| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
December 31st 05, 10:51 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
Another License Idea
From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm
wrote: Reposted and updated slightly: 1) Three classes of license: Basic, Intermediate, Full (change the names if you don't like them - Third, Second, First, Novice, General, Extra, whatever) Brian, the best Jimmie can come up with is just warmed-over EXISTING regulations with a slightly different bit of cosmetic changing. Note: There are only THREE license classes granted NOW. 2) HF/MF bands split into subbands by mode and split again by license class. Some bands (30 meters) may be split by mode only. Bottom of each band is CW only, middle is CW/digital, top is CW/phone/image. Percentage division about 20%/30%/50% (varies with band). "Digital" includes digital voice modes if bandwidth under 1 kHz. Farf. There's BANDPLANS now, splitting "the bands" by mode AND class. 3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures, and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure 4) "Intermediate" license test is more complex 50-60 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Intermediates get 300-400 watts on all bands, all modes. Intermediates can be 5) "Full" license test is quite complex 100-120 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Mostly technical, More Farf. Cosmetic changes to classes that exist NOW. 6) All licenses are 10 year and fully renewable/modifiable. No age requirements or limits. NO change at all. Status quo-ism. 7) Basics have six-character calls, Intermediates have five- or six-character calls, and Fulls have four-, five-, or six-character calls. Nobody has to give up an existing callsign. Be absolutely SURE that the lowest class is readily identifiable as the LOWEST one. Tsk, can't have those nasty "beginners" messing up the playground! 8) Separate 30-35 question test for VE qualification, open to Intermediates and Fulls, which allows them to be VEs. Existing VEs are grandfathered. Oh my, something NEW! "Unbeliegable," said Arte Johnson. So, "what was WRONG with the present system" that it needs this spay-shull "test" to proctor a license exam...with the answers readily available to them and NO need to make any decisions such as on schematics or essay questions? Geez, privatization in testing has been going on a LONG time without any specific "testing of the VEs." End result is a system that is easy to get into (Basic is envisioned as a 21st century version of the Novice) and has reasonable but meaningful steps to reach full privileges. The Novice class was a numbers failure. That's apparent to most folks other than Jimmie. With a ONE-class license plus the ONCE-only "entry" license it is EASIER than the above regurgitated existing system. WHY is there a "privilege" system at all NOW? To keep "the bands" free of "interlopers" that mess up the olde-tymers' operations with "extraneous signals?" Testing matches the privs granted. It should, there is NO real change from the existing system. Power levels are set about one S-unit apart. Nobody loses any privileges. There are only three license classes and four written tests, so FCC doesn't have more work. I N C O R R E C T ! The FCC has to ADDITIOMALLY TEST Volunteer Examiners. More work for them. But, as in Latin ("who watches the watchers?") who will test the VE applicants? Other VEs? Not unless they have ALREADY been tested...which leads to an impossible condition. What's with this "power level" per "class" thing, anyway? If that were meaningful, there would be FCC field teams out there measuring field strengths and knocking on doors, etc. Obviously there aren't and any existing "RF power output" maximums in amateur radio operate on the honor system. Ain't no extensive "RF power output" checking being done. 73 de Jim, N2EY QP contains 10,000 questions. You take a test, 1 question at a time. Questions selected at random. You keep going til you miss one. No retakes, no upgrades. Each right question earns 10Hz of spectrum, your choice of frequency, but it must be made at the exam session. That is your lifetime allotment. HAR! :-) ------ Well, since Jimmie didn't come up with anything "new" other than doing a Max Factor Thing with the existing regulations (plus the NEW test for VEs), I'll just remind everyone of what is in the regulations NOW...and has been since at least 1995: The FCC states that each written test element Question Pool must contain a MINIMUM of 10 times the number of required questions. There is NO maximum on the Question Pool. [I don't think there ever was one] It's all up to the VE QPC on how many it wants to generate and distribute. Make it 20 times, 30 times, 50, even a 100 times the minimum in the QP...that will knock down all those charges of "memorization." Yawn. Nappy Hoo Year! |
