In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

If YOU want to learn and use Morse, fine ... same for anyone else
with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

I want all the technically competent folks we can get ...

"Technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent enough to
use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from scratch, or
something in between?

with homeland
defense spuring increased demand for use of HF frequencies, we need
to increase our numbers to protect our spectrum

Every increase in technical competency requirements works against increased
numbers.

NOTE: I said "technically competent folks" ... I am NOT in the
"ham license in the Cracker Jacks box" camp AT ALL.

Again - "technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent
enough to use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from
scratch, or something in between?

Are the current written tests adequate for the technical competency
requirements of the ARS, or not?

If YOU want to increase your technical competency, fine ... same for anyone
else with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

I just don't believe that forcing folks to learn Morse to get an HF
license is a reasonable requirement.

Yet even if the code test disappears tomorrow, to get an HF license with
reasonable privileges, folks are forced to take a written test that goes beyond
the test required for ALL VHF/UHF privileges. To get all HF/MF privileges,
folks must take two written tests that go far beyond the test required for ALL
VHF/UHF privileges.

Those who want to use it
will have to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in
Morse, but could contribute technically, in public service communications,
etc. should not be excluded because of their lack of interest in Morse.

Those who want to be involved in the technical end of amateur radio will have
to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in technical subjects,
but could contribute technically, in public service communications, etc. should
not be excluded because of their lack of interest in technical subjects.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course. Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.
The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

If YOU want to learn and use Morse, fine ... same for anyone else
with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

I want all the technically competent folks we can get ...

"Technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent
enough to
use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from scratch,
or
something in between?

According to the FCC, competent enough to pass the written tests.
I'd like to see folks even more competent than that, but everyone has
to start somewhere.

with homeland
defense spuring increased demand for use of HF frequencies, we need
to increase our numbers to protect our spectrum

Every increase in technical competency requirements works against
increased
numbers.

NOTE: I said "technically competent folks" ... I am NOT in the
"ham license in the Cracker Jacks box" camp AT ALL.

Again - "technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level?
Competent
enough to use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from
scratch, or something in between?

See above.

Are the current written tests adequate for the technical competency
requirements of the ARS, or not?

That's the FCC's call ... as I said, I'd like to see folks actually learn
more
than the tests require (and would welcome more folks who ALREADY
know more than that, but aren't interested in Morse).

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience. And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows them
to do.

If YOU want to increase your technical competency, fine ... same for
anyone
else with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

I'm not bitching about today's tests ... the only issue I have is that I
think the Tech test is "light" for the power level it allows at frequencies
that can cook meat. Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

I just don't believe that forcing folks to learn Morse to get an HF
license is a reasonable requirement.

Yet even if the code test disappears tomorrow, to get an HF license with
reasonable privileges, folks are forced to take a written test that goes
beyond
the test required for ALL VHF/UHF privileges. To get all HF/MF privileges,
folks must take two written tests that go far beyond the test required
for ALL
VHF/UHF privileges.

Again, I think the Tech test/priv ratio is flawed WRT the power levels
allowed.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio ... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Those who want to use it
will have to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in
Morse, but could contribute technically, in public service
communications,
etc. should not be excluded because of their lack of interest in Morse.

Those who want to be involved in the technical end of amateur radio will
have
to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in technical
subjects,
but could contribute technically, in public service communications, etc.
should
not be excluded because of their lack of interest in technical subjects.

Read your paragraph above ... it's flawed ... how can "those who have no
interest
in technical subjects" "contribute technically" ???

73,
Carl - wk3c

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:45:24 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote:

And since "concensus" is a term totally foreign to ham radio, Bill
Cross himself, the big stick at FCC for ham radio, the guy who makes
all the rules that are rubberstamped by the other otherwise-occupied
staff, will make the new rules for us, himself. He said so at Dayton a
couple years ago.

Hey, that's the way it was done (with the names changed) some 40
years ago when I started sniffing around the FCC to see if I wanted
to work there.

Why should it be different now ?? ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has
ratified
the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part
will
be
a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has
the
USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

But let's pretend...for academic discussion.

IOW, let's speculate.

Just what would you
expect the USA position to be with regard to the New vs Old ITU
treaty if the USA doesn't ratify?

That depends on WHY the USA doesn't ratify, and how the
non-ratification
is
done.

There's only two ways non-ratification can be done:
1. No action is ever taken at all to ratify

Not gonna happen. It's an agenda item for The Congress. Too many other
radio
services involved.

or
2. The vote for ratification fails.

Which, to my knowledge, has never happened before.

Seems to me that the lawyers could argue it either way. Some would
argue
that the USA is no longer bound by treaty provisions of the old treaty
that
don;t appear in the new one, while others could argue the opposite.
Plus
all
sorts of variations.

