Slow Code wrote:
"Steve N." wrote in
:

Slow,
It's is a shame you have to:

1- talk like this and
2- have so little respect for others and
3- have no ability to rationally discuss prows and cons complex issues
and 4- have a poor understanding of what makes a good ham and
5- have so little understanding some real-world practical aspects of
this issue and most importantly...
6- show such poor ham characteristics.
7- and probably have so little real knowledge of ham radio, is my guess.
and
8- be a troll

If you're also a 20 WPM extra, then we can easily do without your
immature attitudes and behaviors here and on the bands.

Hey guys! it is also a shame you get drawn into these types and feed
their small minds.

73, Steve, K9DCI


Yes, Yes, yes,
but what are your thoughts on the following:


but he aswer that in in 3 and 4 and 5

In article . net,
Slow Code wrote:

Yes, Yes, yes,
but what are your thoughts on the following:

Meta-comment: I think that if all of the ideas you propose were
actually enacted into regulation, and then ten years were go by, the
United States Amateur Radio Service would be unlikely to have more
than 1/4 of the number of licencees that it has today.

That's great if you want to create a "private club" for a few years
after that.

However, it's lousy if you want there to actually *be* an Amateur
Radio Service twenty or thirty years from now. With so few licensees
and as little activity as I think there'd be after such a decimation,
the odds are good that a lot of the U.S. amateur radio bands would be
"re-purposed" for other spectrum users.

No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass
all elements required for their license class.

Unlikely to pass, due to the cost and bureaucratic overhead.

I'd guess that at least a third of current licensees coming up for
renewal would decide not to bother, and let their licenses lapse (and
that's in addition to the rate of non-renewal which takes place today).

The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

I'd have no real objection to this. Dunno if it's a good idea or a
bad idea.

Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

This will never happen, for two major reasons:

[1] CW is no longer an international treaty requirement AT ALL.
The results of the WARC conferences made it clear that the
international community considers CW a useful mode, and a big
part of amateur tradition, but that it's no longer in sufficient
use in military/commercial applications to justify making it
a legal requirement for amateur HF licensing.

[2] The FCC has made it quite clear (in their responses to the
numerous petitions filed about [1]) that they no longer consider
it in the public interest to require CW proficiency for an
HF license. They are proposing to remove the CW requirement
entirely.

In its filings, the ARRL has proposed retaining the existing 5 WPM
requirement for Amateur Extra. The FCC's response adds up to "No.
Not justified. No CW requirement at all."

My understanding is that the ARRL's comments received from their
membership, and the comments received directly by the FCC in response
to the various petitions, are pretty consistent. Only a small
percentage of the people who have commented, feel as you do. Most
commenters either want to eliminate the CW requirement entirely (as
many other countries have done), or eliminate it for General and
retain it for Extra.

What you propose is also unlikely to happen because the FCC and ARRL
both remember what happened the last time they tried tightening the
rules and raising the requirements and trying to force people to
upgrade. My understanding (from reading - I wasn't licensed back
then) is that the Powers That Be concluded that this sort of incentive
licensing pressure created more resentment, and did more damage to the
health of the amateur radio community, than whatever benefits came
from it justified.

I've read statements from the FCC, over the past few years, to the
effect that they're just not interested in taking operating privileges
away from anyone.

Make the no-code Tech license one year non-renewable.

Once again, I think that the number of licensees that the Amateur
Radio Service would lose (or would never get in the first place, once
people learned of the non-renewable status) would outweigh the
possible advantage of this approach (giving licensees more of an
inducement to increase their level of knowledge, and upgrade).

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

OK, OK, OK I'll bite just a bit...


"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Steve N." wrote in
:

Slow,
It's is a shame you have to:

1- talk like this and
2- have so little respect for others and
3- have no ability to rationally discuss prows and cons complex issues
and 4- have a poor understanding of what makes a good ham and
5- have so little understanding some real-world practical aspects of
this issue and most importantly...
6- show such poor ham characteristics.
7- and probably have so little real knowledge of ham radio, is my guess.
and
8- be a troll

If you're also a 20 WPM extra, then we can easily do without your
immature attitudes and behaviors here and on the bands.

Hey guys! it is also a shame you get drawn into these types and feed
their small minds.

73, Steve, K9DCI


Yes, Yes, yes,
but what are your thoughts on the following:


No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass
all elements required for their license class.


sc,

Lesee... Well, I believe you have some discussable concepts here.

In other areas there are currency requirements. Flying, for example. If
you haven't kept up, you need refresher flights with an instructor. We
first try to outline what is gained / lost over time and whether re-testing
can address these issues. Old timers will be required to learn about QPSK
and all the modern concepts.

Then we go from here.

One general area you seem to fail to address is some of the practical
aspects regarding number of licensees and the viability of retaining the
Amateur Service all together. If the number of Hams keeps declining, will
there be ANY licenses...and do you (in general) want to preserve something,
or kill it all if numbers fall, manufacturers stop producing products,
etc... This can not be ignored in the rest of the discussions.

