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


"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

[snip

What I find interesting, too, is that the CW/data parts of the bands are

always

referred to as "exclusive CW" with no mention that all of them on HF are

also

shared by data modes. In fact, there is very little mention of data

modes at

all.


Right! It's apparently codified in the code-banner's rulebook- Say nor
do anything that will in any way interfere with The Agenda. And
acknowledging that there are NO exclusive CW HF subbands is a primary
part of it. In fact, it';s clear that they would like to do completely
away with *ll* subbands. Hey, why not SSB yakkers wall to wall, like
it is "uop there" above 27 mhz?

It IS curuois that they jump from "Hey why don't you Luddites get
out of the 19th century and jumo on board our Advanced Digital Train,
to "Lets do away with all subbands and give everyone with the mildest
of itnersts all privileges everywhere to yak into a microphone"!!!

Can you say obfuscation???

Dick,

Can you say "You're distorting the facts"???


Where are any facts distorted, Carl?

Both I and Bill Sohl have repeatedly stated the the ONLY agenda
for NCI is to eliminate the code TEST


Which means that Dick could not have been talking about you, Bill or NCI when
he wrote of a "code-banner's rulebook" - whatever the heck that was supposed to
mean.


... you will notice that NCI's
Petition for Rulemaking doesn't attempt to modify the sub-bands,
expand SSB allotments, or anything of the sort.


Exactly!

This thread is meant to be about that NCVEC paper - particularly the parts that
do *not* involve the code test. Dumping the code test is a completley different
thing from widening the 'phone/image subbands.

The NCVEC paper is not a group controlled by NCI, they are a completely
different entity.

But they ARE a group calling for some things that I find a little
disturbing.

And this IS something I got my chops busted about earlier with what
seemed to me to be a simple statement of fact. I'll state it again
paraphrased:

The removal of the Morse code test is the removal of knowledge required
to get a ARS license. Thos who believe that less knowledge should be
necessary to get a license can only be heartened by this event. There
will be a move towards further reductions in the knowledge needed for a
license.

lessee he

(from NCVEC)
One of the primary goals of the new license we are going to propose
is a true entry-level ticket. Limited power, limited frequencies,
but still useful, with enough of the essence of Amateur Radio to
attract beginners and show them what lies ahead when they upgrade.
Simpler exam. WAIT! - - WAIT! - - WHAT WAS THAT??!!

Yes, I said simpler exam. Hopefully 20 questions. Aimed at a young
person aged 12 or more. That means a 6th grade education. Also fits
teens, high schoolers, home schoolers. You know, fresh ideas, new
blood, people that can actually see their radios without having to
put on glasses – what a concept! 20 questions, simple enough to get
someone started in a responsible way, pointed in the right direction,
all that stuff.

Well what do we have here? A proposal for a simpler exam? Certainly
looks like it.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas. Its even more charming that
this new, fresh blood will be able to see their radios without glasses.
I've worn glasses since I was in second grade.

I guess the NCVEC doesn't really want me to be a ham.

Next:

Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner’s class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named “Communicator” or
simply left as Technician. Let’s assume it gets the name
“Communicator”. All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay for
a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.

That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the NVCVEC)
So, there are no “Morse code haters” on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no “black plan” from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses – what a concept!

and:

A few final words:

There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?


Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn’t that be an odd reason for doing what they are doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

And to make sure that they insult other hams who don't do things like
they think hams should do things:

Oh, pardon me – you always build everything from scratch? Great!
Who, exactly, are you going to talk to? Most of the rest of us opt
for the practical approach, and purchase a rig from one of the several
companies that cater to hams. If there are no manufacturers, then
there are no new rigs. Hard to carry on a QSO if no one is there.

What this has to do with the matter at hand is beyond me, except that I
think that they dont like homebrewers very much.

I'm very impressed that Morse code testing, by extrapolation, is going
to destroy the manufacturers. Talk about your conspiracies!!

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?

My final analysis of this piece is that the authors take a very
condescending and superior tone towards those they disagree with, take a
few gratuitous potshots at some other "outcasts" thay don't like, and
finally, support a radical simplification of the qualifications needed
to get on the air at HF frequencies.

and... and....

(last quote from the article):

Morse will probably retain most of it’s exclusive band segments,
at least for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time.
This may change in the future. Several countries no longer have
exclusive segments, but depend instead on voluntary band plans.
In fact, our 160-meter band works this way today, with surprisingly
few problems.

LIB! there is is! the door is creaking open! here comes the foot.


Back to you Jim

If the 'Novice' subbands are to be 'refarmed', I say they should be reused
primarily for digital modes, unencumbered by most of the occupied bandwidth and
bit/symbol rate limitations of today's rules. Maybe have a flat rule that the
mode has to have occupied bandwidth under, say, 10 kHz. Proper documentation as
already required by FCC rules, of course. Wanna try out some digital voice
ideas, high speed data, "PSK-3100", Pactor 3, or whatever? Just fit 'em into 10
kHz and have fun.

It would be nice if you could stick to the facts, but that doesn't
suit YOUR agenda, does it?


Which facts? Dick didn't accuse you or NCI of anything in that post from what I
can see.

The fact remains that the NCVEC paper contains some inaccuracies like the
reference to "exclusive CW subbands". Another inaccuracy is the claim that the
General and Tech used the same written test up until the Tech lost its code
test
(the writtens were actually split almost 4 years earlier).


[remainder of Dick's inaccurate statements and inuendo deleted]


Unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't talking about you, Carl.

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more. The wheels are
already in motion.

- Mike KB3EIA -

(N2EY) wrote

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

Jim,

Your statement is very misleading. Here is a direct quote from the
document: "...it must be made clear that this document does not in any
way reflect official NCVEC policy, and has not been approved by their
leadership".

