Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#32
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just WHY should there be testing for a ham license? Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is a requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource, sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#33
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bill Sohl" wrote in
: "Penny Traytion" wrote in message ... Bert Craig wrote: Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For all intents and purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next? No Test International. WRONG... NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address... and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support of any other NCI directors. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Director NCI Switzerland down, how many to go? BTW, apparently the Swiss no-coders are HB3 calls, a new one for WPX |
#34
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in : "Penny Traytion" wrote in message ... Bert Craig wrote: Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For all intents and purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next? No Test International. WRONG... NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address... and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support of any other NCI directors. Bill K2UNK, Director NCI Switzerland down, how many to go? About 150 or so by my count :-) Ironically, as commented elsewhere by Phil Karn, the USA treaty approval process may resut in the USA being one of the last to actually change. BTW, apparently the Swiss no-coders are HB3 calls, a new one for WPX So it appears. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#35
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Hans K0HB" writes:
"Mike Coslo" wrote: Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just WHY should there be testing for a ham license? Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare"... Very well said. In other words, spectrum is a limited resource, like water, and unlike printed matter, and is therefore protected similarly to our lakes and streams. Regards, Len. |
#36
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Bill Sohl wrote: "Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just WHY should there be testing for a ham license? Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is a requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource, sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on public highways. 73, de Hans, K0HB Well said Hans. Well said indeed, but what if enough people just reject that logic? What if it is decided that the licenses just need to be bought? Say 200 bucks a shot? Or maybe a yearly sort of thing. Why have any other qualifications for the license? - Mike KB3EIA - |
#37
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Penny Traytion" wrote in message ... Bert Craig wrote: Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For all intents and purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next? No Test International. WRONG... NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address... and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support of any other NCI directors. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Director NCI Bill is exactly correct ... NCI is NOT "No Test International" ... we have NO intention of trying to weaken or eliminate the written tests ... ONLY to eliminate the Morse test requirement. Now that that's gone from the ITU Radio Regulations (effective July 5, 2003, the day after the WRC closed), administrations are free to drop Morse testing. (see http://www.nocode.org/Articles.html for the changes to S25.5 and the entire text of the new Article 25 ... the amateur part of the ITU Radio Regs) Word is that a number of administrations intend to move promptly (surprisingly promptly for governments ...) to eliminate Morse testing from their national rules. NCI's work is not done just because the ITU requirement has been eliminated. We will continue to work with administrations around the world to get the Morse test dropped from national regulations. 73, -- Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c Grid Square FN20fm http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c ------------------------------------------------------ NCI-1052 Executive Director, No Code International Fellow, The Radio Club of America Senior Member, IEEE Member, IEEE Standards Association Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee Member, QCWA (31424) Member, ARRL Member, TAPR Member, The SETI League ------------------------------------------------------ Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century. Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio. http://www.nocode.org |
#38
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo writes:
Perhaps Hams and anyone who want to be a ham should have to pay for the spectrum we want. Pay who? Where is the owner? Milton Friedman, in his work "Free to Choose", would argue that this is a case, like the case of "clean air", which could properly be assigned to government: there is a clear public interest in conserving this resource, but no clear way to allocate costs. He would probably propose a consumption tax, based on bandwidth, power, duty cycle, etc., which automatically allocates bandwidth (in the long run) according to its most profitable use: if the people badly want a service which consumes piles of bandwidth over a vast area for most of the time, then they would pay enough to offset the immense consumption tax on the provider. Of course, the effect is that hams will all start using CW. C'mon! You can pay tax on 150 Hz, or pay over 20 times as much for SSB. CW wins, hands down. Regards, Len. |
#39
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "Penny Traytion" wrote in message ... Bert Craig wrote: Now that the ITU treaty requirement re. CW is gone, (For all intents and purposes.) does that mean NCI's job is done? If not, what's next? No Test International. WRONG... NCI still has the individual administration decisions to address... and for the uninformed... NCI's charter does NOT address written testing. If anyone is going to propose a "No Test International" they'll not get my support nor (IMHO) the support of any other NCI directors. Assuming success, what then? A big party and then disbandment? - Mike KB3EIA - |
#40
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Dan/W4NTI" writes: Their next step should be joining up with a terrorist group. They could be used as human bombs. Dan/W4NTI The problem with that is, if Carl Stevenson's brain were composed of Semtex, he couldn't blow his nose! 73 de Larry, K3LT Larry, Sure sounds like sour grapes to me. Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the US delegation? Seems pretty respected in ITU circles to me. Blather, he was just another observer with some commercial interest group he's involved with, had absolutely nothing to do with ham radio, not even close. Cheers, Bill K2UNK w3rv |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|