I know Extras who couldn't build a thing, yet are active, intelligent and
law abiding. They have interest I can discuss with them. I also know
no-code'ers that are the most serious hams around...not to mention several
that came from CB and are now died-in-the-wool-hams.
I also hear Extras on the air that should aim for a tree the next time they
drive a car.

Is learning CW a "right of passage" and an effort that helps to strengthen
the Ham...yes...for some. Does it guarantee an excellent, expert Ham? Not
by a long shot. That comes from elsewhere.

However, based on the post of yours that I responded to, I choose not to
go further since you have demonstrated such a poor attitude, I feel it is
not worth the time exploring with you. Ill pick more important battles.
Enjoy your Hamm activities (if you have any) and be content. you brand or
devisiveness accompliches nothing except, perhaps allowing a few of the
responders to vent and possibly hear (though by accident) some reasonable
points.

Do you have a call, name? With a pseudonym like yours, I'd think you'dbe on
the other side. What are you affraid of?

73, Steve K9DCI

The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

How about the licence grade depending on the score? How about much
more strict requirements for on-air procedure. I hear many who have
licenses and still don't know how to communicate efficiently in emergency
drills or ID properly.


Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

CW only was a requirement due to international treaty in the first
place. That is no longer the case. You are clrarly hung up on CW. WHY?
What does it bring / guarantee? Why is CW so much more important that all
other aspects of on-air operation?

Make the no-code Tech license one year non-renewable.

This still comes directly from the "CW or nothing" concept.
73 (in the truest sense)

(Dave Platt) wrote in
:

In article . net,
Slow Code wrote:

Yes, Yes, yes,
but what are your thoughts on the following:

Meta-comment: I think that if all of the ideas you propose were
actually enacted into regulation, and then ten years were go by, the
United States Amateur Radio Service would be unlikely to have more
than 1/4 of the number of licencees that it has today.

That's great if you want to create a "private club" for a few years
after that.

However, it's lousy if you want there to actually *be* an Amateur
Radio Service twenty or thirty years from now. With so few licensees
and as little activity as I think there'd be after such a decimation,
the odds are good that a lot of the U.S. amateur radio bands would be
"re-purposed" for other spectrum users.

No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass
all elements required for their license class.

Unlikely to pass, due to the cost and bureaucratic overhead.

I'd guess that at least a third of current licensees coming up for
renewal would decide not to bother, and let their licenses lapse (and
that's in addition to the rate of non-renewal which takes place today).

The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

I'd have no real objection to this. Dunno if it's a good idea or a
bad idea.

Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

This will never happen, for two major reasons:

[1] CW is no longer an international treaty requirement AT ALL.
The results of the WARC conferences made it clear that the
international community considers CW a useful mode, and a big
part of amateur tradition, but that it's no longer in sufficient
use in military/commercial applications to justify making it
a legal requirement for amateur HF licensing.

[2] The FCC has made it quite clear (in their responses to the
numerous petitions filed about [1]) that they no longer consider
it in the public interest to require CW proficiency for an
HF license. They are proposing to remove the CW requirement
entirely.

In its filings, the ARRL has proposed retaining the existing 5 WPM
requirement for Amateur Extra. The FCC's response adds up to "No.
Not justified. No CW requirement at all."

My understanding is that the ARRL's comments received from their
membership, and the comments received directly by the FCC in response
to the various petitions, are pretty consistent. Only a small
percentage of the people who have commented, feel as you do. Most
commenters either want to eliminate the CW requirement entirely (as
many other countries have done), or eliminate it for General and
retain it for Extra.

What you propose is also unlikely to happen because the FCC and ARRL
both remember what happened the last time they tried tightening the
rules and raising the requirements and trying to force people to
upgrade. My understanding (from reading - I wasn't licensed back
then) is that the Powers That Be concluded that this sort of incentive
licensing pressure created more resentment, and did more damage to the
health of the amateur radio community, than whatever benefits came
from it justified.

I've read statements from the FCC, over the past few years, to the
effect that they're just not interested in taking operating privileges
away from anyone.

Make the no-code Tech license one year non-renewable.

Once again, I think that the number of licensees that the Amateur
Radio Service would lose (or would never get in the first place, once
people learned of the non-renewable status) would outweigh the
possible advantage of this approach (giving licensees more of an
inducement to increase their level of knowledge, and upgrade).



Reading all you wrote, what you are basically saying is that no one wants
to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

sc

"Steve N." wrote in
:

OK, OK, OK I'll bite just a bit...


