of course...:-)

Does it matter? You will look down on others anyway...:-)


It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

I'd call it an amateur radio license. :-)


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.

Heh heh. Well, since YOUR way is always the "best" way,
please define for us what your superimportant, divine
concept of classes/grades/status/rank/privileges are.

Amateur radio is NOT an occupation.

Who said it was?

Tsk, tsk, you want to FIRE all those that don't agree with
your "boss" concepts...

Consider yourself "trumped." :-)


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.

NOT out here where I live, the international center for
television and motion picture industry...the former national
center for aerospace industry. Lots and lots of Guilds
and Unions here in the southwest USA.


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.

Then why do you keep harping on that? Why does the ARRL?


"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? ;-)

I don't work in the lingerie business so I use the
alternate form found in dictionaries.

But, you are trying to MISDIRECT again. Concentrate on
WHY MUST ONE "UPGRADE" TO A "HIGHER" CLASS LICENSE?

To get a "higher class" license so that you can continue
to look down on "lesser classes" with impunity?

To blindly follow the league's directives of "upgrading?"


If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

Right.

Ah, PROGRESS! Congratulations, Jimmie, you CAN do some
logical thinking!

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.

Oh, oh...right away you slipped off the logical path.

IF AND ONLY IF there were just ONE license (no classes),
then the FCC would lay down DIFFERENT regulations for
the written test. Following that, the VEC QPC would have
to reorganize the single question pool to a new set of
questions and answers.

The reason - which should be obvious to you but isn't -
is that there would be NO differences between classes
so many of the questions of the old class (distinction)
system WOULD NOT APPLY.

Otherwise the standards would be reduced.

No, no, no. You don't seem to understand. With only
ONE license, there would be NO DIFFERENCES IN CLASSES
because there would NOT BE any classes.

That's a whole new paradigm. You can't conceive of that
because you are completely enclosed in the conservative
mental box of conventional thinking.

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.

I'm not "proposing" anything in regards to radio. :-)

The concept of ONE LICENSE existed in the beginning of
United States amateur radio.

Internal amateur politics resulted in the piece-by-piece
changes that peaked in the Byzantine six-class system
existing before 2000 restructuring. You can try all
sorts of sugar-coated spin on that to deny the amateur
politics but that doesn't erase the obvious that it WAS
politics within the "amateur community."

United States amateur radio evolved to an oligarchy, a
"one-party" amateur politics thing wherein major influence
was contained in the ARRL and their ruling cadre of OTs
who "knew what was 'best' for every amateur." The peak
of that may have been reached in the late 1970s. There's
been a very slow transition from that oligarchy (I hesitate
to use dictatorship) due to CHANGES in freedom and ability
to discuss NEW THINGS. A catalyst for that was the
ubiquitous personal computer used for communications,
first over BBSs and now the Internet...especially the
Internet with every federal agency now having an Internet
portal and responsive to the ordinary citizen.

"Tradition" can be used as a security blanket. Keeping the
old ways of doing things intact is comforting, a known
thing, certain. It can be a tremendous enhancement to the
unfortunate tendency of many humans to proclaim themselves
"better" than other humans through certain skills. That's
just a basic survival instinct misapplied. There is no
quantifiable limit on what humans can do if they cast off
the misapplied tradition and try new concepts, ideas, give
those a chance. Of course there's no guarantee that new
things WILL work out better for all...but there's no
guarantee that new things CANNOT be better. Those have to
be tried out first but some open-minded reasoning can
determine the probability of successs. Another word for
that is PROGRESS. It is all around us in everyday life.

The ultra-conservative will balk at ANY change of their
misapplied traditions. They are secure in their known
concepts, take comfort in being believers; "it has always
been that way and it will always be so" is a maxim of the
ultra-conservative that fails repeatedly. Conservatism
is basically a fear of the unknown, a maifestation of basic
survival instincts. However, as abundantly proven in the
progress of humankind, liberalism in some concepts can make
for better survival, plus improvement for the entire group.

You've chosen to be an ultra-conservative believer in
steadfastly holding to old concepts. You have met the old
tests (originated by older men) and achieved a "position"
and thus consider yourself a "superior" in one field of
avocational activity. You wish to maintain all those old
concepts because, if those were eliminated, you would not
have the same "superior" status above others. That's a
very selfish act, very anthropomorphic, when applied to an
avocational group of over a half million spread all over
the USA. That selfish minority view delays progress for
the majority.

[email protected] December 10th 05 11:48 PM
Easier licensing
 
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 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.
Or don't you think amateur radio should have licenses?

What would be easier?

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.

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.

In the beginning there was only ONE license.

The time of one-amateur-radio-license-class ended
more than 70 years ago, Len. Why do you
live in the past?

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them.

"Earn them?" :-)

Yes. Amateur radio licenses are earned by passing the
required tests. You haven't earned one, therefore you
are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an
amateur radio station.

If there were NO classes, just ONE license, wouldn't the
applicants have "earned" those?

Sure. But you haven't earned any amateur radio license, Len....

In the beginning there was only ONE license.

The time of one-amateur-radio-license-class ended
more than 70 years ago, Len. Why do you
live in the past?

In fact, in the beginning there were no radio licenses at all.
That didn't work out so well.

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

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.

That boils down to a HOBBY.

Not *just* a hobby.

It's also done for public service.

Jimmie, grow up. You are NOT the ARRL trying to do a snow job on
the public, trying to get more membership.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

Hobbies, ALL hobbies, can be made into a "service" for SOME of the
public.

How did stamp collecting help with hurricane relief?

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.

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. Licenses are also required because the USA has
entered into treaty agreements with other countries regarding radio
regulation - including amateur radio regulation.

Do you think amateur radio should not require licenses at all?

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?

Level of achievement with a no-class, one-license
system: Have a license or not have a license.

You don't have an amateur radio license, Len. No achievement there!

Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not.

Crap. It isn't anywhere close to rocket science.

Nobody says it is.

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.

If very ordinary young men can operate multi-control
vacuum tube transmitters of high power output with
success and rapidity with only a few days of on-the-
job instruction, then your "lot of skill and
knowledge" is crap squared.

No, it isn't.

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.

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.
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.

And yet it took *days* of on-the-job instruction before they could be
left to
do the job on their own! Even then, the more-experienced supervision
was
always on-call if a problem arose.

And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

Anyone, with or without a license can operate a
RECEIVER. Crap-cubed, Jimmie.

Len, you don't seem to be able to understand the concept of "amateur
radio station", let alone "operating".

UNLICENSED people by the thousands every day in the
USA are OPERATING TRANSCEIVERS.

Not operating in the amateur radio sense. Using.

You mean cell phones? FRS/GMRS radios? CB sets? Sure,
they are - and those sets are specifically designed to require
little or no training, skill or technical knowledge to use. Their
functioning is almost totally automated, channelized, and
centrally organized.

