In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote


Back then, all it took for full privs was 13 wpm code and a ~50
question written test. Has 35 years of incentive licensing made hams
"more technical"? If not, why do we need all those written tests?


Jim,

This old strawman of yours is getting shopworn. Since it's nearly
Halloween, just prop him up next to a pumpkin and see if the children
are impressed when they come for tricks and treats.

Not a strawman, Hans.

What level of written testing would you have if FCC adopts your 2 class
structure?

The purpose of the written test is to determine if an applicant is
qualified to play on our RF playground without hurting themselves or
innocent bystanders, without straying into nearby industrial and
military places, that we know how to share nicely with other players,
and that we recognize practices and conditions which will trash up the
playground.

I agree 100%.

Now, what level of written testing is required to meet that purpose?

And how do we justify any testing or test questions that exceed that purpose?

I invite you to read KL7CC's paper on the AL7FS website and see what NCVEC
thinks about the future - besides code testing.

Take a spin over to AH0A's website and see how the number of new Techs has
dropped since the new Q&A pool was put in place July 15.

Please tell us how we can defend the Extra written test when Generals have the
same bands, modes and power levels.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

snip

1906 - (December 24 & 31) Christmas Eve broadcast of both recorded and
live music and voice from Massachusetts. Signals heard all over North
Atlantic and coastal areas. Inland as far as New York State. Broadcast
*repeated* New Year's Eve.

Quit misdirecting with olde tyme raddio lore.

Quit trying to moderate an unmoderated newsgroup.

Come up with the way anyone can make a spark transmitter
amplitude modulated for intelligible voice or music communication...
using a microphone in the antenna circuit of a 1 KW transmitter.

Why? That's not what Fessenden did.

Come up with the way a spark transmitter suddenly turns into
an Alexanderson Alternator whenever it is brought up in an amateur
radio newsgroup.

That's your game, Len.

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*)
debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met
with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called
for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

That's fine, Carl. You don't have to.

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests.

Neither do I.

I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

Agreed - and we have detailed ways that could be done within the present
system.

I don't mean to come across as condescending, but your attempts
to equate Morse testing's irrelevance to the written tests in an effort
to support continued Morse testing is something I'm getting tired of.

You've got it backwards.

And I'm not going to play that game.

My point is simply this: When someone or some group challenges the *written*
tests - particularly the parts beyond the regulations and safety - how are we
going to defend them from a regulatory point of view? Particularly if they use
the exact same arguments as used against the Morse test?

You and I and many others will say "Those writen tests are relevant and
reasonable". But how can we *prove* it?

Before restructuring, it took 5 written tests totalling 190 questions to get
full privileges. Now it takes 3 writtens totalling 120 questions. Did we lose
anything by that change?

Have you read KL7CC's paper on NCVEC's vision of the future of amateur radio? I
invite you and everyone else to take a look, with particular attention to the
parts other than code testing.

It ain't a pretty vision.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. net...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).
[snip]

The political spectrum is filled with all kinds of people, and what
happens in amateur radio and the world depend on which way the currents
are running. Right now, the currents are simply not running toward a
more technically inclined ARS.

That's not what you see if you read the R&O in 98-143 ... the FCC
states that the ARS is "primarily a technical service" ...

Want to get the Present FCC administration's ears to perk up? Phrase it
in "regulatory" terms. Talk a bit about how modern radio's don't require
the level of regulation that used to be needed for proper operation. I'd
bet that would get them listening. I'm glad you support the continued
testing of ARS candidates. You may need to lend your good name to some
pretty robust efforts to retain the tests soon.

I don't think that will fly ... but if someone does toss it up in the air,
I will make every effort to shoot it down.

One thing to remember ... the ITU Radio Regulations require administrations
to verify the technical qualifications of applicants for amateur radio
licenses.
And, there is an ITU-R Recommendation (M.1544) that outlines the things
that amateurs should have a theoretical knowledge of ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

My point is simply this: When someone or some group challenges the
*written*
tests - particularly the parts beyond the regulations and safety - how are
we
going to defend them from a regulatory point of view? Particularly if they
use
the exact same arguments as used against the Morse test?