Arguing for the old treaty makes no sense since the rest
of the world is on the new treaty.

Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, some lawyers somewhere will argue
it.

Remember, ratification, if at all,
is a USA function and the end result of ITU doesn't require
a follow-up ratification process from each administration.

Yet at the same time, if nobody ratifies it, the new treaty means
nothing.

Nobody has to ratify. Many, perhaps most, administrations
simply abide by the new treaty having empowered their
repective delegations to negotiate/participate on their pehalf.

Which simply means they have a different ratification process than the
USA.
They choose their delegates and empower the delegates to ratify at the
convention, rather than afterwards.

The USA has a specific ratification process for ALL
treaties as a matter of USA law.

Exactly. And until that process is carried out, the USA will abide by the
old
treaty.

Note that at the present time, the USA is acting as if the old treaty
is
still
in force.

Actually I disagree. I believe the official posture is that the USA
acknowledges the new treaty but makes no effort to change
USA law/rules until after USA ratification. I don't believe the
FCC has any expectation that the rest of the world is
respecting old treaty obligations.

Allow me to rephrase:

....the USA is still acting *internally* as if the old treaty is still in
force.

IOW, the VEs are still giving code tests, and FCC won't allow any hams to
operate on the HF/MF ham bands unless those hams pass a code test.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Agreed. But as far as FCC rules are concerned, the old treaty is still in
force
in the USA. That's my point.

Fair enough...internally only.
And, as you note above, USA ratification is just a matter of time.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Read your paragraph above ... it's flawed ... how can "those who have no
interest
in technical subjects" "contribute technically" ???

By acting as examples on how not to do things for the rest of the amateur
community ?

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

(massive snippage for sanity's sake)

Allow me to rephrase:

....the USA is still acting *internally* as if the old treaty is still in
force.

IOW, the VEs are still giving code tests, and FCC won't allow any hams to
operate on the HF/MF ham bands unless those hams pass a code test.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Agreed. But as far as FCC rules are concerned, the old treaty is still in
force in the USA. That's my point.

Fair enough...internally only.

Yup - which is 99% of what US hams care about, anyway.

And, as you note above, USA ratification is just a matter of time.

As Carl/WK3C predicted, the whole deal was/is a "slam dunk". Really
just a matter of waiting for the various bureaucratic gears to turn.
I'm predicting that there won't even be an NPRM or NOI on eliminating
the code test, just a neat little MO&O from FCC very soon after the
treaty is ratified. Bye bye Element 1, game over, thank you for
playing. Or maybe FCC will tack it onto the R&O for the petition to
refarm the Novice/Tech+ subbands. Would be ironic as heck: "No more
code tests, Novices and Techs get lots more HF access on 80, 40 and 15
- but they can only use CW/Morse on those bands". Stranger things have
happened.

--

Stuff like code tests, written tests, technical competence, appliance
operating, hi-fi-ssb and license numbers are all red herrings compared
to the real threats to amateur radio, like BPL, CC&Rs, and
enforcement. Those real threats are where we have to focus our
resources and efforts. What good are licenses, tests and technical
competence out the ying-yang if you can't put up a decent antenna for
any band, and the antennas you *can* put up hear nothing but noise?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Removing the CW test does not mean you can no longer use CW ?

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course.

Why do such different levels of knowledge need to be tested? FCC sez a
Tech is qualified to use any authorized mode/power anywhere on the 2
meter band - but nowhere on the 20 meter band. Code test or no code
test. Why does 20 meters require more technical competency than 2
meters? Why does 14.020 require more technical competency than 14.030?

Yes, there's rules, regs and propagation. But the General and Extra
tests cover a lot more than those three things. The written test
system we have now, and which we have had for decades, FORCES more
technical stuff on prospective hams whether they want it, need it, or
plan to use it, or not.

Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.

And many do not. For non-technical types, learning the written
material can require quite a bit of effort. It took me far longer to
learn the written material than the code way back when. Heck, I was
licensed and on the air long before school got around to things like
electricity and basic trigonometry, let alone how even the simplest
radios work.

The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

Call that the "ante" effect.

If YOU want to learn and use Morse, fine ... same for anyone else
with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

I want all the technically competent folks we can get ...

"Technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent
enough to
use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from scratch,
or
something in between?

According to the FCC, competent enough to pass the written tests.

I'd like to see folks even more competent than that, but everyone has
to start somewhere.

So are the current writtens OK with you or not?

And WHY must there be more written testing forced on people just to
have full privileges?

with homeland
defense spuring increased demand for use of HF frequencies, we need
to increase our numbers to protect our spectrum

Every increase in technical competency requirements works against
increased numbers.

NOTE: I said "technically competent folks" ... I am NOT in the
"ham license in the Cracker Jacks box" camp AT ALL.

