"KØHB" wrote in
hlink.net:


"Leo" wrote

Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

OK, if we can "make believe" that FCC would find it in their heart to
set aside all the valuable spectrum we occupy today "from scratch",
then here is my suggestion for the "New Amateur Radio Rules":

97.1 To get an Amateur Radio license, you are required to pass
a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple
equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of (.....blah,
blah, blah). You will be issued a license and callsign when you
pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when
on the air.

97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna.

97.3 Here are your bands. Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and communicate
and do public service and talk to strangers in far away lands and
launch communications satellites into space and any other cool
technical "radio stuff" you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair.
Deliberate interference, unresolved dirty signals, or other asinine
behavior on your part will cause Riley Hollingsworth to come and
permanently kick your ass off the playground. Have fun.

Love always,
/signed/ FCC




Sounds like a decent set of rules. Put the actual bands down in a separate
schedule, word it a little more formally, and write a petition to go with
it. I'll support it.

73 de N3KIP

BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes, don't
you? It's always been that way, too.

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

As I understand it, the ARS was created in early 20th century to
fulfil a need (to provide a pool of trained operators, I believe, with
experimentation and development mentioned as other objectives). This
mandate has evolved over the years, and maybe it is time to review and
bring it in-line with the requirements and technology of today.

Not really. That was the excuse that was used for the government to save
face. They really wanted to disallow amateur activity altogether when the
various radio services and regulations were initiated (see "200 Meters and
Down"). It took quite a bit of organized lobbying on the part of the
amateurs to maintain a place in the radio spectrum. After World War I, it
took a similar lobbying effort to get the government to allow the resumption
of amateur activity. They had shut it down for the war and it looked as if
they intended to keep it shut down.

Exactly, Dee. And it didn't stop there - amateurs had to fight for recognition
internationally as well, all through the 1920s. Amateur radio was only
recognized as a separate radio service by international regulations in 1927.

The whole concept of "radio for its own sake" evolved over time, and as K0HB so
rightly says, is still evolving. What it evolves into is mostly in the hands of
those who choose to become radio amateurs.

Note that the regulations did not contain any sort of "Basis and Purpose"
statements until 1951, when FCC insisted on writing such into the regs for each
service.

The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists
today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a
clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it
should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time
comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an
example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"!

I am convinced that all the regulators really care about wrt amateur radio is:

- Noninterference with other services
- Orderly on-air behavior by amateurs
- Reasonable level of use of allocated spectrum

Everything else is pretty much up to us.

It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to
survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to
approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like
BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf
without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important!

Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to
TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of
Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today.

Exactly. And it's not just amateur radio that is threatened by BPL.

I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of
arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by
emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that
CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a
great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility
through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a
pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then
OK, good point - maybe it should.

But CW *doesn't* have any *exclusive* band assignments on HF/MF! Not one Hz!

There are lots of reasons to keep CW/Morse testing - and lots of reasons to let
it go. All reasons basically come down to someone's opinion, one way or the
other.

Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't
want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing
so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code
themselves, look like they are going to go along with it.

Maybe.

OTOH, if someone proposes that CW
testing should continue because thats the way its been since the
beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that
statement have to do with today? So what?

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their
internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency
(and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the
departmental VP that something is being done because it has always
been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is
being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes.
Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned
altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this
too.

Sure!

But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up
with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to
function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for
decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not
become a reality. We always need paper documents for something.

Excellent example. Offices today use more paper, not less!

Note that most of the concepts of the computerized office (mouse, graphical
user interface, computer at every desk, networking) came from Xerox's Palo Alto
Research Center (PARC) in the very early 1970s. The folks at Xerox thought
their core business of copiers would wither away as computers took over.....

Often when something is done a certain way, it's not just because "we've always
done it like that" but because of very good reasons that are not immediately
apparent to outsiders - or even insiders.

Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today,
without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a
version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious
problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency
spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an
important service, if we believe that?

Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and
numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service.

Which is why any radio service continues to exist, really.

