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 ,
(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."

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

"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.

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

Alun Palmer wrote

BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes

ITU doesn't "require", they only "recommend".

73, Hans, K0HB

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...

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

If you're speaking of the ITU (nee CCITT) headquartered over here in Geneva,
their regulations reads:

S25.9 2) During the course of their transmissions, amateur stations shall
transmit their call sign at short intervals.

In your imaginations perhaps that short interval is 15 minutes. In your YL
imagination it perhaps that short interval is several weeks.

73, Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte

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