About Us

October 14th 03, 06:25 PM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

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

and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse
testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge
from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a
transceiver for RTTY operation?".

Clearly AH0A can't understand (or accept) that the RTTY example
is "theoretical knowledge" and the Morse test is a test of a mechanical
skill ...

You mean "a practical skill".

No, I meant "mechanical skill." (touch typing would be in the same
category ...)

Both are also practical skills, are they not? Practical as opposed to
theoretical.

If you have a problem with amateur radio license test questions, senior,
I'd suggest you contact the VEC Question Pool Committee. They are
the ones originating the content and on what subjects. FCC no longer
requires a certain percentage of specific subjects in the pool.

What is your point?

Both are valuable to the radio amateur. Whether either should be tested is
a matter of opinion, nothing more.

But if a person has no interest in RTTY, why should that person be
subjected to questions on the subject?

Why can't a ham be trusted to learn about RTTY if/when the desire to use
that mode arises? RTTY is "just another mode", is it not? There's no
requirement for any ham to ever use it.

There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of
THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC,
it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ...

It's just a recommendation, though - not a requirement.

Why such an absolute on "requirement" versus "recommendation?"

ITU-R documents are NOT law per se. Those are common-
agreement items for _administrations_ to consider.

At NO time will there be ANY ITU-R "police officials" arresting
ANYONE for any violations of ITU-R radio regulations or
recommendations, ANY radio service ANYWHERE.

What is your point?

Should the USA not follow ITU-R requirements because there is no
international police to enforce them?

That recommendation is consistent with the basis and purpose
of the ARS, both as defined by the FCC and the ITU.

So is touch typing, knowing Morse code, knowing how to solder, and a whole
bunch of other things.

Is the "basis and purpose of the ARS" all about morse code?

I don't think so, not in any observation of the FCC regulations.

Neither is soldering or touch typing.

While not strictly mandatory, it is provided as "good advice to
administrations" on what sorts of theoretical knowledge hams
should possess.

Sure - but it's just a recommendation.

Irrelevant.

Very relevant.

NO ONE can be arrested for violation of an ITU-R
"regulation."

Should the USA not follow ITU-R requirements because there is no
international police to enforce them?

Quit trying to belabor an irrelevant point.

Quit trying to be the newsgroup moderator.

Can we really say that the questions on RTTY in the current written tests
really assure that hams have theoretical knowledge of RTTY at the level
recommended by M-1544?

And note this:

When I took my most recent ham exam that counted for a license, the only TOR
mode authorized for hams was 60 wpm Baudot code RTTY using FSK or OOK. (Shift
had to be less than 900 Hz, as I recall.

Oh, my. When I first USED teleprinters...NO formal classes, NO test,
just an on-the-job informal explanatin-instruction

So why should amateurs have to pass tests that include questions on
RTTY?

No PSK-31, no packet, no PACTOR or even AMTOR. Not even ASCII!
(long boring irrelevant stuff deleted for brevity)

Back then the power limit was different, repeater rules were very different,
and the 30, 17 or 12 meter bands weren't even a distant dream. The technology
used in most ham rigs was also very different.

"Repeaters" came into being around 1940 in the US military.

Incorrect!

In 1932, W1AWW and W1HMO set up an *amateur radio* repeater near
Springfield, MA on the old 5 meter band. This repeater listened near
60 MHz and transmitted near 56 MHz - inside but near the limits of the
old band. Amateurs from Boston to the Berkshires could communicate
through the system. It used AM but was clearly a repeater.

They
were known as "radio relay" then and for several decades afterwards.

The 1932 *amateur radio* system was referred to as a "Duplex Phone
Radio Relay".

It was written up in QST.

(long boring irrelevant diatribe snipped)

"Repeaters" are certainly nothing new in
technology nor are they of amateur radio origin.

1932. Springfield Massachusetts. W1AWW and W1HMO. 5 meter band. AM
voice.

*Amateur radio*

And the tests we took back then had lots of things in them that are no longer
in the current tests. Neutralization of triode RF power amplifiers, for
example.....

I was successfully operating high-power vacuum tube amplifiers in HF
communications WITHOUT being formally tested and WITHOUT any
formal training in high-power HF transmitters at ADA. On-the-job
verbal instructions sufficed, taking less than a day for explanations
and individual run-through of procedure.

Lucky you.

Now, why should amateurs have to pass tests on any of that?