Crap to the fourth power, Jimmie.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Crap to the fifth power, Jimmie.

Don't try that "you ain't good enough to be in the same
universe as you morsemen."

Show the posting where I wrote that, Len. I don't think you
can.

"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.

Is 5 WPM rate
something that is "skilled?"

Yes! It's a very basic level of skill - entry level - but
a skill nonetheless. The person who can do Morse Code
at 5 wpm has skills that others do not.

Geez, Jimmie, you've
written that "20 WPM CW [code] isn't high rate."

And that's true - 20 wpm Morse Code isn't really that
fast compared to what really good Morse Code
operators do.

You elevated yourself to being better than most
with morse

How?

It seems to really bother you that I'm better than you
at Morse Code.

and you deride thousands of old extras
who passed a 20 WPM test. Tsk, tsk.

Deride? How? I'm one of those "old extras". You're not.

The license test element 1 doesn't involve full-day
shifts of relaying messages on some net, doesn't
involve emergency messaging from ships or people in
danger, doesn't involve anything but a very simple
test of cognition.

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.

VECs can delete sending tests at their option.

Not delete - waive.

If you've looked at the ARRL home page lately you
would have seen a little Quiz box. 45.6 percent of
those who took that Quiz said they NEVER used
radiotelegraphy!

Look again. And tell the whole story:

Percent of operating time spent using Morse Code:

76-100% 26.5 % (1149)
51-75% 7.2 % (313)
26-50% 6.3 % (274)
Less than 25% 15.8 % (684)
I do not operate CW at all 44.1 % (1911)
Total votes: 4331

So 44.1% don't use Morse Code at all, while:

55.9% *do* use it, at least some of the time,
40.1% use it for more than 25% of their operating,
33.7% use it for more than half of their operating

Etc.

Of course the poll itself notes that it is not scientific. Anyone can
vote in it, including those who do not or cannot operate an amateur
radio station at all. Plus it does not specify "HF" operating.

The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators.

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.

They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments.

An amateur radio license is ALSO a radio station license.
That is the difference.

Finally! Something sensible from you!

Amateurs ARE allowed to build
their own transmitters (within limits of regulations) but
all other radio services (some exceptions in Part 15
devices) require type-acceptance of RF emitters.

That's what I've been telling you all along.

Being allowed to home-build does NOT impact USE, Jimmie.

Yes, it does. Because those homebuilt stations are then legal for
amateur radio USE.

Amateur USE is the same whether home-built or ready-
built.

That's nonsense.

"Adjustment" to meet the technical requirements
of Part 97 is NOT USE.

It's operating, Len.

In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

You forgot the Push-To-Talk "adjustment." :-)

In case you are wondering about some boat or aircraft
owners, take a look at a popular seller of private
marine radios, SGC in Belleview, WA. Their SGC 2020
model is for both marine and amateur HF bands, the
chief difference being in frequency control ranges. The
front panel controls are the same and not as simple as
you describe. [there's plenty of other examples,
especially in small-boat radar]

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.

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.

Toss in the transponder and
its operation (not complex, but woe if you squawk the
wrong code these days!).

My point exactly.

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Crap to the sixth power, Jimmie. The REGULATIONS were
SIMPLIFIED to streamline them by removing old, antiquated
regulations that no longer benefitted anyone. The
governments (worldwide) did that.

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. Simple.

This isn't 1920 and some ship's radio room with a single
"skilled" radio operator the only one "qualified" to
operate a spark transmitter and crystal set receiver.
Times have changed.

Ships still required radio operators into the 1990s, Len.
And even they weren't allowed to home-brew their equipment...

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?

Each and every radio service has their own set of jargon
and lingo, plus communications procedures. shrug So?
They generall use the same lingo and jargon when using
wired telephones. It is JOB-SPECIFIC.

And the same is true for amateur radio. For example, in
amateur radio the station transmitting always gives their
own callsign last.

"K4YZ, this is N2EY" is correct.
"N2EY to K4YZ" is not.

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.

The FAA makes the regulations for flying/piloting, Jimmie.

Amateur radio is completely different.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

But not *just* a hobby.

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.

And so the requirements are different.

Completely different. I agree.

Well, there you have it.

A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station.

Tsk, the vast majority have NO means except a contact at
the other end of the radio circuit, NO way of insuring
that their RF emitters meet the prescribed technical
characteristics given in Part 97.

Is that a problem?

In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license.

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.

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.

So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Crap to the seventh order, Jimmie.

"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.

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Oh, back to lower-order CRAP, Jimmie. After an hour's
instruction (maybe less) I was QSYing a BC-339 1 KW HF
transmitter.

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?

It had MORE "technical adjustments and
controls" than the average amateur transmitter of
comparable power. Wanna see what those looke like? He

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/BroadcastHistory/uploads/
My3Years.pdf

So what? You didn't buy it, build it, or install it. You just
followed the instructions passed to you by the experienced
people in charge.

Some might say your behavior was closer to "monkey-see, monkey-do"...

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF.

Except the "60m band."

Except for all those VHF and UHF repeaters which have
been frequency-coordinated.

And that's about it. All of the other 9 MF/HF bands - all the
nonrepeater
operation on amateur VHF/UHF....

snip of squealing to the chorus

Would you have just one class of license?

Yes. NO class, ONE license.

One license is one class by definition.

If you need gold stars or pretty certificates, get those at
Office Depot.

You sound jealous, Len.

Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

Reducto ad absurdum "questions" don't win you anything.

Sounds like you *would* like that chaos.

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of determining the
validity of a logical process.

If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate.

What do you mean "occasionally operate?"

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 just what is
YOUR experience at ham bands of 220 MHz and up?

More than yours, Len!

Especially right after WW2.

More than yours, Len!

Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

Funny thing about your sneer, Jimmie, it almost makes you smile,
but not quite.

Who is sneering? Not me. The Technician failed in its original purpose.
That's a fact.

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.

But that percentage is *down* from what it was 5 years ago, right after
the
rules changes.

Newcomers to amateur radio are entering through the no-code-test
Technician class level

Most of them, anyway. Every month FCC issues a few dozen new licenses
to Generals and Extras "right out of the box".

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.

...because it has NO code test.

How do you know that is the reason, Len?

The Technician also has the easiest and simplest written test - just 35
multiple choice questions.

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

In 1951 I would have accepted that "Novice" grading...as a teen-
ager. Maybe in early 1953 at age 20 when learning to operate
high-power HF transmitters. NOT by late 1954 as an E-5 and
supervisor of an operating team.

Sure as hell NOT by early
1956 after being a supervisor of microwave radio relay
equipment vital to the linkage of all parts of a military
radio station.