Of course we should keep the history of the service in mind as we
decide what should define it today. That's an advantage that we have
over those who created it initially - we can see what worked well,
what failed, and what still works - and pick and choose accordingly.
But to argue from a position of emotion, or vanity, or 'what has
always been' - type historical perspectives - that's a fool's game
plan.

Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached
with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what
we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or
knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far
from 20/20.

It's also important to monitor the actual results of changes. For example, back
in April of 2000, code testing was reduced to a single 5 wpm test *and* the
written tests were reduced. Did we get lots more new hams? Nope - in 3-1/2
years, the ARS in the USA has grown by less than 10,000. What we did get was
lots of upgrades by already-licensed hams in the year or so following the rules
changes, then a slowdown to nearly the rates before the changes.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 24 Oct 2003 00:53:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

Sounds like a decent set of rules. Put the actual bands down in a separate
schedule, word it a little more formally, and write a petition to go with
it. I'll support it.

Sounds to me like the "comic book rules" (disguised as "plain
language rules") that the scholars and wonders at the then-new
Consumer Affairs Task Force of the FCC tried to institute in 1976
after their spectacular victory in rewriting Part 95 Subpart D (the
CB Rules) in the same "lowest common denominator" (also known as
"Illiteracy for Dummies") style. They tried running it up the
flagpole and it was resoundingly shot down by both the professional
regulators and the knowledgeable amateur community.

The head of that operation - who up to that time had no idea of what
and how the FCC was supposed to do for a living, much like the
recent crop of appointees and promotees - then tried coming out to
our field office and telling us how we were doing everything all
wrong. In return, we requested that our Bureau Chief do all he
could to ensure that those fools stayed out of our face and off our
property in the future. The person running that operation got the
same message from wherever she visited, and soon left the agency.

"Those who will not learn from history will be doomed to repeat it...."

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Dee,

Thanks for your reply - my comments are in the text below:


On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:21:07 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

As I understand it, the ARS was created in early 20th century to
fulfil a need (to provide a pool of trained operators, I believe, with
experimentation and development mentioned as other objectives). This
mandate has evolved over the years, and maybe it is time to review and
bring it in-line with the requirements and technology of today.


Not really. That was the excuse that was used for the government to save
face. They really wanted to disallow amateur activity altogether when the
various radio services and regulations were initiated (see "200 Meters and
Down"). It took quite a bit of organized lobbying on the part of the
amateurs to maintain a place in the radio spectrum. After World War I, it
took a similar lobbying effort to get the government to allow the resumption
of amateur activity. They had shut it down for the war and it looked as if
they intended to keep it shut down.

Very interesting - I haven't read "200 Meters and Down" - I'll look
for a copy.

However, the regulatory agencies likely see the "trained pool of
operators and experimenters" as the original benchmark for the
service. What I was hoping to stimulate in this thread was some
thought regarding what the goals of the service are relevant to today,
and then use that as a guide to what qualifications and testing are
relevant to meet those goals.

Somehow, it's not working out quite that way....


The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists
today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a
clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it
should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time
comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an
example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"!
It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to
survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to
approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like
BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf
without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important!


Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to
TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of
Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today.

That was one of the points that I was hoping to raise in this
discussion. If it is a pure hobby, it is difficult to justify a lot
of testing and qualification levels. If, however, it is to train
folks to provide 'para-professional' backup to Emergency services,
then the standards would be considerably higher, and qualifications
more easily justifiable.

I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of
arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by
emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that
CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a
great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility
through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a
pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then
OK, good point - maybe it should.

Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't
want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing
so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code
themselves, look like they are going to go along with it.

Seems to be the direction that other administrations around the globe
have gone - and there is indeed a strong push in North America to
usher it out as well. Personally, I have yet to hear an arguement
that would convince me that code testing should remain a mandatory
requirement. I was hoping that someone would come up with a solid
technical or functional reason that would leadd me to believe
otherwise - but there doesn't seem to be one.

Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or
QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment
originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and
commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering
with their signals, and order them to stop. A secondary purpose may
have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur
stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 -
unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW
should assume the same status as the other available operating modes -
permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by
practical examination.

