|
The Pool
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: Actually, Alun, I'd say it was the other way around. The shouting is all overand the test continues until the paperwork is completed. Good one! I thought you'd like it. The unanimously agreed language, now passed through all the commitee levels, makes it optional. Maybe that's a solution for the FCC. Have code tests at 5, 13 and 20 wpm. Just make them optional. I think that would be fine, but I don't think the FCC would go for it. WA2ISE's idea has merit. Might be a way to get widespread support. It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows those countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without it seeming that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also allowing every other country to dump CW teasting. We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more than a year from today. I would think about the same, but surely we should each guess a particular date, and the winner should be whoever is closest. K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Jim,
Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "N2EY" wrote in message ... K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date! 73 de Jim, N2EY --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/03 |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in
: Jim, Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "N2EY" wrote in message ... K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date! 73 de Jim, N2EY --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/03 I'm going for May 1, 2004 |
In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes: Jim, Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :) Nobody has it yet, so it's yours! So far: K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Jim Hampton wrote: Jim, Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :) Dang, you beat me out, Jim! Seems FCC likes April Fools Day when it comes to the ARS. Tha last slam was on April 1, 2000 IFIRC. If you mean the recent restructuring - that was April 15, 2000. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
So far: K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 I think you guys are being too optimistic. Odds are that Anderson won't attempt obtaining an amateur license before sometime in 2011. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote:
N2EY wrote: So far: K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 I think you guys are being too optimistic. Odds are that Anderson won't attempt obtaining an amateur license before sometime in 2011. Never mind. I thought this was the "When will Len Anderson deign amateur radio with his presence" pool. Dave K8MN |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , Alun Palmer writes: It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows those countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without it seeming that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also allowing every other country to dump CW teasting. We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more than a year from today. I would think about the same, but surely we should each guess a particular date, and the winner should be whoever is closest. K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date! 73 de Jim, N2EY OK. So we're picking dates for when the CW requirement (as it exists now) will be dropped? Gosh. I think it's going to take a lot longer than a year. Let's say five years; so, by June of 2008. Heh heh, the real test here is whether many of us will be around RRAP to roundabout on it when it happens, unless it does happen in the short term. Kim W5TIT |
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: Well Kim, the ITU have actually abolished it effective July 5th, 2003. Do you really think it will take the FCC five years to implement? I don't think that even they are that slow! Kim has a point, Alun, but I think 5 years is a bit much. Look how long it took 'em to do the Restructuring. And we're still waiting on some NPRMs. But I'm sticking with the date I posted. Less than a year. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... So far: K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8EPO: Dec 20, 2003 Larry |
In article , "Kim"
writes: We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of "stuff." There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait for treaty ratification. Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to do with how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be. Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil, nada. The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and reversing itself. -- So the big question is: What OTHER changes should be made? 73 de Jim, N2EY WWHD |
"lk" wrote in message
... "N2EY" wrote in message om... So far: K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8EPO: Dec 20, 2003 WA2SI: Sept 13, 2003 Larry -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
N2EY wrote:
The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and reversing itself. If it's the same people in charge at the FCC, yes. |
|
In article , Robert Casey
writes: N2EY wrote: The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and reversing itself. If it's the same people in charge at the FCC, yes. I don't think that's much of a factor, Robert. Look at the history of code testing, and amateur license testing in general, in the USA over the past 28 years. FCC has been slowly nibbling away at it, or trying to, since at least 1975. Little by little, the requirements have been reduced and the tests made easier to pass until now the single remaining test is about as basic as can be made. The only exception is the removal of multiple-choice code tests. I doubt very much that FCC will change direction at this point. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... The pity is that we must go through this again. The amateur community is still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago. Don't let the rantings in this newsgroup serve as an indicator. I hear nothing being discussed on the air and even if a few diehards are ****ed off, they'll either get over it someday or die with their own complaining attitudes. While it's true that I have not even listened to amateur radio in quite a while--probably at least six months anyway--the last time I had a radio on there was still quite frequent "intonations" around here that express dismay and a great divide between longer-licensed amateurs and newer-licensed amateurs. My opinions certainly do not emanate from this newsgroup--I shudder to think that you'd believe that of me, Bill. The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and reversing itself. heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right? The FCC is a government entity=large corporate entity. Right? At least that's the way I see it. I wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity inside the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars on organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less than a year! Here's the question? Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now? WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good answer for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can generally think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just leave it as it is. Kim W5TIT |
wrote in message ...