So you let a *name* - a single *word* - stop you from getting
an Amateur Radio license.

Gee, who's all hung up title and rank?

You call me a "beginner" in radio now you will get laughed at
and become a target for rotten tomatoes.

You're not even a beginner in amateur radio, Len. You haven't
even begun there....

Get the picture?

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.

"history" lesson omitted from one who wasn't there then

You clip out facts rather than deal with them.

Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

More crap of no particular order.

You are stuck in an endless loop of repeating past regulatory
standards AS IF time and attitudes have not changed.

You mean like somebody who thinks the zoning ideas of
1960 should still apply 30-40-45 years later?

For
example of blindness to actual fact:

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.

Just ordinary crap.

Why?

The Novice class started before "repeaters"
were numerous in major urban areas.

The Novice started in 1951. Amateur radio repeaters became common
in "major urban areas" in the 1970s.

After 1990, newcomers were shunning "Novice" and going for the
NO-CODE-TEST Technician class license.

That was long *after* amateur radio repeaters were common. Almost
two decades after!

Sure, it was straight-
jacketed to VHF and above but it was fun for most in urban
areas and the equipment makers had equipment on the shelves
for them to buy.

Yet you never got one!

There was plenty of equipment for Novices as well.

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long.

Remarkable! You've made a DISCOVERY!

Ah, but you've talked only about their physicality. Mentally
some NEVER outgrow their childhood...keeping the kiddie thoughts
and pretending to be grown-ups long into their old age.

Talking about yourself again, I see....


But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

The MAJORITY of my contemporaries in electronics got into it
WITHOUT first getting an amateur radio license.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you?

Wasn't required then. Even literacy wasn't a requirement!
There were special classes to teach English then but that
required an extension of the service time to compensate.

But you all were high school graduates, right?

All had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

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.

Steering
of recruits in the military then was DEMAND-driven. One
goes where one is told to go.

You all went to microwave school, right?

No. Some went to Field Radio School, some went to tele-
typewriter school, a few went to inside-plant telephone
school.

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.

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?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch.

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. You and the others had
significant "radio-electronics" background before you got
to Japan, and did not have to start from scratch.

Some DID start with no previous experience other than turning
on a broadcast receiver. One was a chemist in his 3rd year
of college (not quite old enough to escape the draft and too
young to escape drafting by the Wehrmacht!). One was a farmer
from Iowa. Others were from different occupations having
nothing to do with radio or electronics.

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.

While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

One did, in fact, transfer out...didn't like all that
electronics snit at Monmouth and asked to go into Infantry.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right.

That's normal in the military. :-)

Exactly! Amateur radio is totally different.

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.

You weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

Not entirely true. If ANY situation arose that required
handling, it was handled as best as one could. That is ALSO
true in ANY aspect of military experience.

Yet there were always experienced people around if really
needed. You were part of a team, not all on your own.

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

Not entirely true. With experience, learning, paying
attention, lower rankings become higher rankings and are
thus considered "trained and experienced." :-)

But when you started, you didn't have to work anything out
on your own.

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Not entirely true. But, it is useless to try to explain it
to you since you have NO similar experience and NONE in that
time frame.

IOW, you had everything you needed. That's a good thing!

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

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.

Memorizing new jargon was more "difficult", memorizing
new procedures on the order-wire teletypewriter were more
"difficult," some with bad pitch would set up the Shift on
the RTTY exciters to 425 cycles instead of the 850 cycles
standard.

Too bad..

Jimmie, I WAS THERE, YOU WERE NOT.

And yet I have a very good understanding of what went on.

When it comes to operating an amateur radio station as
a teenager, *I* was there, Len, and *you* were not.

There are plenty of things you've done that I haven't, Len.
And plenty of things I've done that you haven't.

Get over it.

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

What "incentives" did we have? Name them.

Promotion - more pay - more interesting work - better
duty....

Also the negative incentives - somebody who didn't
do the job right could wind up in the infantry...

Do one's job well enough and one does NOT get demoted,
does NOT get Company Punishment ("Captain's Mast" in
the Navy), does NOT get **** details...although some
military tasks ARE **** details for all.

Such as?

Promotion in rank an "incentive?" IF there is an
opening (not guaranteed) in the TO&E and one is
evaluated to be a responsible type, MAYBE a
promotion. Of course, such an "incentive" also
requires an additional responsibility and, with that,
a whole new set of "gradings" on performance.

Guess what? Civilians have a similar situation - except
civilians can usually quit at any time.

Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

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.

Military life is NOT a hobby, Jimmie. You don't understand
that and it is useless to explain it to you.

Whoever said it was a hobby? Not me.

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.

Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

We've all heard that before in here...yawn.

We've heard yours over and over and over, Len.

It sounds JUST like some cute human-interest stories
published now and then in amateur radio publications.

It's what happened. I think you're jealous, Len.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

Yes. Big difference. I never considered myself "superior"
to anyone except of lower rank (superiority was already
pre-defined).

Now you consider yourself superior to almost everyone!
Certainly to anyone who disagrees with you.

While all what I've described was going on,
WE (the soldiers) ALSO had to undergo periodic training
to keep up our warfighting skills. NONE of that was a
HOBBY, Jimmie.

Who said it was, Len?

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!

How good can
you do morse keying while rattling around IN a moving tank?

I dunno - never tried. Better than you can, I bet!

Why do you think that military radios SHOULD have lots of
complicated controls with lots of time available for operators
to play with knobs, dials, and switches?

I don't! The point is they're intentionally simplified - that's good!

Ever "wear" an AN/PRC-9? [or its cousins PRC-8, PRC-10?).
How about carrying an AN/PRC-25 or a PRC-77? How about an
AN/PRC-104 or the SINCGARS AN/PRC-119? Ever enter the
"hopset" on a 119? I have. As a civilian.

So what? Do you think that somehow qualifies you to operate
an *amateur* radio station? It doesn't.

If you want knobs, dials, switches to play with, try the old
post-WW2 USMC HF transmitter T-195 designed by Collins Radio.
First Jeep-mounted Autotune critter, first one with an
automatic antenna tuner...and enormously INEFFICIENT in terms
of DC power drain on the Jeep versus its RF power output.

Did the job, though. I prefer the T-368 myself....

I can rattle off dozens more but you won't accept any of
those that haven't appeared in the Military Ring of the
boatanchors afficionados.

You can rattle off whatever you want, Len, but it doesn't
prove any point for you.

The environments are completely different, Len.

NO KIDDING?!? Amateur radio is a HOBBY.

Not just a hobby, though.

Military is all
about WARFIGHTING, Jimmie.

Really? What about deterrence?

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?