Again - "technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level?
Competent
enough to use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from
scratch, or something in between?

See above.

Doesn't answer the question.

Are the current written tests adequate for the technical competency
requirements of the ARS, or not?

That's the FCC's call ... as I said, I'd like to see folks actually learn
more
than the tests require (and would welcome more folks who ALREADY
know more than that, but aren't interested in Morse).

We'll see how that works out in a short time, when FCC dumps Element
1. I'm predicting that there won't be an NPRM or NOI or anything like
that. FCC will just do a MOO or equivalent and say "This was all
argued before, the treaty was the one reason to keep Element 1.
Treaty's gone and so is the element. Game over, thank you for
playing". As you predicted, a "slam-dunk".

Biggest unknown is how long it will take The Congress to rubberstamp
the treaty.

btw, you put a date in The Pool yet? (see thread of that name).

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience.

I'm not one of those people.

And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows them
to do.

It is simply human nature not to value highly what is acquired easily.

But let's talk about this "graduation" thing. In a way, a license IS a
"diploma" or "graduation certificate" - it says you have met the
requirements for that level of privileges. It does NOT say you know
everything there is to know about the subjects covered, or that your
education is complete. Just that you met the minimum requirements.

If YOU want to increase your technical competency, fine ... same for
anyone
else with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

I'm not bitching about today's tests ...

Which means you think that it's OK to force more written testing on
everyone else if they want a reasonable-privileges HF license or a
full-privileges HF license. Because when Element 1 disappears,
Elements 3 and 4 will still be there. Sure - they were easy for you ~3
years ago, and their predecessors were easy for me ~33 years ago, but
they're NOT easy for everyone.

the only issue I have is that I
think the Tech test is "light" for the power level it allows at frequencies
that can cook meat.

So you would either beef up (pun intended) the Tech written or lower
the Tech power level. (I think the latter is more reasonable, btw)

Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

Still doesn't explain why we need the Extra, or even most of the
General.

I just don't believe that forcing folks to learn Morse to get an HF
license is a reasonable requirement.

Yet even if the code test disappears tomorrow, to get an HF license with
reasonable privileges, folks are forced to take a written test that goes
beyond
the test required for ALL VHF/UHF privileges. To get all HF/MF privileges,
folks must take two written tests that go far beyond the test required
for ALL
VHF/UHF privileges.

Again, I think the Tech test/priv ratio is flawed WRT the power levels
allowed.

But we're talking about a lot more than the power level. Most hams I
know don't ever run even 10% of the maximum allowed power. The past
two Field Days and Sweepstakes, I've used QRP. Did pretty well, too.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio

Ah - a "carrot" to get them to "jump through the hoop" of more written
testing. Or, to put it another way, it's OK to force people to learn
lots more written-test material, whether or not they are interested,
in order to grant them an HF license, but it's not OK to force people
to learn even a very basic level of Morse code/CW, whether or not they
are interested, in order to grant them an HF license.

Seems like a contradiction, since the Tech written test is obviously
adequate for all VHF/UHF modes and frequencies.

... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Sure - but at the same time, VHF/UHF is where many if not most of the
public safety services are. Interference with those services can
easily cost lives.

FCC sez Techs are technically competent to operate all amateur
VHF/UHF, but not on most amateur HF/MF. Sounds like an artificial,
arbitrary barrier to force those without a technical background to
expend effort learning more technical stuff just to pass the test so
they can get on HF.

Those who want to use it
will have to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in
Morse, but could contribute technically, in public service
communications,
etc. should not be excluded because of their lack of interest in Morse.

Those who want to be involved in the technical end of amateur radio will
have
to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in technical
subjects,
but could contribute technically, in public service communications, etc.
should
not be excluded because of their lack of interest in technical subjects.

Read your paragraph above ... it's flawed ... how can "those who have no
interest
in technical subjects" "contribute technically" ???

You missed the point that they could contribute in public service
communications and other ways. If there is any logical reason to make
ham licenses easier to get, it's so that there are more hams available
for public service comms - 'specially emergency comms.

Example: When the shuttle Columbia blew apart on reentry, it was
amateurs who provided much of the communications between search
parties (according to posts here by people who were there, on the
ground). Neither "technical competency" nor code speed made a bit of
difference then - just operating skills.

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

73 de Jim, N2EY

WWHD

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course.

Why do such different levels of knowledge need to be tested? FCC sez a
Tech is qualified to use any authorized mode/power anywhere on the 2
meter band - but nowhere on the 20 meter band. Code test or no code
test. Why does 20 meters require more technical competency than 2
meters? Why does 14.020 require more technical competency than 14.030?

Yes, there's rules, regs and propagation. But the General and Extra
tests cover a lot more than those three things. The written test
system we have now, and which we have had for decades, FORCES more
technical stuff on prospective hams whether they want it, need it, or
plan to use it, or not.