My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to
the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a
logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single
arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary
requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF.
There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and
fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer
quantifiable - but no hard reasons.

Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required
to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a
few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was
any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital
proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to
experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the
individual!

OTOH, if someone proposes that CW
testing should continue because thats the way its been since the
beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that
statement have to do with today? So what?

Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their
internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency
(and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the
departmental VP that something is being done because it has always
been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is
being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes.
Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned
altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this
too.

But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up
with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to
function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for
decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not
become a reality. We always need paper documents for something.

True - errors are certainly possible when re-engineering any complex
process. In fact, the only guaranteed way to avoid error is do do
nothing at all. But, to continue along without occasional review and
adjustment can have much more serious consequences. For example, if
Polaroid had not continually re-invented their processes over the
years, they would still be trying to market their old 'instant
picture' camera and film technology - which would be virtually
unmarketable today, in an era of digital cameras and home photo
printing technology. Those out of sync with progress do not survive.

Our hobby is technologically based, too. By virtue of the fact that it
is a hobby, though, there is no need to retire older technology in
favour of the leading edge stuff (in fact, some hobbies exist because
they are the only place left to find people who share their interest
in the obsolete - Antique Radios, or Steam Trains for example). Why,
however, would we realistically expect newcomers to the hobby to be
forced to learn specific 'niche' areas of this, or any other
avocation? If there is a real need to do so, then OK - make it a
requirement. But, if there isn't - why do it? "Because that's the
way it has always been" is not a reason to do, there must be a
specific benefit to keeping it, or specific hazard if it is
discontinued - complacency won't do the job. We test regulatory
knowledge, because the operator must know the legal limits within
which the station must be operated. We test radio knowledge, because
operators should know enough about how the equipment functions to
ensure that they operate it correctly, and stay within the legal
limits. And the FCC, IC and other worldwide regulatory authorities
tested CW proficiency because it was an ITU requirement for all
amateurs to be proficient in the sending and receiving of CW when
operating on the bands under 30 MHz. Solid reasons for each - reasons
that can change as the world evolves. Without the support of the
underlying reason,


Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today,
without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a
version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious
problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency
spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an
important service, if we believe that?


Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and
numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service.

Exactly - but if we show them that what we're really interested in is
protecting the class structure, hierarchy and outdated traditions of
what is essentially a hobby, we're not going to convince anyone.

I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking,
technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills
to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and
security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions
regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch
of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency
testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do
so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit.

Of course we should keep the history of the service in mind as we
decide what should define it today. That's an advantage that we have
over those who created it initially - we can see what worked well,
what failed, and what still works - and pick and choose accordingly.
But to argue from a position of emotion, or vanity, or 'what has
always been' - type historical perspectives - that's a fool's game
plan.

Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached
with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what
we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or
knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far
from 20/20.

Agreed - but to remain credible, we need to be careful that we don't
overstate the real importance of, and the perpetuation of testing of,
skills that are (outside the hobby itself) obsolete and no longer in
common use. Unless we can come up with some real, tangible,
meassurable benefits of doing so.

Otherwise, it's simply a matter of personal preference!

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

73, Leo

Hans,

I believe that you have missed my point a little bit (!) - it wasn't
to start up a redefinition of the entire hobby all over again, but to
stimulate an introspective look at the validity of the various
arguements ongoing in this group (code / no code, more testing / less
testing, etc.) based on the world as it stands in 2003. Things that
made perfect sense in 1919, or 1941, or 1963 may well be seriously
outdated today, based on the current state of our hobby. Example - In
1930, hams had to build just about all of their own equipment, so
testing them on their ability to hand-draw and analyse radio
schematics made good sense. Otherwise, the bands would be full of
splatter and heterodynes from poorly-crafted transmitters. Now, where
just about everyone is using commercially built transmitting
equipment, that level of detail is no longer of critical importance,
and is no longer tested. To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to
hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just
"the way it's always been". To review using an analytical mindset
might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby -
sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses
Q-signals in comon speech, even though they were only designed for
brevity when using Morse code) - it is a quaint link to the past.