"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Steve N." wrote in
:

Slow,
It's is a shame you have to:

1- talk like this and
2- have so little respect for others and
3- have no ability to rationally discuss prows and cons complex
issues and 4- have a poor understanding of what makes a good ham and
5- have so little understanding some real-world practical aspects of
this issue and most importantly...
6- show such poor ham characteristics.
7- and probably have so little real knowledge of ham radio, is my
guess. and
8- be a troll

If you're also a 20 WPM extra, then we can easily do without your
immature attitudes and behaviors here and on the bands.

Hey guys! it is also a shame you get drawn into these types and feed
their small minds.

73, Steve, K9DCI


Yes, Yes, yes,
but what are your thoughts on the following:


No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass
all elements required for their license class.


sc,

Lesee... Well, I believe you have some discussable concepts here.

In other areas there are currency requirements. Flying, for example.
If
you haven't kept up, you need refresher flights with an instructor. We
first try to outline what is gained / lost over time and whether
re-testing can address these issues. Old timers will be required to
learn about QPSK and all the modern concepts.

Then we go from here.

One general area you seem to fail to address is some of the practical
aspects regarding number of licensees and the viability of retaining the
Amateur Service all together. If the number of Hams keeps declining,
will there be ANY licenses...and do you (in general) want to preserve
something, or kill it all if numbers fall, manufacturers stop producing
products, etc... This can not be ignored in the rest of the
discussions.

I know Extras who couldn't build a thing, yet are active, intelligent
and law abiding. They have interest I can discuss with them. I also
know no-code'ers that are the most serious hams around...not to mention
several that came from CB and are now died-in-the-wool-hams.
I also hear Extras on the air that should aim for a tree the next time
they drive a car.

Is learning CW a "right of passage" and an effort that helps to
strengthen the Ham...yes...for some. Does it guarantee an excellent,
expert Ham? Not by a long shot. That comes from elsewhere.

However, based on the post of yours that I responded to, I choose
not to
go further since you have demonstrated such a poor attitude, I feel it
is not worth the time exploring with you. Ill pick more important
battles. Enjoy your Hamm activities (if you have any) and be content.
you brand or devisiveness accompliches nothing except, perhaps allowing
a few of the responders to vent and possibly hear (though by accident)
some reasonable points.

Do you have a call, name? With a pseudonym like yours, I'd think
you'dbe on the other side. What are you affraid of?

73, Steve K9DCI

The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

How about the licence grade depending on the score? How about
much
more strict requirements for on-air procedure. I hear many who have
licenses and still don't know how to communicate efficiently in
emergency drills or ID properly.


Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

CW only was a requirement due to international treaty in the
first
place. That is no longer the case. You are clrarly hung up on CW.
WHY? What does it bring / guarantee? Why is CW so much more important
that all other aspects of on-air operation?

Make the no-code Tech license one year non-renewable.

This still comes directly from the "CW or nothing" concept.
73 (in the truest sense)



My arguement has always been for the quality of the hams. You appreciate
something more that you had to work to achieve, and respect the rewards
it gives.

Cheapening something makes it disposable. Ham numbers are declining.

sc

Slow Code wrote:
"Steve N." wrote in
:

OK, OK, OK I'll bite just a bit...

This still comes directly from the "CW or nothing" concept.
73 (in the truest sense)



My arguement has always been for the quality of the hams. You appreciate
something more that you had to work to achieve, and respect the rewards
it gives.
you arguement is false

I value things based on their proifit to me

My tech license is higher profitable becuase it took little to get and
get me a lot

Cheapening something makes it disposable.
how is making testing reflect reality cheapening?
Ham numbers are declining.
becuase of age mostly

hams are litterly dying off

sc

On 2006-05-25, Slow Code wrote:


to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

I don't think that's entirely true. I'm working for my license.
Learning code, radio and antenna theory, SMT, and every other thing I
can think of. Got an ARRL Handbook ('91), a cheapo hand key, and a G.
West test book. Do I think code should be required? Yes. IMO,
knowing what I'm doing is what being a ham is all about. Knowing code
is part of that. In fact, with the possible spread of BPL, CW may
again become the only way to punch through. If I just wanted to press
a button and yap, I'd buy a CB or a cellphone.

nb

Slow Code wrote:
(Dave Platt) wrote in
:



Reading all you wrote, what you are basically saying is that no one wants
to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

well your posts do tend to show you can't read what anyone write
sc

assraped by an_old_friend wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
(Dave Platt) wrote in
:



Reading all you wrote, what you are basically saying is that no one wants
to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

well your posts do tend to show you can't read what anyone write

Oh, the irony!

Markie Morgan, kb9rqz, proves his illiteracy when he slobbered
in Message-ID: .com:
"Icertainly can so I am not ileiterate"

wrote:
assraped by an_old_friend wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
(Dave Platt) wrote in
:



Reading all you wrote, what you are basically saying is that no one wants
to be a ham now days, so licensing requirements have to be low in order to
help keep our numbers up. They won't work for a license.

well your posts do tend to show you can't read what anyone write

Oh, the irony!
irony just fear the oirignal post s sucha fossil