"Kim W5TIT" writes: It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so populated by people who are so pleased with themselves. . . [snip] Ridiculous. All achievements encourage pride, which in some translates into arrogance. If we beefed up the written tests, and eliminated CW, then the arrogance would remain. It's the nature of the beast. True, there are always those that are arrogant. However, is it possible that the CW testing requirement enhances one's tendency to do that? Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device. . .. [snip] Barriers to entry have their uses. All the best organizations have them. Compare CB radio, which has none. I'd have to see some examples. I was not aware that "filtering" was that widely in use. As amateur radio operators we are ambassadors of the United States. That's just a piece of rhetoric, used to help justify allocation of spectrum by a post-world-war congress. Hams represent only themselves. Well, I don't take it as a piece of rhetoric. I take it seriously. I am happy to have *anyone* in the hobby--even those with not-so-great-operating practices, . . . [snip] Basically agree, depending what "not-so-great" means exactly. :-) Regards, Len. There are those who get all upset over things such as someone saying "10-4" or "turn my house around," etc. Or those that habitually just make a call without checking to see if a freq is in use, etc. Kim W5TIT Sorry so short, but I've seen a few of my posts today that have some error related to being too long... |
"Kim W5TIT" writes:
wrote: ...If we beefed up the written tests, and eliminated CW, then the arrogance would remain. It's the nature of the beast. True, there are always those that are arrogant. However, is it possible that the CW testing requirement enhances one's tendency to do that? I doubt it--people are arrogant that they can drive a stick-shift. I think anything that takes effort to attain, becomes a point of pride--even if it's only the ability to spit into a cup without missing. Barriers to entry have their uses. All the best organizations have them. Compare CB radio, which has none. I'd have to see some examples. I was not aware that "filtering" was that widely in use. They're in very wide use. The Army has physical exams and boot camp. These reflect operational needs, but any DI will tell you that there's more to it than that, and that a primary aspect of boot camp is the hazing. Many organizations use rank in this way; the various scouting organizations, the elks, masons, the Grange, etc. Many organizations, if not most, have an induction process followed by a loyalty oath; the masons again, most religions, fraternities, the Mafia. In the case of fraternities and the like, the induction process involves hazing and tests of loyalty. In the case of religions, the masons, the grange, etc., the induction process involves revealing secrets, along with tests of loyalty. In the case of Mensa, it involves taking an IQ test. (It should be noted that this tiny requirement doesn't do much: most Mensa members never attend a single meeting.) Those organizations that demand various sorts of effort from their members tend to receive the most loyalty. (I remember when CB was pretty clean--even though the required license was a formality. My parents let us use it freely, and the only problem we really saw was congestion.) That's just a piece of rhetoric, used to help justify allocation of spectrum by a post-world-war congress. Hams represent only themselves. Well, I don't take it as a piece of rhetoric. I take it seriously. I'm glad; it can only have a positive impact on one's conduct. Though I wonder what your callsign tells our muslim neighbors about America, ambassador W5TIT? ;-/ Basically agree, depending what "not-so-great" means exactly. :-) There are those who get all upset over things such as someone saying "10-4"... Anyone who says "10-4", and isn't a cop, is a poser[*]. The only correct response is "Roger Dodger, copy that." Regards, Len. [*] Anyone who spells it "poseur", is also a poser. |
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:38:38 -0400, Bill Sohl wrote:
Here's the question? Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now? Because it's the summertime and the chances of some key person in the path being on annual leave (governmentese for "vacation") is higher than any other time except the last two weeks in December. One learns rapidly not to do essential business with any Federal agency between Independence Day and Labor Day and between Thanksgiving and New Years' Day. That's Reality Island. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On 05 Jul 2003 12:23:34 GMT, N2EY wrote:
You think this is bad, Kim, you shoulda heard the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth back in the '60s when "Incentive Licensing" was proposed and enacted. Or the wailing and gnashing of teeth back in 1952 when one couldn't get an Advanced any more.....I had to wait until 1968 to get mine, and that was before the "incentive licensing" splitups started. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
|
"Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:38:38 -0400, Bill Sohl wrote: Here's the question? Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now? Because it's the summertime and the chances of some key person in the path being on annual leave (governmentese for "vacation") is higher than any other time except the last two weeks in December. One learns rapidly not to do essential business with any Federal agency between Independence Day and Labor Day and between Thanksgiving and New Years' Day. That's Reality Island. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Since the gestation period of a Report & Order is one year, what different does it make when you start? As you know, government can move mountains, particular ones they created, but it takes a long time. Larry kc8epo |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... The pity is that we must go through this again. The amateur community is still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago. Don't let the rantings in this newsgroup serve as an indicator. I hear nothing being discussed on the air and even if a few diehards are ****ed off, they'll either get over it someday or die with their own complaining attitudes. While it's true that I have not even listened to amateur radio in quite a while--probably at least six months anyway--the last time I had a radio on there was still quite frequent "intonations" around here that express dismay and a great divide between longer-licensed amateurs and newer-licensed amateurs. My opinions certainly do not emanate from this newsgroup--I shudder to think that you'd believe that of me, Bill. The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and reversing itself. heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right? The FCC is a government entity=large corporate entity. Right? At least that's the way I see it. I wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity inside the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars on organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less than a year! Here's the question? Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now? WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good answer for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can generally think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just leave it as it is. But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the fullest extent possible. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... And, one that disappoints you, I'm sure, Bill. Sorry, but it's my opinion. Kim W5TIT But you didn't answer the question. Should the USA keep Element 1 now that the treaty has changed? Cheers, Bill K2UNK I'm sure you read the post by now, Bill, right? Kim W5TIT |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Here's the question? Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now? WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good answer for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can generally think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just leave it as it is. But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the fullest extent possible. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Going back to the "corporate entity" theory; the FCC would spend more dollars revamping the program than to just stay with it the way it is. And, dropping the CW element wouldn't do a thing in terms of minimizing any R&R, would it? Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Here's the question? Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now? WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good answer for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can generally think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just leave it as it is. But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the fullest extent possible. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Going back to the "corporate entity" theory; the FCC would spend more dollars revamping the program than to just stay with it the way it is. Yey that ISwhat they are paid to do. And, dropping the CW element wouldn't do a thing in terms of minimizing any R&R, would it? Sure it would. It reduces test requirements and avoids processing the Element 1 has been passed data from VECs. More likly than the above, however, will be the movement of other countries to a nocode structure (e.g. UK, Netherlands, and others). It appears...although I don't know the legal detains for those countries, that they may move to nocode within weeks or only a few months. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Kim W5TIT |
"Bill Sohl" writes:
But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the fullest extent possible. If the motivation you state was the _only_ motivation, then ARS would have a pro forma license like 1970s CB radio, or maybe none at all. They have other incentives, too. One is minimizing bad operators who will QRM services in ARS or in other bands. Another may or may not be to discourage participation in ARS and whittle away bandwidth for lucrative reallocation, or at least to keep it small enough that the need for new bandwidth is minimized. Regards, Len. |
"Bill Sohl" writes:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote: And, dropping the CW element wouldn't do a thing in terms of minimizing any R&R, would it? Sure it would. It reduces test requirements and avoids processing the Element 1 has been passed data from VECs. Minimal. As you say, it's just "element 1 has been passed" data. The VECs shoulder all the hassles, and the testee shoulders the expenses. Regards, Len. |
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:23:24 -0400, lk wrote:
Since the gestation period of a Report & Order is one year, what different does it make when you start? That's an anecdotal statement. Perhaps that's the average, but there is nothing that requires any particular minimum or maximum time. If there is enough "oomph" behind it, an R&O can be issued in one day if it's a type that does not require public input. That would have to be a Memorandum Opinion and Order drafted in a quick hurry, of course, but if it's issued under delgated authority it just needs one signature, and even if it's a full Commission MO&O it can be bicycled through the five offices in less than an hour if everything is lined up. I've seen them do that with various administrative matters. As you know, government can move mountains, particular ones they created, but it takes a long time. Except when they want it to be a short time. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Put me down for July 1st, 2004.
-- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "N2EY" wrote in message om... So far: K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 73 de Jim, N2EY |
So far:
WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Kim"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... So far: WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. 73 de Jim, N2EY Just...Kim? I didn't want to risk reviving the "one step closer to extinction" threads, Kim..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Somehow I missed this on the first pass....
"Kim" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim" dont writes: At least that's the way I see it. I wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity inside the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars on organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less than a year! All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving in the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years. Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in sight. Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim? -- Oh goodness, what a loaded question, Wasn't meant to be a loaded question, just a simple inquiry on your opinion. and that is very astute of you (you'll understand that comment much more than many here, I suspect GRIN). I do - and thanks! I don't want to seem like I'm hedging, and I'm a damned good debater, but let me preface my "final answer" with the following: It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so populated by people who are so pleased with themselves and under the apparent impression that a ham radio license includes the authority to gnash and hate anyone different from themselves. I agree there are a few like that, Kim, but in 35+ years I've only encountered a few of them. Maybe there are more where you are. There are certainly more here on rrap than I've encountered in the general ARS population. I would also say that your description could be applied to many different induhviduals, on all sides of the various debates. I believe that CW testing has promulgated such behavior as above. How? It's just a basic test of a simple skill. It is a "governmental approval" for a specific mode, thereby warranting that anyone who has taken and passed this mode test is, somehow, of a higher regard to the FCC and, at least, to fellow hams. If that's true, then the same can be said of the written tests. And vanity callsigns. Or any other accomplishment by an individual. Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device to keep their ideas of "no gooders" out of the hobby--promoting a "good 'ol boy" concept. Maybe where you are. Not around here, or anywhere else I've lived. Some would describe the code test as an "ante" - an initial investment, so to speak. This is attitude is horrendous in a "goodwill" hobby, and displays of it are terribly disturbing to me. As amateur radio operators we are ambassadors of the United States. And, to get so petty as to some of the arguments spoken in this newsgroup, and even more comments I hear on the air, it makes me totally embarrassed to even bring the hobby of ham radio up to anyone any more. I don't hear the sort of argument you describe on the air here in EPA, Kim. In fact, from what I see and hear, the whole code-test thing seems to be pretty well confined to rrap and a few other outlets. Maybe where you are it's different, but among the hams I know, putting someone or a whole group down because of their license class is simply Not Acceptable Behavior. Now, all that given, I respect the tradition of CW. That's good. But it's more than a tradition - it's a very popular mode in the ARS today. Second only to SSB on the amateur HF bands. I would not be surprised if this year it turned out that CW was #1 in total QSOs during FD. Contrary to such people as Dick Carroll and Larry Roll, who go off half-cocked thinking they "know" who someone is based on their dislike of the mode of CW, most of we who are new to the hobby are quite respectful of the tradition of ham radio, and know good talent on CW when we see it--indeed even love to watch someone doing it. Many if not most newcomers are as you describe. But a growing number are not - in fact, there are some who consider it a put-down even to be called newcomers. Yes, I want CW to stay as a testing element and I think 5wpm is sufficient. Excellent! But I'm afraid neither you nor I will get our druthers on this. (I'd be happy with 13 and 20 wpm code tests, actually. 