A different approach:

Abstract: Much of the current operating practice and licence
requirements for amateur radio appear to be the way that they are
because of the evolution that has taken place over many years since it
was first established. Politics and tradition seem to have had immense
influence over the current state of affairs - with technological
developments coming in a poor third at best. Artifacts of the past
remain 'on the books' for no other reason than things have always been
that way.

Perhaps the most critical way to look at the current code / no code /
easier tests / harder tests deadlock is to ask the question: If the
Amateur Radio Service did not exist, and was being proposed as a new
service in 2003, what would it look like?

Assuming that the same ham bands that we really do have today have
been set aside for the new service:

- What is the overall mandate for the service? (pure hobby, civilian
radio expertise development, emergency services augmentation,
experimentation, etc.)
- What modes would be allowed? (e.g. DSB AM, FM, SSB, CW, Digital
data, Digital audio, etc.)
- Would any modes be restricted or banned? Why?
- What licence classes would be created? Why?
- What privileges would each licence class be granted? Why?
- What theoretical and operating knowledge would be tested? Why?
- What modes would be practically tested? Why?

In each case above, the question 'Why?' pertains to the overall goal
that is being aimed at. If 3 licence classes are proposed, for
example, then what are the specific objectives? (example: higher level
licence can establish and sponsor a club repeater, or build and repair
their own transmitting equipment, etc. - tasks requiring a higher
level of technical and operating knowledge than a lower level
operator).

Vanity, personal preference, tradition and history should not enter in
to the equation - just technical requirements. Think analytically -
its a service being created to fulfil a mandate, the framework is
structured simply to meet that goal. Nothing more. What was
acceptable technical practice in 1910, or 1950, or 1999 is immaterial
for the purpose of this analysis - the benchmark is today, 2003. For
example - if the service was created this year, would we test CW
proficiency? And for what purpose? How about SSTV, or Amtor?

Maybe, by building a model of the service from the ground up using
2003 as a starting point, a picture of what the current service should
become may emerge?

And, in the spirit of Mike's earlier thread, let's try and keep the
mud slinging and name calling out of the equation - please!

73, Leo

Leo wrote

If the Amateur Radio Service did not exist, and
was being proposed as a new service in 2003,
what would it look like?

Your question requires the respondent to accept the false premise that
Amateur Radio is a creation born of regulations. It is in fact a
creation constantly being reborn, evolving over time by the influence
of its' members, and the regulations in force at any given time are at
best a reflection of that influence.

Thus, the notion of creating a "new" Amateur Radio Service out of thin
air without regard to its history is akin to asking "if the
Mississippi River were being invented today, where would it run?"

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Leo wrote:
A different approach:

Abstract: Much of the current operating practice and licence
requirements for amateur radio appear to be the way that they are
because of the evolution that has taken place over many years since it
was first established. Politics and tradition seem to have had immense
influence over the current state of affairs - with technological
developments coming in a poor third at best. Artifacts of the past
remain 'on the books' for no other reason than things have always been
that way.

Perhaps the most critical way to look at the current code / no code /
easier tests / harder tests deadlock is to ask the question: If the
Amateur Radio Service did not exist, and was being proposed as a new
service in 2003, what would it look like?

Assuming that the same ham bands that we really do have today have
been set aside for the new service:

- What is the overall mandate for the service? (pure hobby, civilian
radio expertise development, emergency services augmentation,
experimentation, etc.)
- What modes would be allowed? (e.g. DSB AM, FM, SSB, CW, Digital
data, Digital audio, etc.)
- Would any modes be restricted or banned? Why?
- What licence classes would be created? Why?
- What privileges would each licence class be granted? Why?
- What theoretical and operating knowledge would be tested? Why?
- What modes would be practically tested? Why?

In each case above, the question 'Why?' pertains to the overall goal
that is being aimed at. If 3 licence classes are proposed, for
example, then what are the specific objectives? (example: higher level
licence can establish and sponsor a club repeater, or build and repair
their own transmitting equipment, etc. - tasks requiring a higher
level of technical and operating knowledge than a lower level
operator).

Vanity, personal preference, tradition and history should not enter in
to the equation - just technical requirements. Think analytically -
its a service being created to fulfil a mandate, the framework is
structured simply to meet that goal. Nothing more. What was
acceptable technical practice in 1910, or 1950, or 1999 is immaterial
for the purpose of this analysis - the benchmark is today, 2003. For
example - if the service was created this year, would we test CW
proficiency? And for what purpose? How about SSTV, or Amtor?