YOU tell ME EXACTLY how much compensation I got for keeping
up with the state-of-the-art in electronics (and radio, if
you insist on making those two indestinguishable fields
"separate")...and how many "intense instruction classes"
I got during my civilian career? I can tell you exactly
to both: ZERO.

It's not my problem if you picked your employers poorly, Len.
Good employers see the value in training their people.

And the compensation you did get was continued employment.
That's the way it works!

Anyone who tries to apply themselves in anything MUST do a
whole helluvalot of SELF-STUDY...for their work OR for their
hobby. SELF-STUDY on one's own free time...at nights, during
lunch, anywhere keeping their eyes open and being receptive
to new things. If that means taking the trouble to go to
seminars, take extension classes without credit on one's
own wallet payments, then one does it...if they really,
really want to know more...in a hobby OR in a career.

Gosh, Len, you just figure that out? I was onto that 33 years ago.

I went to college mostly on my own money, Len. Earned an
academic scholarship and kept it for four years. Got an
educational loan and paid it all back on time with interest.
Paid for the rest out of earnings at various jobs I held all
through undergraduate school.

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).

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....

--

Now about your one-class-of-license idea:

Suppose FCC actually went for that one. (They've
turned down the idea and others like it more than
once, but put that aside for a moment).

How would your one-license system work?
What would be the written test requirements?

Most of all, what would happen to the existing
license classes? Would everyone just get full
privileges?

[email protected] December 11th 05 06:20 PM
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!"

[email protected] December 11th 05 07:03 PM
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.

[email protected] December 11th 05 07:53 PM
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?

[email protected] December 11th 05 08:25 PM
Easier licensing
 
wrote:


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.

Major typo alert!

Should read:

The FAA doesn't license radio amateurs.

Frank Gilliland December 12th 05 02:01 AM
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 =----

[email protected] December 12th 05 03:15 AM
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.

[email protected] December 12th 05 03:33 AM
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.

[email protected] December 12th 05 10:26 AM
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?

[email protected] December 12th 05 08:45 PM
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
From: on Sun, Dec 11 2005 7:33 pm


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.

Well, he has 20-20 hindsight but seems to be of extreme
tunnel-vision
for the future (only He "knows" what will come to pass).

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."

...and Rank, Status, Privilege. All POLITICALLY stomped into the
regulations by those who thought they were "better" than others
in a HOBBY radio activity over the last half century.

I wish I had saved a longish post made by another about the time
I started accessing this newsgroup. Someone had written the
"new classes" of ham licenses, perhaps fifty-plus, delineating
how so many were so "superior" to those of "lesser rank."
Such as the supermen of amateur radio "able to leap tall pileups
in a single QSO." Hilarious!



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.

TRUE! While these super-extra morsemen are busy hurting their
shoulders by patting themselves on the back over their superiorness,
the number of Expirations each month is just slightly more than the
number of Newcomers (never before licensed). Not many, but it is
consistent and has been so for the last 2 1/2 years. It's not a
"statistical anomaly" anymore. Amateur radio is getting "poorer"
as a result.

Advertising revenue - the fuel that feeds the periodical fires -
has been dropping for over a decade. Two major independent
publishers had to drop out of the business. The league wants more
money...to "keep the faith" (in the Church of St. Hiram?). Way
too many hams are busy with a "Let's Pretend" fantasy (almost
palpable) about their glorious service to the nation (as radio
hobbyists) and wearing virtual uniforms (unseen by ordinary
mortals) of glory and honor in their morsemanship a vital asset
in the War Against Terrorism! [I kid you not, some comments were
made in 05-235 saying that very thing] The "richness" is in
the tales of fantasy they generate, NOT a commodity that generates
any sort of revenue.


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.

Similar to their self-coronation as Kings of Radio.

"Bloody clots" as the Brits might remark. :-)


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.

Don't bank on that lasting.


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?

I wonder too. Anyone else know?



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?"

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. :-)




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.

Not to worry. He will rationalize the "worst" somehow, probably
based on "what the FCC did 37 years ago" or his getting a license
at age 14 or getting a college degree without having a car or
being a "manufacturer of amateur radio equipment" in the 1990s
using recycled vacuum tube technology. Whatever he's done is
guaranteed to be "better" than what anyone else has done, whether
avocationally or occupationally. shrug

[email protected] December 13th 05 12:44 AM
ARBITRARY and REDUNDANT, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

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.

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)

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

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)

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

Then they were taken away.

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

The entire USA amateur service lost in a big way, but you find a way to
personalize it.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

Asleep at the wheel.

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.

Presently, every mode and every power limit privilege is permitted to
General, Advanced, and Extra licensee. That means that the Advanced
and Extra exams are arbitrary and redundant.

You need to have REAL distinctions is Testing Material VS Priveleges
between the license classes.

Those distinctions do not presently exist.

The knowledge and skill required to operate 1,500 watts of CW at 14.024
is EXACTLY the same knowledge and skill required to operate 1,500 watts
at 14.026

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.

Some years back, the ARRL wanted to keep 13 and 20wpm code exams.

FCC said no way.

Sorry you feel that way.

Why?

Is the 50 question Extra written exam too difficult?

With you, it's all about making entry 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.

You think I want a 49 question exam? Hi!

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

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.

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.

It's always an ultimatum strawman with you, isn't it?

Sorry, but no one proclaimed you King Jim of Amateur Radiodom.

Use the present VE system, 50 question exam (or 49 questions if you
must), no code test.

Thanks for playing.

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 have defended Incentive Licensing against every challenger.

You're the one who
loves unnecessary licensing requirements.

none of the license requirements I support are
"unnecessary".

General exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Advance exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Extra exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

The Advanced and Extra exams and the Advanced and Extra license classes
are ARBITRARY and REDUNDANT.

You're the one who supports lowering the standards
again and again.

That is merely your jaundiced opinion.

--

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?

What happens to them now???

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

So?

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.

So?

How will you convince them to do otherwise?

I don't intend to convincee the FCC to give free upgrades. I don't
intend to convince the FCC to accept one class of license. I don't
intend to convince the FCC to do anything other than keep closed-out
classes until they disappear by attrition.

I -expect- good government.

I -expect- the FCC to eliminate arbitrary and redundant licensing
requirements and license classes.

The FCC looks foolish for not having dealt with these issues already.

K4YZ December 13th 05 05:25 PM
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

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"...?!?!

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

Steve, K4YZ

[email protected] December 13th 05 11:09 PM
ARBITRARY and REDUNDANT, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

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.

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)

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

If "Yes," then "Arbitrary and Redundant."

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)

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

If "Yes," then "Arbitrary and Redundant."

Then they were taken away.

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

The entire USA amateur service lost in a big way, but you find a way to
personalize it.

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?

If "Yes," then "Arbitrary and Redundant."

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.

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.

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

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

Asleep at the wheel.

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.