|
#3
January 1st 06, 10:19 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another License Idea
From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm
wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: Reposted and updated slightly: 1) Three classes of license: Basic, Intermediate, Full (change the names if you don't like them - Third, Second, First, Novice, General, Extra, whatever) Brian, the best Jimmie can come up with is just warmed-over EXISTING regulations with a slightly different bit of cosmetic changing. Maybe Jim didn't get any mental stimulation prior to age five. Oh, I think he was "motivated" to speak Morse Code as early as that... Note: There are only THREE license classes granted NOW. Precisely the number of license classes that Jim advocates! Amazing, isn't it? :-) 2) HF/MF bands split into subbands by mode and split again by license class. Some bands (30 meters) may be split by mode only. Bottom of each band is CW only, middle is CW/digital, top is CW/phone/image. Percentage division about 20%/30%/50% (varies with band). "Digital" includes digital voice modes if bandwidth under 1 kHz. Farf. There's BANDPLANS now, splitting "the bands" by mode AND class. Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's. Good grief, we CAN'T speak like that in here! The "lower end" of "the bands" MUST be kept open for the PRIVELEGED CLASS to beep in total comfort. So "it has always been and so shall it always be..." 3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures, and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure 4) "Intermediate" license test is more complex 50-60 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Intermediates get 300-400 watts on all bands, all modes. Intermediates can be 5) "Full" license test is quite complex 100-120 question exam on regs, procedures, safety and technical stuff. Mostly technical, More Farf. Cosmetic changes to classes that exist NOW. Quitefine advocates Quitecomplex questions. "We've got a bleeder!" In amateurspeak, he's got a "ham-morage!" 6) All licenses are 10 year and fully renewable/modifiable. No age requirements or limits. NO change at all. Status quo-ism. All we need now is no enforcement and it could be the 70's and 80's all over again. Whatever. Except for the following, Jimmie's "idea" is all just warmed-over deja vu. Right now U.S. amateurs have licenses of 10 year periods, are renewable/modifiable, and there are NO age requirements. Item (6) on Jimmie's list is just a repeat of what already exists. 8) Separate 30-35 question test for VE qualification, open to Intermediates and Fulls, which allows them to be VEs. Existing VEs are grandfathered. Oh my, something NEW! "Unbeliegable," said Arte Johnson. So, "what was WRONG with the present system" that it needs this spay-shull "test" to proctor a license exam...with the answers readily available to them and NO need to make any decisions such as on schematics or essay questions? Geez, privatization in testing has been going on a LONG time without any specific "testing of the VEs." Odd, but the General could proctor Technician exams, and the Advanced could proctor General exams. The Extra Exam had loads of VE questions, the General and Advanced had none. As far as I'm concerned, since the VEC's are already disregarding FCC rules, we can dispense with the Extra Exam altogether and let the VEC's qualify "thier" examiners without any spay-shull FCC exam. They do that anyway... End result is a system that is easy to get into (Basic is envisioned as a 21st century version of the Novice) and has reasonable but meaningful steps to reach full privileges. The Novice class was a numbers failure. That's apparent to most folks other than Jimmie. It did give us a bunch of Technicians (General incognito) who couldn't do 13WPM. As far as I'm concerned, the "NEED" to do morse code at any rate was an arbitrary, unneccessary regulation back in the 60s. Ancient morsemen didn't think so and pressured the government to keep that "vital" necessity (or whatever they called it before Homeland Security needed morse for "the war on terror). So the morse code test stayed in. With a ONE-class license plus the ONCE-only "entry" license it is EASIER than the above regurgitated existing system. It's easier for the FCC to maintain, and it's all that is necessary. True enough, but it HURTS the spay-shull "high class" hams who NEED that super-extra-special federal certificate to show how good they are (above others of "lesser" rank). WHY is there a "privilege" system at all NOW? To keep "the bands" free of "interlopers" that mess up the olde-tymers' operations with "extraneous signals?" That hurts my gall bladder