In point of fact, it doesn't really matter because the NCVEC is only a
handful of people without any mandate as regards the future of our
service. Some of them (W5YI comes to mind) tend to adopt "official
titles" and use them as a bully pulpit from which to attempt to
advance their personal agendas, but their influence with the
regulators is no more or no less than anyone else.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a need
for more "lebensraum."

OK, I'll bite ... what the hell is "lebensraum" ???

Carl - wk3c

The German word for "living room" -- used by Hitler in Mein Kampf to
justify his plan for the conquest of Russia, as I explained in greater
detail in a previous posting.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a
need
for more "lebensraum."

OK, I'll bite ... what the hell is "lebensraum" ???

Carl - wk3c


"living room"

It was one of the phrases used by Germany to justify it's expansion. Since
it's been a few years since I studies history, I don't recall if it was WWI
or WWII.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

It was WWII, or, more accurately, pre-WWII but post WWI. Hitler used
the term "lebensraum" as his justification for the conquest of Russia in
his book, Mein Kampf. He lusted after Russia's vast expanses of land
area in order to provide "lebensraum," or "living room" (space) for what
he thought should be the rightful expansion of the German nation. His
pursuit of "lebensraum" was one of his more severe acts of hubris during
WWII, which ultimately resulted in his defeat by wasting his military
resources on the second (Russian) front. Had he been willing to settle
for the conquest and control of the whole of Western and Central Europe,
he may have had the forces in place to resist the Allied invasion, and
thus given Germany the time to develop it's own atomic weapons. This,
of course, would have quite a dilemma for the Allies, since Hitler,
madman he was, would have then most likely employed his nuclear
arsenal -- most likely on Russia, England, and possibly the U.S. We,
of course, would have had to nuke him first to prevent that from
happening. Therefore, in a way, Hitler did the rest of the world a favor
in his futile attempt to conquer Russia conventionally. A military
genius he was not. If the Austrian Corporal had been a real General
instead, a lot of us may not be here today.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

Jim,

Your statement is very misleading. Here is a direct quote from the
document: "...it must be made clear that this document does not in any
way reflect official NCVEC policy, and has not been approved by their
leadership".

Thank you for pointing that out, Hans. I apologize for the inaccuracy. I shall
refer to the paper as "the KL7CC paper" from now on, and I urge others to do
the same.

In point of fact, it doesn't really matter because the NCVEC is only a
handful of people without any mandate as regards the future of our
service.

The paper claims to have three authors. Have you read it?

Some of them (W5YI comes to mind) tend to adopt "official
titles" and use them as a bully pulpit from which to attempt to
advance their personal agendas, but their influence with the
regulators is no more or no less than anyone else.

Somehow I will not be surprised if the NCVEC adopts something very similar to
the ideas and attitudes in the KL7CC paper as its official position. They have
already done so wrt code testing.

Thanks for the pointer

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote


The paper claims to have three authors. Have you read it?


The paper claims to have FOUR authors. Yes, I have read it,
apparently more carefully than you have.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Had he been willing to settle
for the conquest and control of the whole of Western and Central Europe,
he may have had the forces in place to resist the Allied invasion, and
thus given Germany the time to develop it's own atomic weapons. This,
of course, would have quite a dilemma for the Allies, since Hitler,
madman he was, would have then most likely employed his nuclear
arsenal -- most likely on Russia, England, and possibly the U.S. We,
of course, would have had to nuke him first to prevent that from
happening. Therefore, in a way, Hitler did the rest of the world a favor
in his futile attempt to conquer Russia conventionally. A military
genius he was not. If the Austrian Corporal had been a real General
instead, a lot of us may not be here today.

Nice theory but some would dispute it thusly:

The big mistake was not the invasion of the Soviet Union, but rather the twin
classic blunders of dividing one's forces and not being logistically prepared.
Had the invaders gone straight for their enemy's capital (Moscow), and been
properly prepared for the winter, the result might well have been very
different.

The German atomic program would not have come up with a workable atomic weapon
for many years (but the Allies did not know that). Look at what it took for the
Manhattan project to make three weapons!. And Germany did not have a delivery
system.

Germany also messed up bigtime by not giving U-boat production and development
top priority and support. Large amounts of their limited naval resources were
wasted on superbattleships like Bismarck and Tirpitz - had they built improved
U-boats with those resources, again the result might well have been very
different.

Then there's the Enigma story...

A good thing they weren't smarter.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote


The paper claims to have three authors. Have you read it?


The paper claims to have FOUR authors. Yes, I have read it,
apparently more carefully than you have.

At the very end, only three people are named - the principal author, "with
assistance from" two others. That's three, last time I checked.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote

At the very end, only three people are named - the
principal author, "with assistance from" two others.
That's three, last time I checked.

Yep, it most soy-tainly am!

And at the beginning of the paper he names himself, W5YI, W3BE, and
W4WW. That's four, last time I checked.

Maybe he's trying to confuse us.

73, Hans, K0HB

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote

At the very end, only three people are named - the
principal author, "with assistance from" two others.
That's three, last time I checked.

Yep, it most soy-tainly am!

HAW!!

And at the beginning of the paper he names himself, W5YI, W3BE, and
W4WW. That's four, last time I checked.

Of course!

But if you read that paragraph carefully, (the one where he names the "Gang of
Four", which is his phrase, not mine), you'll see that the Four named above are
the NCVEC Rules Committee, not necessarily the authors of the paper.

I say it's three, based on the signature.

To-may-to, to-mah-to, what matters is the content. Some very good ideas and
some very bad ideas.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Maybe he's trying to confuse us.