Maybe, by building a model of the service from the ground up using
2003 as a starting point, a picture of what the current service should
become may emerge?

And, in the spirit of Mike's earlier thread, let's try and keep the
mud slinging and name calling out of the equation - please!

73, Leo

It won't work, Leo. You can't summarily dismiss over a hundred years
of evolution to blithely "construct" a totally new and ostensibly
improved ARS with the wave of a magic wand. Ham radio has been around
for entirely as long as ANY radio had been here, and even the venerable
Marconi himself often stated that he considered himself to be a ham, and
certainly he was, as was every other individual who experimented on the
with the amazing new science of radio in those times.

Heh heh heh...Guglielmo Marconi an "amateur?!?!?" Hardly. :-)

He went after monetary income as well as patent control as soon
as he managed to get his new radio system practical. Try looking
at Real History, old-timer.

If you look at Leo's proposal (discounting the fact that he still hasn't
identified himself), there's nothing really amiss there. That's his
opinion and he's thought a bit about it.

A newly-constructed ham radio, built entirely from the ground up with
no regard to what has gone before, would look far more like MURS, FRS or
some legimatized version of CB than anything else, with whatever bit of
advanced digital involvement you could find anyone willing to assume.

Yes, it might result in the demise of ham radio AS YOU KNOW IT!

:-)

For the most part it has become clear that most of tne "new age"
advocates would give a pretty small nod to any other than voice modes
that are the main interest of almost everyone who wishes to take that
route. When you know nothing about (or ignore) what's already
there, spread throughout the human race around the planet, how would you
construct anything that took advantage of what is already present and in
wide use, both hardware and operator knowledge/skill? What a collosal waste!

What in the world are you mumbling about in there, old-timer?

So that puts your proposal in the same inbasket with KL7CC's "vision"-
Nothing from the past means anything and don't let's waste our time
pretending it does. At least that conclusion can easily be drawn from
his paper. To follow such a course is to abandon 100 years of MUCH more
than just tradition.

Of course, old-timer, "much" more. Perhaps even your raison d'etre
(reason for being).

Everything must, in your world, remain exactly as it was when you
were young. Forget everything and everyone else.

I'd like to see anyone tell the US Marines they had to disregard
their entire history and start all over again from scratch. Something
on the same order applies here.

So, old-timer, you serve the United States Morse Codists? That's
the USMC, ya know.

History is something that can't be
cast aside just because someone has their own vision and
prefers to ignore it.

Hmmm...sounds like some group of royalty said the same thing
in the years before 1776. Here, have a cup of tea...just in from
the harbor...

You know what happened that year, don't you? :-)

LHA

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

Leo wrote

If the Amateur Radio Service did not exist, and
was being proposed as a new service in 2003,
what would it look like?

Your question requires the respondent to accept the false premise that
Amateur Radio is a creation born of regulations. It is in fact a
creation constantly being reborn, evolving over time by the influence
of its' members, and the regulations in force at any given time are at
best a reflection of that influence.

Thus, the notion of creating a "new" Amateur Radio Service out of thin
air without regard to its history is akin to asking "if the
Mississippi River were being invented today, where would it run?"

Well said, Hans!

I'd add that I doubt something like amateur radio as we know it *could* be
created today, simply because other services would not want to give up *their*
spectrum.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...

: Thus, the notion of creating a "new" Amateur Radio Service out of thin
: air without regard to its history is akin to asking "if the
: Mississippi River were being invented today, where would it run?"

Hansel, you eedjit!

Why does the Mississipi river run south?

Because louisiana sux.

BGO

--
"All persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental, and should not be
construed."

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Leo wrote:
A different approach:

Abstract: Much of the current operating practice and licence
requirements for amateur radio appear to be the way that they are
because of the evolution that has taken place over many years since it
was first established. Politics and tradition seem to have had immense
influence over the current state of affairs - with technological
developments coming in a poor third at best. Artifacts of the past
remain 'on the books' for no other reason than things have always been
that way.

Perhaps the most critical way to look at the current code / no code /
easier tests / harder tests deadlock is to ask the question: If the
Amateur Radio Service did not exist, and was being proposed as a new
service in 2003, what would it look like?