Presently, every mode and every power limit privilege is permitted to
General, Advanced, and Extra licensee. That means that the Advanced
and Extra exams are arbitrary and redundant.

You need to have REAL distinctions is Testing Material VS Priveleges
between the license classes.

Those distinctions do not presently exist.

The knowledge and skill required to operate 1,500 watts of CW at 14.024
is EXACTLY the same knowledge and skill required to operate 1,500 watts
at 14.026

If "Yes," then "Arbitrary and Redundant."

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.

Some years back, the ARRL wanted to keep 13 and 20wpm code exams.

FCC said no way.

Sorry you feel that way.

Why?

Is the 50 question Extra written exam too difficult?

With you, it's all about making entry 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.

You think I want a 49 question exam? Hi!

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

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.

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.

It's always an ultimatum strawman with you, isn't it?

Sorry, but no one proclaimed you King Jim of Amateur Radiodom.

Use the present VE system, 50 question exam (or 49 questions if you
must), no code test.

Thanks for playing.

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 have defended Incentive Licensing against every challenger.

You're the one who
loves unnecessary licensing requirements.

none of the license requirements I support are
"unnecessary".

General exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Advance exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Extra exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

The Advanced and Extra exams and the Advanced and Extra license classes
are ARBITRARY and REDUNDANT.

You're the one who supports lowering the standards
again and again.

That is merely your jaundiced opinion.

--

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?

What happens to them now???

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

So?

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.

So?

How will you convince them to do otherwise?

I don't intend to convince the FCC to give free upgrades. I don't
intend to convince the FCC to accept one class of license. I don't
intend to convince the FCC to do anything other than keep closed-out
classes until they disappear by attrition.

I -expect- good government.

I -expect- the FCC to eliminate arbitrary and redundant licensing
requirements and license classes.

The FCC looks foolish for not having dealt with these issues already.

If "Yes," then "Arbitrary and Redundant."

[email protected] December 13th 05 11:25 PM
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

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.

But I thought the discussion was Jim's error?

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

What character is Jim playing today?

I see you're still using diminutives that aren't directed at you.

Len is kidnapping diminuitives? Call the FBI!

Of course your sock puppet does nothing to suggest otherwise to you,
yet presumes to chastise others for not engaging in such conduct.

Why would a person be chastized for NOT engaging in such conduct?

You presume to have such great command of the "King's Engwish."

That's Quitefine. Hi, hi! ;^)

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

No, that is what you are always using. It is what I am always
claiming. Do you see now?

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

Steve, K4YZ

"Raped an Old Friend" is OK in the Emergency Room?

[email protected] December 14th 05 01:11 AM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
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...

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.

That's the history.

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)

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

Look it up.

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)

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

I think you know the answer.

Then they were taken away.

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.

but you find a way to personalize it.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Asleep at the wheel.

FCC's not asleep.

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.

Presently, every mode and every power limit privilege is permitted to
General, Advanced, and Extra licensee. That means that the Advanced
and Extra exams are arbitrary and redundant.

In your opinion, yes, but not in my opinion. And not in FCC's opinion.

But let's explore your statement there a bit.

"Presently, every mode and every power limit privilege is permitted to
General, Advanced, and Extra licensee."

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.

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

You need to have REAL distinctions is Testing Material VS Priveleges
between the license classes.

There are real distinctions in the tested material. The distinctions
in privileges are less clear.

Those distinctions do not presently exist.

Sure they do. The trouble you perceive is that they're not directly
related to the
additional privileges granted.

The knowledge and skill required to operate 1,500 watts of CW at 14.024
is EXACTLY the same knowledge and skill required to operate 1,500 watts
at 14.026

How do you know? Have you ever done it? I think not!

The knowledge and skill required to operate 1500 watts of CW on 14.024
includes Morse Code skill, too.

But let's suppose your claim about 14.026 is true.

Then wouldn't it also be true that the knowledge and skill required to
operate
1,500 watts of CW on 144.026 MHz is EXACTLY the same knowledge and
skill
required to operate 1,500 watts on 14.026 MHz?

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?

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

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

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

Up until about 20 years ago, all US hams were allowed up to
1000 W input on AM voice. With plate modulation and a
final amplifier efficiency of 75%, that could mean 750 watts
of carrier output, and 3000 watts peak output at full modulation.
The 1500 watt rule cut that in half. Why?

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.

Some years back, the ARRL wanted to keep 13 and 20wpm code exams.

FCC said no way.

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.

Sorry you feel that way.

Why?

Is the 50 question Extra written exam too difficult?

With you, it's all about making entry difficult.

Not at all. It's about reasonable and attainable standards.

Is the 50 question Extra written exam too difficult to be
considered "reasonable and attainable"? After all,
that exam is all that separates a General and an Extra
anymore (since April 2000).

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.

You think I want a 49 question exam? Hi!

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

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.

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.

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.

It's always an ultimatum strawman with you, isn't it?

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

You want to go back to the past for one little piece but not
the rest.

Sorry, but no one proclaimed you King Jim of Amateur Radiodom.

I've never claimed to be an expert, king, or anything other than
what I am.

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

No one proclaimed you king either.

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

Use the present VE system, 50 question exam (or 49 questions if you
must), no code test.

Thanks for playing.

IOW, you want to lower the standards from three written tests totalling

120 questions, and one code test, to just one 50 question written test.
For all US Amateur Radio privileges.

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 have defended Incentive Licensing against every challenger.

I've defended the concepts. Is that not allowed?

You're the one who
loves unnecessary licensing requirements.

none of the license requirements I support are
"unnecessary".

General exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Advance exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Extra exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Technician exam earns all legal modes and all legal power, too.
See where your line of reasoning leads?

The Advanced and Extra exams and the Advanced and Extra license classes
are ARBITRARY and REDUNDANT.

To you - but not to FCC.

You're the one who supports lowering the standards
again and again.

That is merely your jaundiced opinion.

"Jaundiced"? Or accurate?

The testing standards have been lowered again and again in the past
25-30 years.
But that's not enough for you - you want them to be lower still. I
disagree, that's all.
But it's not me you have to convince - it's FCC.
--

So let's see what you're proposing:

- Full amateur privileges for the testing of a General license,
without any code test.

Actually not - what you want is full amateur privileges for
*less* written testing than is currently required for 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?

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.

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.

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.

So?

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

How will you convince them to do otherwise?

I don't intend to convincee the FCC to give free upgrades. I don't
intend to convince the FCC to accept one class of license. I don't
intend to convince the FCC to do anything other than keep closed-out
classes until they disappear by attrition.

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

I -expect- good government.

Aren't you getting it? Your party has controlled the White House
for 17 of the past 25 years. The same party that gave us a B-movie
actor for 8 years and now a failed oilman for another 8.