Simple ... the FCC has determined that the ARS is "primarily a technical
service." Additionally, the ITU Radio Regs require administrations to
determine the technical qualifications of applicants for amateur licenses
and there is an ITU-R Recommendation (M.1544) that outlines the
theoretical knowledge that amateurs should have ... yes it is not strictly
mandatory, but the US and most other administrations do generally
follow the guidance given by ITU Recommendations, even ones that
are not strictly mandatory.

You and I and many others will say "Those writen tests are relevant and
reasonable". But how can we *prove* it?

By citing the facts above ...

Before restructuring, it took 5 written tests totalling 190 questions to
get
full privileges. Now it takes 3 writtens totalling 120 questions. Did we
lose
anything by that change?

There was some consolidation of testing as a result of the smaller number
of classes. I don't see that as a big deal.

As Ed Hare said over dinner when he was down here last ... he remembers
the 3 page study guide he had to work from when he first got on the air.
Now "Now you're talking" is well over 200 pages of material for folks to
study and absorb ... how this is "dumbing down" is beyond me.

Can we put this one to bed now?

73,
Carl - wk3c

Mike Coslo wrote in message .net...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

Carl, It isn't about you. You know a bit about politics it is obvious.
But you are falling prey to a common malady among politicians.

It isn't about you. You don't support the watering down of the writtens.
That's great, and I agree and support you in that effort 100 percent. I
also support you in your BPL efforts. 100 percent again.

But there are people out there who agree with part of your premise about
the CW test, but not all of it. They don't think that removing the CW
Morse test is enough. They want more. (or less if you wish to look at it
that way) Right now, things are going their way. Maybe not for your
reasons, but they like what they see happening.

The political spectrum is filled with all kinds of people, and what
happens in amateur radio and the world depend on which way the currents
are running. Right now, the currents are simply not running toward a
more technically inclined ARS.

Want to get the Present FCC administration's ears to perk up? Phrase it
in "regulatory" terms. Talk a bit about how modern radio's don't require
the level of regulation that used to be needed for proper operation. I'd
bet that would get them listening. I'm glad you support the continued
testing of ARS candidates. You may need to lend your good name to some
pretty robust efforts to retain the tests soon.

Mike,

Thank you for expressing my concerns much better than I could.

Have you read the NCVEC position paper by KL7CC? It's not just about
code testing. It already proposes a drastically easier entry level
license.

Of course *most* hams will not support reductions in written testing.
But will we have a choice if somebody makes a case in, as you say,
*regulatory* terms?

Here's a scenario for ya. Suppose:

At some point in the near future, FCC just dumps Element 1.

There's a surge in upgrades and new hams. Maybe we reach 700,000 - and
maybe we don't.

Then the growth and upgrade numbers drop back to about what they were
before. Maybe they're a little better, but not a lot.

Some folks say it's all due to that $%#^& code test and those %$&*!
old timers, but after a few years the code test is but a memory and
the old timers are fewer every day.

Then some folks - maybe NCVEC - makes noises about the failure rates
of the *writtens*, the burden of taking and administering the tests,
etc. They point out how few hams use homebrew, how few technical (as
opposed to operating) violations occur in the ARS, and question the
"regulatory purpose" of all those writtens.

And the one 'killer' argument they bring to the table is that Techs
have had full power and mode privs above 30 MHz for years and years
with very few technical problems - so what is the regulatory purpose
of much more written testing for full privs below 30 MHz? Sure, some
regs, some propagation - but why all the rest of the stuff?

How will we counter that argument?

Nobody has yet come up with an answer. And as you point out, there
*are* folks who want more - or less.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Now "Now you're talking" is well over 200 pages of material for folks to
study and absorb ... how this is "dumbing down" is beyond me.

Can we put this one to bed now?

73,
Carl - wk3c

I cant wait to hear Karl cry when the next proposal for Dumbing Down comes
out.

Why should 'B' class license holders take a Morse Test, at any speed, to
become a dinosaur like most, not all, 'A' License holders?

We were good enough to pass the RAE Exam!

Those who wish to use Morse can. I have on CAT but, just for the experience
you understand.

