Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote: You're right. I think that all should be issued Amateur radio licenses at birth. The testing requirements should be changed to "Utilization Encounters" that no longer have test questions, but rather non-competitive non-graded sessions designed to enhance the self esteem of the Amateur Radio operator. The different grading of the tickets would no longer be based on knowledge, but on how good the licensee feels about themselves. Well, responding in an equally sarcastic manner, you're perfectly free to think that if you wish, Mike. However, I think we should have reasonable requirements that are neither too simplistic nor too difficult. Those requirements should address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur Radio without attempts to use them to unfairly exclude others. In my opinion, the current written tests address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur Radio, while the code test does not. What are those "realistic needs and goals", Dwight? We've already proven that no test at all is needed to get on HF and run some fair amount of power. Lot's of CB'ers do it all the time. It doesn't matter that it is illegal to do, that isn't the point. The point is that it didn't take any kind of formalized education or testing process for them to get on the air without doing damage to themselves. But is that what we want? Some people do want just that. Interestingly enough, they applaud the likely elimination of the Morse code test, and will probably agitate for more. (or less depending on how you look at it) That is why it is so critical for the NCTA's to buckle down and get things under control. Dwight, it all depends on what you mean by unnecessary. Necessary and reasonable, both words used throughout my comments, are pretty much self-explanatory. If that doesn't satisfy you, read the paragraph I wrote above. Your definition of necessary and reasonable. You should be trumpeting that from the rafters at every chance. Because some others have a quite different definition. This is why it is so critical for the NCTA's to take up their leadership role NOW. My definition of necessary and reasonable include a test for Morse code. So all the other PCTA's and myself are immediately marginalized and irrelevant. CB'ers are on the air on HF. Many run power, illegal or not. And no one has taken a test to do that. This proves that * you don't need any test at all* to successfully run a station at HF frequencies. But can one do so safely and in compliance with the rules and regulations? Of course not. And that is why the actions of that CB'er is illegal. And it is also why that example is not applicable to ham radio. And reasonable requirements can be anything from a difficult test to no test at all. just depends on who is doing the reasoning. The FCC is doing the reasoning. We're simply agreeing or disagreeing with that reasoning. The ARS can be what we make of it. All is arbitrary, and we have to start with an idea of how adroit we want the typical member to be and go from there. From EE to CB. In that case, why stop with just excluding "dumbed down" people. There is just as many reasons to write rules to exclude the poor. 'Those people' can't buy good radios and the cheap radios owned by 'those people' can cause problems on the ham frequencies. Clearly, we should write rules to get rid of anyone who earns less than $50k. When you start down the path of intentionally excluding others, it has the tendency to go much further then you ever intended. Where on earth did you come up with that one, Dwight? I'd never say such a thing, and I'm a little disappointed you would try to inject that here. Note that there is a big difference between expecting that a person has some level of adroitness and denying them because of some external and irrelevant factor. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
What are those "realistic needs and goals", Dwight? Please, don't waste my time with silly questions like that, Mike. Every ham knows, or should know, that the goals of Amateur Radio are specified in 97.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The needs are that necessary to meet those goals. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Noise and Loops Question | Antenna | |||
Stacking Distance Question. More Information | Antenna | |||
Stupid question G5RV | Antenna | |||
QEI INC. QUINDAR RADIO UNIT TELEMETRY QUESTION got from hamfest | General | |||
Question about attenuators ... | Antenna |