to hear you say that. Sorry about that, chief. [Maxwell Smart phrase, Hans, has nothing to do with USN] Testing matches the privs granted. It should, there is NO real change from the existing system. Which it what needs changing. A long time ago. Bad case of diaper rash in regs now... The FCC has to ADDITIOMALLY TEST Volunteer Examiners. More work for them. But, as in Latin ("who watches the watchers?") who will test the VE applicants? Other VEs? Not unless they have ALREADY been tested...which leads to an impossible condition. Division by zero? Program crash! What's with this "power level" per "class" thing, anyway? If that were meaningful, there would be FCC field teams out there measuring field strengths and knocking on doors, etc. Obviously there aren't and any existing "RF power output" maximums in amateur radio operate on the honor system. Ain't no extensive "RF power output" checking being done. Maybe Jim is an ARRL Official Observer, has a mobile van with precision measurement equipment on board... ...in which case he totally neglected that "QRP" rig for sale on E-bay for $9,500! :-) [the one "used on 80m" and having that large air exhaust ducting to carry off excess heat...] QP contains 10,000 questions. You take a test, 1 question at a time. Questions selected at random. You keep going til you miss one. No retakes, no upgrades. Each right question earns 10Hz of spectrum, your choice of frequency, but it must be made at the exam session. That is your lifetime allotment. HAR! :-) Har? I was serious. Sorry I am. Well, in retrospect, it was in the same spirit as Jimmie's regurgitated regulation set... Yappy New Hear! |
|
#4
January 1st 06, 10:42 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another License Idea
wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: cut Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's. Good grief, we CAN'T speak like that in here! The "lower end" of "the bands" MUST be kept open for the PRIVELEGED CLASS to beep in total comfort. So "it has always been and so shall it always be..." indeed the ARRL tried to pander to people Jim with code for extra class proposal cut It did give us a bunch of Technicians (General incognito) who couldn't do 13WPM. As far as I'm concerned, the "NEED" to do morse code at any rate was an arbitrary, unneccessary regulation back in the 60s. Ancient morsemen didn't think so and pressured the government to keep that "vital" necessity (or whatever they called it before Homeland Security needed morse for "the war on terror). So the morse code test stayed in. after the origial reason to know morse was stated as the need for the govt to be able to warn Ham off their trnasmsittion but even that "need" was bogus after if the Voice ham could hear the Morse signal and could not understand it then he could just qsy somewhere else if he did not hear the morse signal it not matter if he could understand it or not We could have done away with Morse Code tsts as early as the first AM voice set, might have been a bit choatic at first, but it have been done logicaly have done away when ever there was first voice cut |
|
#5
January 2nd 06, 01:00 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another License Idea
From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm
wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's. Good grief, we CAN'T speak like that in here! The "lower end" of "the bands" MUST be kept open for the PRIVELEGED CLASS to beep in total comfort. So "it has always been and so shall it always be..." indeed the ARRL tried to pander to people Jim with code for extra class proposal I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or could do best. There is no quantitative "factual" accounting of that opinion other than the obvious private-party exchanges (mostly off-line). The league can't admit that it does what it did and merely "sin by omission" of NOT saying anything bad about itself. [they will not since they are the self-styled "representative" of amateur radio and cannot keep memberships by being self-negative] As far as I'm concerned, the "NEED" to do morse code at any rate was an arbitrary, unneccessary regulation back in the 60s. Ancient morsemen didn't think so and pressured the government to keep that "vital" necessity (or whatever they called it before Homeland Security needed morse for "the war on terror). So the morse code test stayed in. We could have done away with Morse Code tsts as early as the first AM voice set, might have been a bit choatic at first, but it have been done logicaly have done away when ever there was first voice Not possible for the administration committed to honoring the USA membership in the ITU and its radio regulations. The first widely-heard AM radio transmission was in 1906, hardly