Use it by all means but, do not keep those off the air who enjoy Telephony.

The airwaves are for the use of all those qualified.

What would you rather, the frequency used, or lost, because of an outdated
and backward looking 'elite'

RH (G1EZV)

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

My point is simply this: When someone or some group challenges the
*written*
tests - particularly the parts beyond the regulations and safety - how are
we
going to defend them from a regulatory point of view? Particularly if they
use
the exact same arguments as used against the Morse test?

Simple ... the FCC has determined that the ARS is "primarily a technical
service."

OK, fine!

Now what, exactly, does "primarily a technical service" mean wrt testing? You
and I agree that it means hams should know more than "turn the left knob to 6".
But to someone else it could mean that the tests should only be about the most
basic concepts, and that hams should be free to learn as the need arises.

And remember that what seems basic and simple to engineering types like us can
be advanced and complex to other folks.

Additionally, the ITU Radio Regs require administrations to
determine the technical qualifications of applicants for amateur licenses
and there is an ITU-R Recommendation (M.1544) that outlines the
theoretical knowledge that amateurs should have ... yes it is not strictly
mandatory, but the US and most other administrations do generally
follow the guidance given by ITU Recommendations, even ones that
are not strictly mandatory.

That language leaves M-1544 wide open to an enormous variety of
interpretations. And there's a world of difference between "theoretical
knowledge that amateurs should know" and "subjects that must be tested".

You and I and many others will say "Those written tests are relevant and
reasonable". But how can we *prove* it?

By citing the facts above ...

I hope you are right about that. But any lawyer will tell you that it's all
about interpretations. Like that phrase "pool of trained operators".

Before restructuring, it took 5 written tests totalling 190 questions to
get
full privileges. Now it takes 3 writtens totalling 120 questions. Did we
lose
anything by that change?

There was some consolidation of testing as a result of the smaller number
of classes. I don't see that as a big deal.

OK, fine. Now suppose somebody pushes 2 classes and a total of 60 questions. Or
free upgrades for already licensed hams.

As Ed Hare said over dinner when he was down here last ... he remembers
the 3 page study guide he had to work from when he first got on the air.

That study guide shrinks every time Ed tells that story.

What he doesn't tell you is:

- The study guide was for the old Novice, with its extreme restrictions

- He did not count the pages of regulations in the back of the book that were
also required.

- The study guide was simply a guide to what you should expect to be on the
test, not a complete training manual, nor a complete copy of every possible
test question and answer

- That it's not the size of the book but the level of information in it.

- That Ed had quite a bit of radio background before he ever picked up the
guide.

Now "Now you're talking" is well over 200 pages of material for folks to
study and absorb ... how this is "dumbing down" is beyond me.

Simple - the 200 page book is a complete step-by-step guide to all aspects of
ham radio for the newbie, and includes detailed explanations of every single
question in the pool. The study guide was simply an indicator of what would be
on the test.

A more accurate comparison would be to compare "Now You're Talking" with "How
to Become a Radio Amateur" or "Understanding Amateur Radio".

Can we put this one to bed now?

Let's talk actual examples.

How about this idea, if/when code testing is dropped:

1) Tech is replaced by a new entry level license that (call it "Communicator")

2) Communicator allows most of General CW/data and about half of General voice
bands on HF, plus lots of VHF/UHF

3) Communicator power level is below RF exposure limit (100W below 24 MHz, 50 W
above) and there are no RF exposure or safety questions on the test.

4) No regulations questions on the Communicator test - instead, new
Communicators have to sign a statement that they have provided themselves with
a copy of Part 97 and have read and understood the applicable regs for their
license.

5) All existing Novices are reclassed as Communicators, all existing Techs,
regardless of vintage, get free upgrade to General, all existing Advanceds get
free upgrade to Extra.

6) Present Novice subbands - all of them - become more voice/image space.

I'm not the one proposing this.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable.

True.

Now explain why hams know how to use "other modes" when there isn't
a profeciency test to MAKE them do it in the first place.

Clint

Some forgot where they put their microphones.

Brian, I think some of them forgot where they put their minds...

LHA

Len, I think in both cases they're sitting on them.

....suffocating!