Others, like mandatory CW testing, should be able to stand on their
own merit based on solid reasoning - after all, we are forcing people
to learn it to get in to the hobby (me included - the current price of
admission to HF...) - so there should be a good technical or
procedural reason to do so. This ain't the Masons....:0)

Your rule set is actually a good one - simple, and to the point. If
only people could work within straightforward frameworks like this -
the regulators would be out of business.....

73, Leo

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:03:48 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote

Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

OK, if we can "make believe" that FCC would find it in their heart to set
aside all the valuable spectrum we occupy today "from scratch", then here is
my suggestion for the "New Amateur Radio Rules":

97.1 To get an Amateur Radio license, you are required to pass
a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple
equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of (.....blah,
blah, blah). You will be issued a license and callsign when you
pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when
on the air.

97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna.

97.3 Here are your bands. Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and communicate
and do public service and talk to strangers in far away lands and
launch communications satellites into space and any other cool
technical "radio stuff" you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair.
Deliberate interference, unresolved dirty signals, or other asinine
behavior on your part will cause Riley Hollingsworth to come and
permanently kick your ass off the playground. Have fun.

Love always,
/signed/ FCC

N2EY wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" writes:
Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached
with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what
we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or
knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far
from 20/20.

It's also important to monitor the actual results of changes. For example, back
in April of 2000, code testing was reduced to a single 5 wpm test *and* the
written tests were reduced. Did we get lots more new hams? Nope - in 3-1/2
years, the ARS in the USA has grown by less than 10,000. What we did get was
lots of upgrades by already-licensed hams in the year or so following the rules
changes, then a slowdown to nearly the rates before the changes.

Boy, that's really misleading (though I assume unintentionally). You ask
a rhetorical question about "new hams", but then quote a number (10,000)
which is something else.

In the 41 months since restructuring, about 70,000 new hams have been
licensed. That's an average of 1670 new hams per month. About 10% of
current ARS licensees obtained their license since the April 2000
restructuring.

For comparison, in the 34 months prior to restructuring about 48,000 new
hams were licensed in the ARS. That's an average of about 1410 new hams
per month.

It seems, then, that the rate at which new hams entered the ARS increased
by about 20% after restructuring, and that this increase was sustained for
at least 39 of those 41 months (the last couple of months are suspicious).
Is a 20% increase in the number of new hams due to restructuring not "a lot",
and if not then how much would it have had to increase to be "a lot" in
your view?

Dennis Ferguson

In article , (Dennis
Ferguson) writes:

N2EY wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" writes:
Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached
with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what
we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or
knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far
from 20/20.

It's also important to monitor the actual results of changes. For example,
back
in April of 2000, code testing was reduced to a single 5 wpm test *and* the
written tests were reduced. Did we get lots more new hams? Nope - in 3-1/2
years, the ARS in the USA has grown by less than 10,000. What we did get
was
lots of upgrades by already-licensed hams in the year or so following the
rules
changes, then a slowdown to nearly the rates before the changes.

Boy, that's really misleading (though I assume unintentionally). You ask
a rhetorical question about "new hams", but then quote a number (10,000)
which is something else.

I see your point! I should have written that the overall increase is 10,000.

In the 41 months since restructuring, about 70,000 new hams have been
licensed.

Your source for those figures, please?

That's an average of 1670 new hams per month. About 10% of
current ARS licensees obtained their license since the April 2000
restructuring.

Interesting numbers!

For comparison, in the 34 months prior to restructuring about 48,000 new
hams were licensed in the ARS. That's an average of about 1410 new hams
per month.

It seems, then, that the rate at which new hams entered the ARS increased
by about 20% after restructuring, and that this increase was sustained for
at least 39 of those 41 months (the last couple of months are suspicious).

You mean since July? If so, recall that a new Tech Q&A pool was put in place
July 15. The new pool is quite a bit larger than the old one. This dropoff is
significant because the numbers since July are not just down, they're way down
- below what they were before restructuring. Some have suggested that WRC 2003
may be a factor, but that seems unlikely to me because the class most affected
is the Tech, which has no code test anyway.