See 97.1 ... basis and purpose ... the ARS is supposed to promote
technical self-education and experimentation. While it is still sort of
"incentive licensing," using the "carrot" of increased privs on HF is
the FCC's way of promoting that goal.

Also, as I pointed out ... Techs on VHF/UHF stand less of a
chance of causing worldwide interference problems than folks
on HF (and the FCC doesn't like to have to deal with complaints
from other administrations ...)


Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.

And many do not. For non-technical types, learning the written
material can require quite a bit of effort. It took me far longer to
learn the written material than the code way back when. Heck, I was
licensed and on the air long before school got around to things like
electricity and basic trigonometry, let alone how even the simplest
radios work.

However, learning that material at least is in line with 97.1's goals.
Learning how to encode/decode Morse with one's "wetware"
doesn't fall in the same ballpark.

The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

Call that the "ante" effect.

It's not a game of poker ... you either know the material or you don't
and it is not a legitimate purpose of regulation to "make you work xxx
amount to get a license." If someone has to work to learn the material
that's legitimately required, so be it ... if they already know it and don't
have to put forth any (further) effort to learn it, so be it, too.

[snippage]

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the
entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience.

I'm not one of those people.

And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows
them
to do.

It is simply human nature not to value highly what is acquired easily.

I worked hard for many years to gain the technical knowledge and
skills I have ... the fact that I didn't have to put forth additional
effort to pass the extra test doesn't devalue what the license allows
me to do one iota.

But let's talk about this "graduation" thing. In a way, a license IS a
"diploma" or "graduation certificate" - it says you have met the
requirements for that level of privileges. It does NOT say you know
everything there is to know about the subjects covered, or that your
education is complete. Just that you met the minimum requirements.

OK ... goes to the old joke, "What do you call the guy who finished
at the bottom of his class in medical school?" (Doctor)

Hams will have different levels of technical knowledge and skills,
depending on whether they are engineers, plumbers, cab drivers,
etc. (Though there is nothing preventing an interested, intelligent
cab driver from studying on his own and achieving a high level of
technical knowledge and skill.)

So you would either beef up (pun intended) the Tech written or lower
the Tech power level. (I think the latter is more reasonable, btw)

If it were up to me *personally*, I would reduce the power limit for
techs to something around 50W ... those that simply operate commercial
radios wouldn't really be affected, those who have the skill and knowledge
to build higher powered rigs for things like EME, tropscatter, etc. should
have no problem passing at least the General written.

Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

Still doesn't explain why we need the Extra, or even most of the
General.

If you don't get why the FCC uses the "carrot" to promote 97.1
I doubt I can explain it in a way that will cause you to get it.

I strongly suspect that you actually *do* get it, but simply wish
to be contrarian about it because it suits your purpose ... which
appears to be to attempt to justify forcing Morse on everyone
"just because the technical stuff is forced on everyone" (or something
to that effect.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio

Ah - a "carrot" to get them to "jump through the hoop" of more written
testing. Or, to put it another way, it's OK to force people to learn
lots more written-test material, whether or not they are interested,
in order to grant them an HF license, but it's not OK to force people
to learn even a very basic level of Morse code/CW, whether or not they
are interested, in order to grant them an HF license.

Back to 97.1 ...

Seems like a contradiction, since the Tech written test is obviously
adequate for all VHF/UHF modes and frequencies.

... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Sure - but at the same time, VHF/UHF is where many if not most of the
public safety services are. Interference with those services can
easily cost lives.

But I would wager that the vast majority of techs use store-bought rigs
(and with today's interated circuits, SMT manufacturing, etc, they are
generally VERY reliable, statistically-speaking)

[snip]

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

Sounds like sour grapes because your favorite mode is no longer
going to be on government life support.

73,
Carl - wk3c

On 11 Jul 2003 10:59:42 -0700, N2EY wrote:

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

I for one have no problem requiring an applicant for an amateur
license to be well-rounded in radio and electronics, both theory and
operations including regulations.

There was lots of stuff that I was "forced" to learn in all three of
my professions (which I sometimes refer to as shoeshine boy, baggage
handler, and bus washer) but even though I may never use it in my
specialty, it was necessary to learn it in order to be a "well-rounded"
individual who can easily follow and evaluate what specialists in those
other fields say rather than just smiling, nodding my head, and not having
a clue.

Applying it to ham radio, the operator who may be a good traffic
handler but doesn't have a clue about what OET 65 requires of all
ham operators (OK folks, look it up) is going to be behind the
eight-ball if s/he's not in compliance. Ditto for the one who is an
antenna maven but doesn't have a clue about digital communication
protocols and emission masks.

Without the "generalist" background I'd be just another narrow geek.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
"Highball the scanner"