Assuming that the same ham bands that we really do have today have
been set aside for the new service:

- What is the overall mandate for the service? (pure hobby, civilian
radio expertise development, emergency services augmentation,
experimentation, etc.)
- What modes would be allowed? (e.g. DSB AM, FM, SSB, CW, Digital
data, Digital audio, etc.)
- Would any modes be restricted or banned? Why?
- What licence classes would be created? Why?
- What privileges would each licence class be granted? Why?
- What theoretical and operating knowledge would be tested? Why?
- What modes would be practically tested? Why?

In each case above, the question 'Why?' pertains to the overall goal
that is being aimed at. If 3 licence classes are proposed, for
example, then what are the specific objectives? (example: higher level
licence can establish and sponsor a club repeater, or build and repair
their own transmitting equipment, etc. - tasks requiring a higher
level of technical and operating knowledge than a lower level
operator).

Vanity, personal preference, tradition and history should not enter in
to the equation - just technical requirements. Think analytically -
its a service being created to fulfil a mandate, the framework is
structured simply to meet that goal. Nothing more. What was
acceptable technical practice in 1910, or 1950, or 1999 is immaterial
for the purpose of this analysis - the benchmark is today, 2003. For
example - if the service was created this year, would we test CW
proficiency? And for what purpose? How about SSTV, or Amtor?

Maybe, by building a model of the service from the ground up using
2003 as a starting point, a picture of what the current service should
become may emerge?

And, in the spirit of Mike's earlier thread, let's try and keep the
mud slinging and name calling out of the equation - please!

73, Leo



It won't work, Leo. You can't summarily dismiss over a hundred years
of evolution to blithely "construct" a totally new and ostensibly
improved ARS with the wave of a magic wand. Ham radio has been around
for entirely as long as ANY radio had been here, and even the venerable
Marconi himself often stated that he considered himself to be a ham, and
certainly he was, as was every other individual who experimented on the
with the amazing new science of radio in those times.

A newly-constructed ham radio, built entirely from the ground up with
no regard to what has gone before, would look far more like MURS, FRS or
some legimatized version of CB than anything else, with whatever bit of
advanced digital involvement you could find anyone willing to assume.
For the most part it has become clear that most of tne "new age"
advocates would give a pretty small nod to any other than voice modes
that are the main interest of almost everyone who wishes to take that
route. When you know nothing about (or ignore) what's already
there, spread throughout the human race around the planet, how would you
construct anything that took advantage of what is already present and in
wide use, both hardware and operator knowledge/skill? What a collosal
waste!

So that puts your proposal in the same inbasket with KL7CC's "vision"-
Nothing from the past means anything and don't let's waste our time
pretending it does. At least that conclusion can easily be drawn from
his paper. To follow such a course is to abandon 100 years of MUCH more
than just tradition.

I'd like to see anyone tell the US Marines they had to disregard
their entire history and start all over again from scratch. Something
on the same order applies here. History is something that can't be
cast aside just because someone has their own vision and
prefers to ignore it.

Dick


Correct Dick. Just because its new, does not make it better. And I'm not
saying go backwards. Im saying to consider the past progress and learn from
it. Keep history in mind. If our politicians would do that....well, thats
too off topic. But you get my drift.

Dan/W4NTI

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.

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!

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. 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.

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?

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.

My .02, anyway...YMMV!

73, Leo



On 22 Oct 2003 22:15:06 -0700, (Hans K0HB)
wrote:

Leo wrote

If the Amateur Radio Service did not exist, and
was being proposed as a new service in 2003,
what would it look like?

Your question requires the respondent to accept the false premise that
Amateur Radio is a creation born of regulations. It is in fact a
creation constantly being reborn, evolving over time by the influence
of its' members, and the regulations in force at any given time are at
best a reflection of that influence.

Thus, the notion of creating a "new" Amateur Radio Service out of thin
air without regard to its history is akin to asking "if the
Mississippi River were being invented today, where would it run?"

73, de Hans, K0HB

"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

"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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Correct Dick. Just because its new, does not make it better. And I'm not
saying go backwards. Im saying to consider the past progress and learn from
it. Keep history in mind. If our politicians would do that....well, thats
too off topic. But you get my drift.

If one is already backwards, one cannot become more so.

LHA