IIRC, the White House nominates the FCC Commissioners....

I -expect- the FCC to eliminate arbitrary and redundant licensing
requirements and license classes.

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

The FCC looks foolish for not having dealt with these issues already.

To whom? Perhaps you should tell the FCC they look foolish...

[email protected] December 14th 05 03:32 AM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

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...

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.

That's the history.

Sad, but true.

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)

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

Look it up.

Hi!

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)

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

I think you know the answer.

I think you are right.

Then they were taken away.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Asleep at the wheel.

FCC's not asleep.

Coma?

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.

Presently, every mode and every power limit privilege is permitted to
General, Advanced, and Extra licensee. That means that the Advanced
and Extra exams are arbitrary and redundant.

In your opinion, yes, but not in my opinion. And not in FCC's opinion.

You could be correct. And if you're correct then it is the General and
Advanced licensees that are getting a nearly free ride. They must be
stripped of privs.

But let's explore your statement there a bit.

"Presently, every mode and every power limit privilege is permitted to
General, Advanced, and Extra licensee."

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.

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?

You need to have REAL distinctions is Testing Material VS Priveleges
between the license classes.

There are real distinctions in the tested material. The distinctions
in privileges are less clear.

As I said.

Those distinctions do not presently exist.

Sure they do. The trouble you perceive is that they're not directly
related to the
additional privileges granted.

Time to reconcile.

The knowledge and skill required to operate 1,500 watts of CW at 14.024
is EXACTLY the same knowledge and skill required to operate 1,500 watts
at 14.026

How do you know? Have you ever done it? I think not!

The knowledge and skill required to operate 1500 watts of CW on 14.024
includes Morse Code skill, too.

But let's suppose your claim about 14.026 is true.

Let's not for the moment. You now need to explain how it is different.
Provide detail.

Then wouldn't it also be true that the knowledge and skill required to
operate
1,500 watts of CW on 144.026 MHz is EXACTLY the same knowledge and
skill
required to operate 1,500 watts on 14.026 MHz?

There are differences in the behavior of RF at VHF frequencies. An
environmental assessment will begin to expose that.

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!

I don't know if you really want to be a freebander, though.

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.

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.

Up until about 20 years ago, all US hams were allowed up to
1000 W input on AM voice. With plate modulation and a
final amplifier efficiency of 75%, that could mean 750 watts
of carrier output, and 3000 watts peak output at full modulation.
The 1500 watt rule cut that in half. Why?

Physics?

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.

Some years back, the ARRL wanted to keep 13 and 20wpm code exams.

FCC said no way.

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...

Sorry you feel that way.

Why?

Is the 50 question Extra written exam too difficult?

With you, it's all about making entry difficult.

Not at all. It's about reasonable and attainable standards.

Then why do you bring up difficulty?

Is the 50 question Extra written exam too difficult to be
considered "reasonable and attainable"? After all,
that exam is all that separates a General and an Extra
anymore (since April 2000).

Again you bring up difficulty. Why?

Arbitrary is not reasonable.

Redundant is not reasonable.

Superfluous is not reasonable.

What is necessary?

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.

You think I want a 49 question exam? Hi!

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's always an ultimatum strawman with you, isn't it?

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.

You want to go back to the past for one little piece but not
the rest.

No. I've already shown that the VE system could implement the exam.
No one would have to travel 175 miles to their nearest FCC office.
I've already shown that the FCC plan to leave presently licensed
Novices and Advanced amateur to the actuarial tables is OK with me.

Why do you say otherwise?

Sorry, but no one proclaimed you King Jim of Amateur Radiodom.

I've never claimed to be an expert, king, or anything other than
what I am.

You like arbitrary, redundant and superfluous exams, classes, and
privileges?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Use the present VE system, 50 question exam (or 49 questions if you
must), no code test.

Thanks for playing.

IOW, you want to lower the standards from three written tests totalling

120 questions, and one code test, to just one 50 question written test.
For all US Amateur Radio privileges.

The 50 question (or 49) exam was your proposal.

What is necessary?

Are 200 questions necessary?

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 have defended Incentive Licensing against every challenger.

I've defended the concepts. Is that not allowed?

Love is allowed. John Lennon said, "All we need is love."

You're the one who
loves unnecessary licensing requirements.

none of the license requirements I support are
"unnecessary".

General exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Advance exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Extra exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Technician exam earns all legal modes and all legal power, too.

Helluva ENTRY level license, huh?

See where your line of reasoning leads?

Yes, I do. And the Technician class is an artifact left over from an
ITU rule that was kluged together when the Novice Class went bust.

The Advanced and Extra exams and the Advanced and Extra license classes
are ARBITRARY and REDUNDANT.

To you - but not to FCC.

You now speak for the FCC?

You're the one who supports lowering the standards
again and again.

That is merely your jaundiced opinion.

"Jaundiced"? Or accurate?

Necessary rules. Necessary exam(s). Necessary license classes all
tied to privileges granted.

The testing standards have been lowered again and again in the past
25-30 years.
But that's not enough for you - you want them to be lower still. I
disagree, that's all.
But it's not me you have to convince - it's FCC.
--

So let's see what you're proposing:

- Full amateur privileges for the testing of a General license,
without any code test.

Actually not - what you want is full amateur privileges for
*less* written testing than is currently required for a General
license, without any code test.

You could probably drop the rhetoric about code tests.

- 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.

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.

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.

So?

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

The plan can be put into effect without harassing people who don't want
to do anything with their existing licenses.

You want the FCC to intern these folks? I understand that Ft Chaffee
is underutilized.

How will you convince them to do otherwise?

I don't intend to convincee the FCC to give free upgrades. I don't
intend to convince the FCC to accept one class of license. I don't
intend to convince the FCC to do anything other than keep closed-out
classes until they disappear by attrition.

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?

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.

I -expect- good government.

Aren't you getting it? Your party has controlled the White House
for 17 of the past 25 years. The same party that gave us a B-movie
actor for 8 years and now a failed oilman for another 8.

IIRC, the White House nominates the FCC Commissioners....

Angry white male? Is that you?

I -expect- the FCC to eliminate arbitrary and redundant licensing
requirements and license classes.

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.

The FCC looks foolish for not having dealt with these issues already.

To whom? Perhaps you should tell the FCC they look foolish...

You thought the '98 NPRM was clearly written?

You thought the '03 RO dealt with reorganization sufficiently?

You think the present Code question is able to be dealt with in a
vacuum?

You think the present inconsistencies in the amateur regulations,
exams, licenses, and privileges is healthy for the ARS?

Yeh, the FCC looks stupid to me.

[email protected] December 14th 05 10:51 PM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
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?!? :-)




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?

Jimmie has a persecution complex?


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.