a time for AM to become universal. Forget about FM and PM then until the vacuum tube was perfected; the first triode was created in 1906. AM broadcasting did not become practical until the 1920s. The change in amateur radio regulations COULD have been broached at WARC-79 but - as far as amateur radio was concerned - the year 1979 at WARC was the matter of the "40m issue" between amateurs and SW BC people. That didn't get any firm resolution for 24 more years (WRC-03). However, BY 2003, the IARU had swung around to eliminate the compulsory radio regulation (S25.5) requiring manual morse code testing for any license having below-30-MHz privileges. That was a change that was LONG overdue. Those that control the influences in amateur radio are generally the olde-tymers who were grounded in the older traditions...such as the "need" to demonstrate morse skill vital to a much earlier era. The league is a good example of extreme conservatism insofar as amateur radio licensing is concerned. The IARU has swung around from such extreme conservatism despite being composed of the (generally) same lot of olde-tymers. They CAN see the future more clearly than the American league (of self-distinguished gentlemen). At one time in the PAST there was a need to demonstrate manual radiotelegraphy skills. The problem with so many is that they keep on venerating the past with a passion, a nostalgia for times before they existed. Tradition is a fine thing but it loses value when it is codified into law as a requirement for all. |
|
#6
January 2nd 06, 01:35 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another License Idea
wrote: From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: Ghettos. Reminds me of some European social engineering of the 30's. Good grief, we CAN'T speak like that in here! The "lower end" of "the bands" MUST be kept open for the PRIVELEGED CLASS to beep in total comfort. So "it has always been and so shall it always be..." indeed the ARRL tried to pander to people Jim with code for extra class proposal I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or could do best. well my aphasia grabed the keyboard let me think i like pander to people LIKE jim oh well but to your they are not the oT themselves they are the Young Men of that group (in their 50's and 60's very much like the Comunist party in the USSR near the end There is no quantitative "factual" accounting of that opinion other than the obvious private-party exchanges (mostly off-line). The league can't admit that it does what it did and merely "sin by omission" of NOT saying anything bad about itself. [they will not since they are the self-styled "representative" of amateur radio and cannot keep memberships by being self-negative] As far as I'm concerned, the "NEED" to do morse code at any rate was an arbitrary, unneccessary regulation back in the 60s. Ancient morsemen didn't think so and pressured the government to keep that "vital" necessity (or whatever they called it before Homeland Security needed morse for "the war on terror). So the morse code test stayed in. We could have done away with Morse Code tsts as early as the first AM voice set, might have been a bit choatic at first, but it have been done logicaly have done away when ever there was first voice Not possible for the administration committed to honoring the USA membership in the ITU and its radio regulations. The first widely-heard AM radio transmission was in 1906, hardly a time for AM to become universal. Forget about FM and PM then until the vacuum tube was perfected; the first triode was created in 1906. AM broadcasting did not become practical until the 1920s. we could strutured oh so very different with the magic wand that sweeps all problem out of the way you rightly point the 1906 a 100 years in the past The change in amateur radio regulations COULD have been broached at WARC-79 but - as far as amateur radio was concerned - the year 1979 at WARC was the matter of the "40m issue" between amateurs and SW BC people. That didn't get any firm resolution for 24 more years (WRC-03). However, BY 2003, the IARU had swung around to eliminate the compulsory radio regulation (S25.5) requiring manual morse code testing for any license having below-30-MHz privileges. That was a change that was LONG overdue. painfully long Those that control the influences in amateur radio are generally the olde-tymers who were grounded in the older traditions...such as the "need" to demonstrate morse skill vital to a much earlier era. The league is a good example of extreme conservatism insofar as amateur radio licensing is concerned. The IARU has swung around from such extreme conservatism despite being composed of the (generally) same lot of olde-tymers. They CAN see the future more clearly than the American league (of self-distinguished gentlemen). At one time in the PAST there was a need to demonstrate manual radiotelegraphy skills. The problem with so many is that they keep on venerating the past with a passion, a nostalgia for times before they existed. Tradition is a fine thing but it loses value when it is codified into law as a requirement for all. I am reamain unconvined of this "need" after all if the rules said you must qsy if you encouter govt sent morse with no code testing at all since you could just qsy if you heard any morse at all Morse code testing was in Judgement a very helpful tool of regulation but we could have done without it if had wanted to |