5 wpm was an FCC mistake, made more than 50 years ago). I also think it should be sending OR receiving (not both), and I think that waivers should only be given upon the agreement of 2 doctors that a certain handicap is, indeed, the complaint of any particular individual. I think both sending and receiving should be tested (the two reinforce each other). Medical waivers were simply a quick way for FCC to please Papa Bush and a now-dead King* he wanted to grant a favor. Their implementation was very poor - any MD or DO could write a waiver, regardless of specialty or experience. But speech and language pathologists, occupational therapists, audiologists and other professionals with far more specialized knowledge and experience in disabilities had no standing at all. That makes absolutely no sense and shows that the FCC was simply looking for a quickie solution to a problem. Again,I'm afraid neither you nor I will get our druthers on this. Heck, maybe the Federal Gov't. could even come up with approved doctors--they approve VEs, right? Not gonna happen. The VECs approve the VEs, and the FCC oversees the process. Last thing FCC wants is more admin work, which is exactly what any sort of waiver system generates. Reducing routine admin work is a key FCC goal. That's why all the emphasis on reduced testing, fewer tests and license classes, online renewals and modifications, 10 year licenses, etc. It's the whole reason behind the VEC and QPC systems: Get unpaid volunteers to do the work and provide the services and facilities formerly performed by paid govt. personnel. Brilliant, actually. That's why the smart money approaches FCC with ready-made ideas, at the right time. I hear too many stories of hams who have no business being any class of ham where CW was required--because they DON'T know CW. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you know hams who have forgotten the code? So do I. I also know folks who have forgotten all sorts of things they once had to know to pass various tests, but they don't get their highschool diplomas pinched for it. People such as those mentioned earlier here are reprehensible in their opinion (in *my* opinion GRIN), and it is their behavior that does more to harm ham radio than the choices others make NOT to learn CW or who choose not to use CW once they've passed and exam requirement. Agreed - and folks like that exist on all sides of the codetest debate. Do we really want someone who writes things like "those in the minority should learn to take 'No' for an answer and get on with life"? (It wasn't a pro-code-test person who wrote that). I am happy to have *anyone* in the hobby--even those with not-so-great-operating practices, as long as they are friendly, promote ham radio as a positive experience, and encourage others to simply JOIN, not to GET TO EXTRA. I'm happy to have anyone who follows the rules, pulls their own weight, exhibits a positive attitude towards others, and seeks to learn and grow. What gets forgotten too often is that the license test is just the beginning. 73 de Jim, N2EY * "who made you king? I don't recall voting for you!" - "Dennis" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail |
N2EY wrote:
: If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect, they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter. So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll just axe Element 1, and leave restructuring the written tests to whomever is in charge after 2004. Michael Powell is rather busy these days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves. As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. I think the written tests should be harder, and I think you should re-test when you renew your license. |
wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: : If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect, they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter. So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll just axe Element 1, and leave restructuring the written tests to whomever is in charge after 2004. Michael Powell is rather busy these days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media consolidation. Its important for informed Americans to get their news from as few, controllable sources as possible. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves. Some in Amateurland have always done that. As long as they congregate in PCTA groups and invoke the PCTA double standard, they can insulate themselves from reality. As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. I think the written tests should be harder, and I think you should re-test when you renew your license. I think the written exam material IS "harder," but the format lends itself to less than stellar results in retained knowledge. bb |
So far:
WA2SI: September 13, 2003 KF6TPT: September 29, 2003 KC8EPO: December 31, 2003 K2UNK: January 1, 2004 K2ASP: March 15, 2004 AA2QA: April 1, 2004 N2EY: April 15, 2004 N3KIP: May 1, 2004 KC8PMX: July 1, 2004 K3LT: September 15, 2004 Kim: June 1, 2008 If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message ...