Nobody counts but Jimmie.


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." 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.


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.

Jimmie thinks he KNOWS what everyone thinks? :-)


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.


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.


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.

NPRM 05-143 DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF with ANY NEW PROPOSALS for
license classes, rank, status, title, privilege, prestige, or
honor and glory in the amateur service.


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.

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


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

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.

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.

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.

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



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.

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.


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.



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.


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.



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. :-)

Regardless, "the 1998 ARRL proposal" is OLD HISTORY. It 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.



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.


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.

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.

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

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


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.

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.

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.

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



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.

:-)

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. The hissy fits continue...

Dee Flint December 14th 05 11:12 PM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

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]


You need to have REAL distinctions is Testing Material VS Priveleges
between the license classes.

There are real distinctions in the tested material. The distinctions
in privileges are less clear.

Those distinctions do not presently exist.

Sure they do. The trouble you perceive is that they're not directly
related to the
additional privileges granted.


Why does the test material need to be directly related to the privileges
granted? It is quite common in life that they are not directly related but
is instead, something that is very desireable. In ham radio, that would be
spectrum and power. The goal of the FCC is, based on their comments in
various NPRMs and the goals and purpose stated in Part 97, is that hams
continue to increase their knowledge and engage in self training. So they
tie increase technical knowlegde to increase spectrum and power privileges.

[snip]

I -expect- the FCC to eliminate arbitrary and redundant licensing
requirements and license classes.

To achieve that, the FCC would need to totally redefine the basis and
purpose of amateur radio. 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.

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

The FCC looks foolish for not having dealt with these issues already.

To whom? Perhaps you should tell the FCC they look foolish...

They do not look foolish when you view the tests and privileges in terms of
the basis and purpose of amateur radio.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

[email protected] December 14th 05 11:55 PM
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 11 2005 7:33 pm
wrote:
From: on Dec 11, 11:03 am
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm

TRUE! While these super-extra morsemen are busy hurting their
shoulders by patting themselves on the back over their superiorness,

You've posted many, many words about *your* "superiorness" here,
telling us all about your Exploits In Professional Radio-Electronics.

If anybody's hurting from self-patting it's you...;-)

the number of Expirations each month is just slightly more than the
number of Newcomers (never before licensed). Not many, but it is
consistent and has been so for the last 2 1/2 years. It's not a
"statistical anomaly" anymore. Amateur radio is getting "poorer"
as a result.

Is it? How do you know, Len? And why does it matter to you?

You're not a radio amateur, and it's very unlikely you'll ever become
one.

You don't supply the amateur radio community with any product or
service. You're only obvious involvement with amateur radio in the
past decade or two has been to spam the FCC and usenet with your
verbiage.

Let's check the numbers....

These are the numbers of current, unexpired
amateur radio licenses held by individuals
on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total Novice/General/Advanced/Extra - 340,538

Total all classes - 674,792

As of December 13, 2005:

Novice - 26,742 [decrease of 22,587]
Technician - 274,091 [increase of 68,697]
Technician Plus - 44,221 [decrease of 84,639]
General - 134,886 [increase of 22,209]
Advanced - 74,191 [decrease of 25,591]
Extra - 107,302 [increase of 28,552]

Total Tech/TechPlus - 318,312 [decrease of 15,942]

Total Novice/General/Advanced/Extra - 343,121 [increase of 2583]

Total all classes - 661,433 [decrease of 13,359]

These totals do not include licenses
that have expired but are in the grace period.
They also do not include club, military, RACES
or other station-only licenses.

How about that - the combined Technician/Technician Plus
number dropped by almost 16,000 while the other classes
*increased* by over 2500 - even though the Novice and
Advanced are not available for new issue anymore.

Advertising revenue - the fuel that feeds the periodical fires -
has been dropping for over a decade.

Whose advertising revenue?

Two major independent
publishers had to drop out of the business.
The league wants more
money...to "keep the faith" (in the Church of St. Hiram?).

Did you send ARRL any money? I did. Not just membership
dues either.

Way
too many hams are busy with a "Let's Pretend" fantasy (almost
palpable) about their glorious service to the nation (as radio
hobbyists) and wearing virtual uniforms (unseen by ordinary
mortals) of glory and honor in their morsemanship a vital asset
in the War Against Terrorism! [I kid you not, some comments were
made in 05-235 saying that very thing]

Your comments were a laff riot too, Len!

The "richness" is in
the tales of fantasy they generate, NOT a commodity that generates
any sort of revenue.

You've characterized amateur radio as "a HOBBY". So what does
it matter to you if "a HOBBY" "grows poorer"? Or even disappears?


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."

You clearly wrote that you were "going for Extra". Was that a typo?

Did you mean you *weren't* going to get an amateur license?

In your comments to FCC in 1999 you wrote that an age limit of 14
should exist for any class of amateur radio license. Was that a typo
too?

If you didn't want either thing, why did you write what you did?
Were those things typos? If so, what did you mean to write? Where
are the corrections?

Shall we look at what you actually wrote and you can explain what
you meant that we didn't understand?

btw, speaking of the age of licensees - did you see that ex-KG6IRO
is being fined $42,000 by FCC? He's 69 years old. Guess what class
of amateur radio license he held before FCC revoked it.... (Hint: it
wasn't the Amateur Extra)

Tsk, Jimmie complains that I "don't *read* what he wrote"

You don't *understand* much of it, Len.

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.

Supply the context, then. You've had *years* to do so...

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."

That was a typo, Len. A mistake. I wrote "FCC" when I meant to write
"FAA".

He presumes that the VEC does? Like so many Morsemen confuse "ARRL"
with "FCC?"

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.

"MAJOR" mistake? How so?

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. :-)

Well, Len, that was a typo I made.

I wrote "FCC" when I meant to write "FAA". My bad - just a mistake.

Know why it sticks out so much? Because it's so unusual!

Now, about typos....

Was it a typo when you told K8MN to 'shut the hell up, you little USMC
feldwebel' ?

Was it a typo when you wrote, almost 6 years ago, that you were going
for Extra right out of the box?

Was it a typo when you lectured a US Coast Guard radio operator on his
military service as a radio operator in the classic "sphincters post"?

Was it a typo when you wrote that all amateurs with
expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses could legally operate their amateur radio stations?

Was it a typo when you accused the ARRL and some VEs of 'very mild
fraud' because of the licensing of some young children? (You never
presented any evidence of fraud other than the ages of the children)

Was it a typo when you twice accused a developer/contractor in your
area of 'payola' to the zoning commission - and the commission
accepting it?

Were all those things typos, Len? I don't see any corrections to them.

I corrected my FAA typo.

He's losing major ground on his lifetime
achievement of being an Extra, and the worst is probably just around
the corner.

