RadioBanter - View Single Post

September 1st 05, 02:16 AM

From: on Wed 31 Aug 2005 13:23

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for
those who chose not to build their radios?

Indeed I ask why there are so many question about
electronics on the
tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner.

Same old tired analogy.

It's a valid question, Bill. And I'm not the only
one asking it.

no it isn't
but no you are not the only one using this red herring

Except it's not a red herring.

True, and gutted and scaled, tossed into a frying pan with
potatoes, it makes a TERRIBLE "sill och potatis" for
Scandinavians. Totally tasteless. :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, all that paranoic mumbling about "WE GONNA
LOSE THE WRITTEN TESTS!" is really only bullsnit
MISDIRECTION to avoid discussing the ONLY subject of
NPRM 05-143, the elimination of the morse code test.

TRY to stay focussed. Show a good image.

PLEASE...if you want electronics taken
off the written test, then say so.

I don't. In fact I think there should be *more* in-depth
electronics testing on the exams. And I'll take the new
exams myself if needed.

WHY?

Because I can. And because I won't ask others to pass a test
that I can't pass myself.

Congratulations on joining the NEC Question Pool Committee!

What a wonderful surprise for all. I'm sure you've gone
and taken every single new written test as it was generated
by the VEC QPC and passed by the FCC!

Er, you HAVE taken each new written test element as it has
come out, haven't you?

Worse, it proposed to remove *all* regulations questions from
the test for the new entry-level license, and instead just
require a signed statement that the licensee had read and
understood the rules.

not a bad idea given the way even the extras don't seem to
agree on
what the rules say.

But an entry license without the ability to anything but shelf gear
limited power etc

That's what NCVEC wanted...

The NCVEC didn't get ALL it wanted, did it? Neither did eight
other Petitions which were GRANTED IN PART. Seven other
Peitioners were just DENIED. Denied as in Defunct. :-)

The NCVEC Petition is RM-10870. Did you Comment on it?
[it didn't take down my CD which has all of that to look]

If you didn't Comment on it, that's your tough luck. The
Commission left open plenty of time to file your Comment.
The Commission doesn't leave everything open to re-argue and
re-re-argue and re-re-re-argue matters which you love to do.

we will always see the tug between getting folks in the door
and the keep em out with hard tests

Thank you, Mark - you've just proved my point!

What "point" are you tring to push into folks?

For some folks (like Mark) it's not about the code test
in isolation. It's about "hard" tests in general - written,
code, practical, whatever.

For most of the morsemen, they reach into their creels,
yank out those smelly red herrings and yell, "SEE? I
told you!" as if it were some "new discovery."

There are only TWO kinds of tests required by the FCC:
Manual International Morse Code proficiency (test element
1) and the written, multiple-choice tests (test elements
2 through 4). There haven't been any others in the FCC
regulations...no "practical" (whatever they are) and no
"whatever" (whatever the whatevers were).

Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I wrote a detailed
rebuttal.

I'm sure it will be regarded as a Landmark Paper, right
up there with Shannon, Nyquist, and others...?

snip

There was a time, not so long ago, when if someone had suggested
a nocodetest amateur license, they would have been told it was a
"red herring" and "something FCC would never consider".

How about in 1912? Before the FRC added the code test? :-)

Note: The FCC would never have considered it in 1912. Not
only that the FCC was never considered in 1912!

Now look where we are! :-)

Now look where we are.

We are in the year 2005, 71 years after the FCC was created
and - FINALLY - seeing the very distinct possibility of
ending the old, archaic, outmoded, unneccessary code test
for the U.S. amateur radio service (a HOBBY activity done
for personal recreation).

The trend isn't just towards less code testing, but to less
testing overall.

Nah. It's a "trend" to more and more very sour whine
pressed from old grapes by morsemen. Grapes old and
whithered on the vine, ones that should have been picked
and processed as raisins long ago...with all the other
dried fruit.

Of course, you are free as anyone to FILE YOUR OWN PETITION
with the FCC...to make written testing waaayyyyy tough to
match YOUR CONCEPT of the amateur radio service licensing.
BTASE (But That's Another Subject Entirely). It isn't part
of NPRM 05-143, never was.