The workhorse transmitter
at ADA in the 1950s was the BC-339, 1 KW RF output using a
pair of 833 triodes in the final amplifier. Yes, "neutralization" was
required to be observed on the 339 and all the others. Not a problem.
Not a "test subject" nor were there any "legal requirements."

So why should amateurs have to pass tests on any of that?

Since those days long ago, I was given job responsibility to DESIGN
and prototype RF power amplifiers and power sources WITHOUT
any formal testing and WITHOUT any specific formal schooling in
such techniques. At the same time, I was REQUIRED to obey the
current laws on RF emission technical standards for the particular
radio application. Solid-state technology and techniques can be
remarkably DIFFERENT from vacuum tube technology and
techniques.

So why should amateurs have to pass tests on any of that?

Why not just have a basic test on regulations and safety, and leave
the rest up to hams to learn on their own?

In the intervening years, FCC has trusted me (and almost every other ham from
those days who hasn't lost interest) to keep current with amateur radio.

Try reviewing FCC regulations a bit closer, senior.

What's with this "senior" nonsense, Len?

I'm not a "senior". I graduated. And I'm not a senior citizen yet,
either.

What's your point in using such terms of address?

FCC REQUIRES
you (and all others) to emit RF WITHIN technical regulations. That
INCLUDES whatever has become "current" resulting from changes
since an operator was licensed.

It also is a requirement regardless of whether someone is licensed or
not.

So why should amateurs have to pass tests on any of that?

Why not just have a basic test on regulations and safety, and leave
the rest up to hams to learn on their own?

REQUIREMENT. BY LAW. Enforced by United States peace officers,
trial and imprisonment possible.

When was the last time a radio amateur was tried, imprisoned or fined
for a violation caused by emitting RF that did not meet with technical
regulations?

FCC
has renewed almost all of our licenses without question, and we're allowed to
use those new modes and technologies even though we've never passed any tests
on them.

Lucky you. Now, what was your point (if any)?

Quite simple, really, and you've proved it for me. It goes like this:

Why should amateurs have to pass written tests that include subjects
beyond the applicable regulations and safety for the amateur radio
service?

Why are theory subjects *forced* on all prospective amateurs?

Why is additional testing beyond the regulations and safety used a a
"hazing ritual", "hoop jumping exercise" and/or "federally mandated
welfare program"?

If FCC trusts us OTs to learn as we go, why not the new folks?

FCC "trusts" (actually entrusts) the VEC QPC to come up with
questions and answers for the amateur radio license tests. Those
tests apply to ALL ages.

So? What's your point?

I'll challenge ANY of the old-timers to "learn as they go."

I have.

So why should newcomers have to take all those written tests?

Why can't they be trusted to learn as they go, just like I and so many
others have?

That's
what I've done, successfully, during my whole career in radio
and electronics.

But you never learned Morse code and haven't yet obtained an amateur
radio license. Do you have an obsesssion against tests? It seems so.

Some of those same old-timers are still anal
retentive on retention of a morse code test

You're the one whose behavior resembles the referenced body part, Len
;-) ;-)

The subject is written testing, not code testing.

I'd say
those anal retentive old-timers are resisting learning because
they CANNOT learn as they go.

FCC disagrees with you, Len. They trust amateurs (like me, whose first
amateur radio license arrived in the mail exactly 36 years ago today)
to keep on learning as they go. At least enough to know the current
regulations.

Is FCC wrong? They're the "expert agency", remember? FCC is satisfied
with how hams keep up with the requirements. Who are *you* to judge
FCC and hundreds of thousands of radio amateurs?

October 14th 03, 08:10 PM

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

FCC disagrees with you, Len. They trust amateurs (like me, whose first
amateur radio license arrived in the mail exactly 36 years ago today)
to keep on learning as they go. At least enough to know the current
regulations.

There is NO evidence of such implicit "trust" in all of Title 47 C.F.R.,
any radio service.

The Commission is NOT chartered or organized to be a promoter or
booster or provider of emotional sustenance for radio operator license
grantees. Radio serivce regulations of ALL radio serivices do not
expect emotional, nurturing "trust." Regulations REQUIRE obeyance
to the LAW. Disobediance to the law will result in possible arrest,
confinement, equipment seizure, and monetary loss.