Good heavens, I've much bigger achievements than the Amateur Extra
license. It's just the one you two like to pick on - because you don't
have such a license.....

Not to worry. He will rationalize the "worst" somehow, probably
based on "what the FCC did 37 years ago" or his getting a license
at age 14 or getting a college degree without having a car or
being a "manufacturer of amateur radio equipment" in the 1990s
using recycled vacuum tube technology.

Actually I was licensed at age 13, Len ;-). And I did get the degree
in the way described.

Was it wrong of me to take advantage of that
educational opportunity?

Am I not supposed to write about it?

Whatever he's done is
guaranteed to be "better" than what anyone else has done, whether
avocationally or occupationally.

Why no, Len, I don't claim that everything I've done is "better".
That's
*your* game!

I've done some things you haven't. And you've done some things I
haven't.

I'm better at some things than you are. And you're probably
better at some things than I am.

See how simple that is?

What's so predictable about your response is that you'll jump all over
a typo rather than discuss the actual arguments, facts and opinions
presented.

KØHB December 15th 05 01:12 AM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

"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

[email protected] December 15th 05 02:13 AM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

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]


You need to have REAL distinctions is Testing Material VS Priveleges
between the license classes.

There are real distinctions in the tested material. The distinctions
in privileges are less clear.

Those distinctions do not presently exist.

Sure they do. The trouble you perceive is that they're not directly
related to the
additional privileges granted.


Why does the test material need to be directly related to the privileges
granted? It is quite common in life that they are not directly related but
is instead, something that is very desireable.

Sure. Make amateur radio a divine comedy, and study Dante.

In ham radio, that would be
spectrum and power. The goal of the FCC is, based on their comments in
various NPRMs and the goals and purpose stated in Part 97, is that hams
continue to increase their knowledge and engage in self training. So they
tie increase technical knowlegde to increase spectrum and power privileges.

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

[snip]

I -expect- the FCC to eliminate arbitrary and redundant licensing
requirements and license classes.

To achieve that, the FCC would need to totally redefine the basis and
purpose of amateur radio. 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.

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

I just want the FCC to start making sense.

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

The FCC looks foolish for not having dealt with these issues already.

To whom? Perhaps you should tell the FCC they look foolish...

They do not look foolish when you view the tests and privileges in terms of
the basis and purpose of amateur radio.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Maybe you're right. They look ridiculous.

[email protected] December 15th 05 02:18 AM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

KØHB wrote:
"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 inthe
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 earphonesand
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 Ihave)
that incentive licensing is an abject failure.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Some people are loving you. Some people are cursing you. ;^)

Frank Gilliland December 15th 05 03:25 AM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 02:44:08 GMT, Dave Heil wrote
in :

snip
You are to amateur radio
as a grand piano to a NASCAR race.

Dave K8MN


You might need to rent a few extra brain cells to understand this, but
I think you just paid Len a compliment.








----== 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 =----

KØHB December 15th 05 03:29 AM
Love and curses
 

wrote

Some people are loving you. Some people are cursing you.

Naw. K0CKB says she loves me. Everyone else pretty much treats me with bemused
tolerance. I guess maybe KB9RQZ curses me, but it's hard to tell from his
farkled up language skills.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

[email protected] December 15th 05 04:08 AM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
From: on Dec 14, 6:18 pm

K؈B wrote:
"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.

...not to mention a snazzy callsign (obtained through Vanity
licensing) and "elite-class" playground territory. Status-title-
privileges all obtained by political lobbying to achieve the
class distinctions.


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.

Some don't think the Orion is "reasonable." :-)

2. A blindfold.

Why that? Can't one just close eyes?

3. A set of earphones.

Using a speaker is somehow "influencing" the test?

4. No extreme hearing impairments.

How about just a little bit?

5. A comfortable chair.

Okay...none of us can stand it?


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 ofbetter
training and technical knowlege.

Very difficult to see the exact frequency boundaries
with that blindfold on...


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.

Would the opinion thus derived be opposite if beginning
to tune from the LOWER end of "the bands?"


Some people are loving you. Some people are cursing you. ;^)

Some have L-O-V-E on one hand, H-A-T-E on the other... :-)

[email protected] December 15th 05 04:15 AM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
From: on Dec 14, 6:22 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Dec 13 2005 4:32 pm

Jim has tatoos?

I was imagining his performances in here to be the equivalent of
James Mitchum's creepy "preacher" in an old, scary black-and-white
film released in the 1950s.

Robert Mitchum. 1954. Night of the Hunter from the novel by Davis Grubb.
The author was from up the road in Moundsville. The story is set in
this area.

Hmmmm...that explains a lot about Davie Heil's character...:-)


That character had L-O-V-E on one
hand, H-A-T-E on the other...liked to off folks that didn't
believe in him.

Believing in him had nothing to do with it. He killed prostitutes and
dancers because he thought they were evil and he killed widows for their
money. The guy wasn't even a real preacher.

I am imagining Davie Heil with C-O-D-E on one hand, T-E-S-T on
the other. :-)

Running around killing the NCTA because he thinks they were evil.

Sounds VERY familiar! :-)


Did they ever catch him, or is he still running around the hills of
Moundsville?

Was he a ham preacher?

He is apparently of the undead, this time inhabiting the corpus
of a corpulent K8 ham?

"Corp diem?"

[email protected] December 15th 05 10:43 AM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
KØHB wrote:
"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.

How would it be evident, Hans?

Can you tell a "state of the art" rig apart from a good old one that's
10, 20, 30 years
old just by its signal quality?

Can you tell my homebrew rig's signals apart from those from, say, an
IC-7800 just
by listening to them?

But I'll encourage you to
try a little practical experiment to see if you can detect the results inthe
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 earphonesand
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.

Or maybe not. Your experiment has some real problems:

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.

Second, a lot of the discussions heard aren't about technical subjects.
So the sample size is gonna be kinda small.

Third, most "modern" rigs and many "older" rigs have such good signal
quality that
you can't really tell much about the operator other than s/he knows
enough not
to yell into the mike or turn the gain up too far.

If your ear does NOT detect this sort of
evidence as you tune across those boundaries, then you can conclude (as Ihave)
that incentive licensing is an abject failure.

The problem is convincing FCC. See footnote 142 in the NPRM.

73 de Jim, N2EY

btw, loved that QRQ story.

IIRC, back in the 1980s I read a somewhat-similar story in "Air &
Space"
but of course the op requesting a QRQ was in an airplane. The ground
station
was in the Mediterranean - Egypt, I think. Somewhat earlier time -
early 1950s.

Both great stories.

Dee Flint December 15th 05 11:33 AM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

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

Dee Flint December 15th 05 12:11 PM
Reasonable and unique, was One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 

"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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 AM.
Page 5 of 7 1234 5 67
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com