Is a 20% increase in the number of new hams due to restructuring not "a lot",
and if not then how much would it have had to increase to be "a lot" in
your view?

My math says an 18% increase but close enough. You have a good point, Dennis -
how much of an increase is significant? I'd say that 18% is significant but not
"a lot". 50% increase (average of 2115 per month) I would call "a lot". Just my
opinion.

Note that besides the elimination of the 13 and 20 wpm code tests, the
restructuring significantly reduced the written exams:

Extra went from 5 exams totalling 190 questions to 3 exams totalling 120
questions
General went from 3 exams totalling 100 questions to 2 exams totalling 70
questions
Tech went from 2 exams totalling 65 questions to a single 35 question exam

How much each of these factors affected the number of new hams is anyone's
guess. Personally, I thought that we'd have much more growth in the past 3
years - I even predicted that we'd be over 700,000 before the end of the last
century. Didn't happen!

One more factor: In early 2001, the first of the Technician licenses that did
not require a code test began to reach the end of their terms.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Leo
writes:

Hans,

I believe that you have missed my point a little bit (!) - it wasn't
to start up a redefinition of the entire hobby all over again, but to
stimulate an introspective look at the validity of the various
arguements ongoing in this group (code / no code, more testing / less
testing, etc.) based on the world as it stands in 2003. Things that
made perfect sense in 1919, or 1941, or 1963 may well be seriously
outdated today, based on the current state of our hobby.

Sounds reasonable, Leo. Different from the "created today" idea but worth a
look.

Devil's Advocate mode = ON

Example - In
1930, hams had to build just about all of their own equipment, so
testing them on their ability to hand-draw and analyse radio
schematics made good sense. Otherwise, the bands would be full of
splatter and heterodynes from poorly-crafted transmitters.

That's one way to look at it. OTOH, in 1930 there *were* problems with
transmitters splattering, chirping, clicking and buzzing all over the bands,
and getting outside the band as well. So it could be argued that the tests were
there to try to cure a problem as well.

Now, where
just about everyone is using commercially built transmitting
equipment, that level of detail is no longer of critical importance,
and is no longer tested.

Drawing schematics as part of the test (in the USA) was removed at least 40
years ago, when FCC went to 100% multiple choice. (1960 or 1961, for amateur
tests up to at least General, which had all privileges at the time.)

To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur
radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a
transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval
or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces.

My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to
hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just
"the way it's always been".

At the same time, it's important to note that things which survive the test of
time often do so for very good reasons.

To review using an analytical mindset
might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby -
sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses
Q-signals in comon speech,

I don't! ;-)

even though they were only designed for
brevity when using Morse code) - it is a quaint link to the past.

Others, like mandatory CW testing, should be able to stand on their
own merit based on solid reasoning - after all, we are forcing people
to learn it to get in to the hobby (me included - the current price of
admission to HF...) - so there should be a good technical or
procedural reason to do so. This ain't the Masons....:0)

Sure - but what constitutes solid reasoning varies from person to person. I
think that the simple fact that hundreds of thousands of hams all over the
world use Morse on the HF ham bands is a solid reason to require at least a
test for skill in the mode at a very basic level - say, 5 wpm. Others disagree.


Your rule set is actually a good one - simple, and to the point. If
only people could work within straightforward frameworks like this -
the regulators would be out of business.....

Agreed! But experience has shown otherwise.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks, Jim - my comments are in the text below.

On 25 Oct 2003 12:29:48 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

Hans,

I believe that you have missed my point a little bit (!) - it wasn't
to start up a redefinition of the entire hobby all over again, but to
stimulate an introspective look at the validity of the various
arguements ongoing in this group (code / no code, more testing / less
testing, etc.) based on the world as it stands in 2003. Things that
made perfect sense in 1919, or 1941, or 1963 may well be seriously
outdated today, based on the current state of our hobby.

Sounds reasonable, Leo. Different from the "created today" idea but worth a
look.

Guess I could have phrased it a bit better in my earlier posts - sorry
for the confusion!


Devil's Advocate mode = ON

That's the spirit!