Regulations, the LAW, requires ALL involved to be cognizant of
ALL changes which alter relevant LAW. That applies to ALL involved
regardless of their total time of involvement.

No emotional-level "trust" is involved. ALL are EXPECTED to obey
the EXISTING law and ANY changes in that law as it occurs. That is
basic to ALL LAW.

The Federal Communications Commission was created by the United
States Congress through the Communications Act of 1934. That act
of Congress did NOT specifically center on amateur radio nor did it
give any special dispensation in any way to radio amateurs. ALL
civil radio services (non-government, non-military) in the United States
are regulated by the FCC. Regulation of radio services does not involve
"trust." It involves expectation of obeyance of regulations. Failure to
obey regulations will result in governmental action to punish offenders.
All involved with any radio service activity are governed by regulations
applying to that radio service. That is the law. For all.

Try not to redifine basic law or governmental regulation...or attempt
coloring and distortion of personal activities with emotional sugar-coating
of artificial sweetener in a false claim of personal or like-group
dilligence
and responsibility.

Try to stay within one light-year distance of the subject thread instead
of misdirecting into personal pettiness of perceived pompousness
through false claims.

LHA

October 14th 03, 11:34 PM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

FCC disagrees with you, Len. They trust amateurs (like me, whose first
amateur radio license arrived in the mail exactly 36 years ago today)
to keep on learning as they go. At least enough to know the current
regulations.

There is NO evidence of such implicit "trust" in all of Title 47 C.F.R.,
any radio service.

Yes, there is, Len.

It's expressed every time FCC renews an amateur license without
requiring a retest of the licensee.

It's expressed every time an amateur puts a non-certified,
non-type-approved transmitter on the air and uses it legally.

It's expressed every time FCC makes a rules change in the amateur
service but does not require any certification that already-licensed
hams know about the change and will comply with it.

It's expressed in FCC's acceptance of amateurs' use of new modes and
technologies without a lengthy approval process.

It's expressed by the unprecedented freedom amateurs enjoy in choice
of modes, frequencies, power levels, and technologies.

The Commission is NOT chartered or organized to be a promoter or
booster or provider of emotional sustenance for radio operator license
grantees.

Sure they are. Amateur radio is lots of fun. That's why I do it.

In fact, on this 36th anniversary of the arrival of my Novice license,
I'd like to thank the FCC for allowing me to have a tremendous amount
of fun and enjoyment on the amateur bands.

Radio serivce regulations of ALL radio serivices do not
expect emotional, nurturing "trust." Regulations REQUIRE obeyance
to the LAW. Disobediance to the law will result in possible arrest,
confinement, equipment seizure, and monetary loss.

FCC has never done any of that to me. Of course, I've never knowingly
broken any FCC regulations.

Regulations, the LAW, requires ALL involved to be cognizant of
ALL changes which alter relevant LAW. That applies to ALL involved
regardless of their total time of involvement.

Is there a point to all this hollering of yours?

No emotional-level "trust" is involved.

Sure there is. I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling every time FCC renews
or modifies my license, and accepts me at my word that the information
I give them is true and correct. My next renewal is coming up in a few
months - wanna bet FCC trusts me for another 10 years?

I trust FCC and they trust me.

ALL are EXPECTED to obey
the EXISTING law and ANY changes in that law as it occurs.

You mean like not bootlegging?

That is basic to ALL LAW.

Is there a point to your lectures?

The Federal Communications Commission was created by the United
States Congress through the Communications Act of 1934. That act
of Congress did NOT specifically center on amateur radio nor did it
give any special dispensation in any way to radio amateurs. ALL
civil radio services (non-government, non-military) in the United States
are regulated by the FCC. Regulation of radio services does not involve
"trust." It involves expectation of obeyance of regulations. Failure to
obey regulations will result in governmental action to punish offenders.
All involved with any radio service activity are governed by regulations
applying to that radio service. That is the law. For all.

Try not to redifine basic law or governmental regulation...or attempt
coloring and distortion of personal activities with emotional sugar-coating
of artificial sweetener in a false claim of personal or like-group
dilligence and responsibility.

Try to stay within one light-year distance of the subject thread instead
of misdirecting into personal pettiness of perceived pompousness
through false claims.

Gee, Len, why don't you try civil discourse? You know, like Carl
suggested, hoeny instead of vinegar. And maybe a spellchecker? It's
getting harder and harder to tell the difference between your posts
and Bruce's.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us