|
#7
January 2nd 06, 03:59 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another License Idea
From: an Old friend on Jan 1, 5:35 pm
wrote: From: an_old_friend on Jan 1, 2:42 pm wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 31 2005 3:29 pm wrote: From: on Dec 30, 5:56 pm wrote: I disagree but only slightly. Don't forget that the ARRL officers ARE the olde-tymers of morse code. Naturally they would pressure for more privileges in what they liked or could do best. well my aphasia grabed the keyboard let me think i like pander to people LIKE jim oh well No problem to me in understanding you, Mark. :-) but to your they are not the oT themselves they are the Young Men of that group (in their 50's and 60's very much like the Comunist party in the USSR near the end Ahem...that's a bit drastic in comparison, but unfortunately apt. shrug I am reamain unconvined of this "need" after all if the rules said you must qsy if you encouter govt sent morse with no code testing at all since you could just qsy if you heard any morse at all When it was the ONLY mode possible in radio, it made sense. Morse code testing was in Judgement a very helpful tool of regulation but we could have done without it if had wanted to Not TECHNICALLY. The first "radio transmitters" used by hams were the Spark jobbies. Easy enough to construct at the time of the first U.S. radio regulating agency created in 1912. A Spark transmitter - of the ham variety - could ONLY be turned on or off. Since that was the way the landline telegraph worked, morse code was adapted for radio. There weren't many other ways to communicate with those technically primitive "radios." ANY on-off code scheme would have worked. "Morse" happened to be a then-mature way to go so that was it. I doubt that any ham in 1906 tried putting a "high-power" carbon microphone in series with their antenna lead a la Reggie Fessenden...even after Fessenden proved it could be done. [no other AM broadcaster tried it for broadcasting service...har!] The vacuum tube was needed for "clean" CW generation. Once those were more perfected, damped wave oscillation ("spark") was declared forbidden for use. Rightly so since it took up many, many Kilocycles of bandwidth that only a galena crystal receiver could love. :-) MAYBE the code test could have been dropped from amateur radio licensing in 1934 when the FCC was created. Personally, I don't think so from the political situation brewing in radio and all of "electronic" communications through USA membership in the CCITT. [the CCITT morphed into the ITU once the UN was born] By 1960 the vast majority of message traffic around the world was being done by TTY. [yes, Hans, the USN DID use morse on ships] MAYBE the time was ripe then for a code-test-free license. No, said the olde-tymers of that time, they were (now generally retired) champions of morsemanship and weren't about to let go. They "knew what was best for (their) ham radio!" By 1970 the code-test-free license was an even greater possibility. Offshore-designed/built radios were showing up on the ham market and the VHF-and-up HT was a practical piece of radio goods. The olde-tyme morsemen were still adamant and getting more stern. NO #$%^!!! code-test-free license for ham radio, no sir! :-) By 1980 the code-test-free license now had supporters, even a few of the clearer-thinking olde-tyme morsemen (!)...but there were many against this (shocking) revolution. That didn't come to pass until 1990 and FCC 90-53...which resulted in the no- code-test Tech class beginning in 1991. The 1990s had the steamroller of streamlining going faster and faster...and the result being, of course, recent history in amateur regulations. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
| Another D-H* NCVEC proposal | Policy | |||
| FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters for the Period Ending May 1, 2004 | General | |||
| Why You Don't Like The ARRL | Policy | |||
| There is no International Code Requirement and techs can operate HF according to FCC Rules | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