Example - In
1930, hams had to build just about all of their own equipment, so
testing them on their ability to hand-draw and analyse radio
schematics made good sense. Otherwise, the bands would be full of
splatter and heterodynes from poorly-crafted transmitters.

That's one way to look at it. OTOH, in 1930 there *were* problems with
transmitters splattering, chirping, clicking and buzzing all over the bands,
and getting outside the band as well. So it could be argued that the tests were
there to try to cure a problem as well.

That makes sense - a cause - and - effect relationship is very
possible as well. Strong justification for adding requirements to a
licence test - solving real-time problems. The success of the
additional tests can be measured by the impact on the issue.


Now, where
just about everyone is using commercially built transmitting
equipment, that level of detail is no longer of critical importance,
and is no longer tested.

Drawing schematics as part of the test (in the USA) was removed at least 40
years ago, when FCC went to 100% multiple choice. (1960 or 1961, for amateur
tests up to at least General, which had all privileges at the time.)

They hung on through the mid 60s up here, according to an old licence
manual that I found recently. My point was, though, that rules like
this made sense at one time in the history of the hobby, but later on
(by the 60s, in this example) they were outdated, and retired.

To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur
radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a
transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval
or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces.

Here too - and that is one of the attractions for me, to be able to
try out just about anything on-the-air - experimentation at its best.
(no from-scratch projects yet - just a rebuild of an old Heathkit TX
from the 60s, and a few old military transceivers - I have a WS-19
almost ready to go!) I envy the guys who can build TX equipment from
scratch - my theory is not quite that current - yet.

The only difference up here is that building or repairing amateur
transmitting equipment is restricted to those holding the Advanced
licence (the higher of the two that we currently have). Basic licence
holders must operate commercially built transmitters designed
specifically for use on the amateur bands. The intent id to ensure
that those building or repairing TX equipment have sufficient
theoretical radio knowledge to do it right (theoretically, of course!)
and produce equipment that does not interfere with other users or
transmit out-of-band signals.


My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to
hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just
"the way it's always been".

At the same time, it's important to note that things which survive the test of
time often do so for very good reasons.

True - but some tend to hang on for no reason at all. If there is a
good reason to keep something, then by all means it should be
retained!


To review using an analytical mindset
might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby -
sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses
Q-signals in comon speech,

I don't! ;-)

Oops - there I go generalizing again! Make that 'almost everyone'!
:*p . But even some of the most conservative among us tend to refer
to noise as QRM or QRN, or use QSL to request verification of the
contact at least. The truly devoted (?) say 'Hi Hi" when they want to
indicate laughter - oh well, to each his own...


even though they were only designed for
brevity when using Morse code) - it is a quaint link to the past.

Others, like mandatory CW testing, should be able to stand on their
own merit based on solid reasoning - after all, we are forcing people
to learn it to get in to the hobby (me included - the current price of
admission to HF...) - so there should be a good technical or
procedural reason to do so. This ain't the Masons....:0)

Sure - but what constitutes solid reasoning varies from person to person. I
think that the simple fact that hundreds of thousands of hams all over the
world use Morse on the HF ham bands is a solid reason to require at least a
test for skill in the mode at a very basic level - say, 5 wpm. Others disagree.


I don't think that I would agree that this would be a reason for
testing CW competence - more of a solid reason for keeping CW alive as
an approved mode on the bands. I tend to view making something a
mandatory requirement in order to correct a problem, or ensure
competency to prevent a problem. If CW was not a mandatory
requirement, would people still take the time to learn it? I believe
that they would - those who are interested enough to use it anyway.


Your rule set is actually a good one - simple, and to the point. If
only people could work within straightforward frameworks like this -
the regulators would be out of business.....

Agreed! But experience has shown otherwise.

Very true, unfortunately. One can only imagine a world free of
regulators and lawyers......

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur
radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble
a
transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval
or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces.

Pennsylvania is a "province?!?" :-)

"Build from scratch?" Sure. You got the scratch, Elecraft has the
KIT you can build. All by yourself.

beep, beep

LHA