I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect, they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter. That's what the R&O said in 2000, and it was reaffirmed in their dismissal of the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration. So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll just axe Element 1, The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first. and leave restructuring the written tests to whomever is in charge after 2004. Possibly. Or they will simply wait for the ARS to come up with a restructuring proposal. Michael Powell is rather busy these days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves. I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone what the issues are. That's his staff's job. As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular. Learning enough code to pass the test is about as hard as learning to recognize about 40 words in a foreign language. I think the written tests should be harder, That's easily arranged. All you have to do is write up some "harder" questions and answers in multiple-choice format, and submit them to the QPC. There were a bunch of structural changes for the written tests suggested to the FCC back in '99 as part of the restructuring, but they ignored all of them and instead reduced written testing. and I think you should re-test when you renew your license. Nice idea - are you volunteering to be a VE? Because requiring retest upon renewal would just about triple the tresting workload of the VECs. Retesting would be a very tough sell because you would have to convince FCC that there is some sort of serious problem caused by lack of it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote things. They're marked like this: N2EY
KF6TPT (me) wrote things in a prior post. They're marked like this: TPT N2EY The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first. I keep hearing this getting thrown around, and certainly, my civics teacher told me this. However, I can't seem to find any mention in the congressional record of the ratification after WRC-2000. Can someone point me at it? TPT Michael Powell is rather busy these TPT days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media TPT consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food TPT chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in TPT Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves. N2EY I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone N2EY what the issues are. That's his staff's job. That's exactly my point. Chairman Powell (and other high-ranking FCC staff) doesn't need to know or care about the ARS. It makes absolutely no difference to those in charge of the FCC, whether we have a code requirement or not. In this current incarnation of the FCC, I think it's reasonable to say that if code testing doesn't provide a benefit to the FCC, then the FCC will be eliminating it as quickly as they reasonably can. TPT As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. N2EY Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular. I would even just say "Hams use code". But hams use AM, and RTTY, and PSK, and FSK and yes, even phone. Some of us like satellites. Should you have to prove that you're capable of tracking and hearing UO-14 before being granted a license to transmit on 145.975 MHz? Or that you know all 26 phonetics and how to locate your grid square (a useful item for a VHF+ operator to know) CW is the only mode that is -required-. Sure, even hams who never use RTTY had to answer written questions about it... but the difference is, you don't have to get all written questions correct. A person can become at least a General, if not an Extra, without ever answering a question about RTTY... just skip them, and make sure you know the rest of the material. The end of code testing does not mean the end of CW, nor should it. But as far as I'm concerned, CW is just another mode, albeit one with a certain history and artistry to it. With regards to testing, it should have about as much importance as the rest of the modes (i.e. a handful of questions in the pool, and perhaps a reference in the questions on frequency allocations, nothing more, nothing less) N2EY Learning enough code to pass the test is about as hard as N2EY learning to recognize about 40 words in a foreign language. That's not the point. The fact that just about anyone can learn it given enough time and practice really just means that all that is really being tested is a potential ham's level of dedication (and how much free time he's had in the last few months) There are plenty of people out there who will say that testing someone's dedication is a _good_ thing for our hobby. They're the ones that want to keep the "riff-raff" out. Or at least, that's how it seems. I just don't see that. The enforcement actions taken by the FCC don't reflect that either. Many of the people cited for illegal operating practices have taken 13 and 20wpm code tests. What I see is a generation of people to whom technology is second nature. I see hardware engineers and electrical engineers building amazing commercial applications up in the SHF frequencies. Most of these people aren't hams. I don't see them knocking down the doors to come join our ranks, but I don't see us reaching out to them and giving them a reason to join us, either. We're doing just the opposite, not entirely with the code test, but with the attitude that goes with it. I'd love for some of the current high-tech talent to bring their knowledge into the Amateur HF arena. We've seen what happens when we bring them into VHF (I'm thinking about APRS, WSJT/JT44, lots of software DSP stuff). But to do that, we need to change. By telling a 22 year old engineer with a 10-hour a day job and a girlfriend that he needs to spend "just an hour a day" sitting and listening to code on headphones for the next month, we are essentially telling him to get lost. He won't have that kind of free time until he's retired. Plus he's got other methods of global communication, so the overall gee-whiz factor of HF is definitely not as much of a draw as it was years ago. But show the same engineer a PSK31 pileup and his eyes light up. Perhaps he's thinking of a better way to discriminate between the colliding warbles and pull yet another call sign out of the morass. Maybe he's a software engineer. Maybe a DSP guru. Whatever he is, he could be an asset to the ARS, and play a part in enhancing the radio art. But he's probably not very interested in CW. Perhaps he will grow to work CW, perhaps not. But he definitely won't learn it until he has been exposed to other modes of HF. So, under today's rules, he moves on to other things... and we'll never know whether his DSP ideas would work. There was a time when children were frequently exposed to ham radio, but those days are past. Not every EE graduate has a dipole in his attic anymore. The fact is, if the kids and the geeks aren't joining us... something's wrong, and maybe we should fix it. I think that it's time for us to grow up, evolve with the times, welcome newcomers into our ranks, and continue furthering the radio art. -Jeff PS. TPT and I think you should re-test when you renew your license. N2EY Nice idea - are you volunteering to be a VE? Yes. I'd be happy to be a VE. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com