Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote And it has the unique characteristic that you can't take advantage of it until you have acquired a basic skill level. Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode which you can use without some basic skill level in that mode. 73, Hans, K0HB None of the other modes requires any skill at all beyond connecting the pieces per the diagrams and typing on the keyboard or pushing a mike button. Although typing is a skill, it is not radio specific and the hunt & peck typist gets by. Virtually anyone can put set up & run in an afternoon once they have acquired the equipment. The skill requirement to operate other modes is insignificant. I've operated both RTTY and packet and other digital modes and found them totally boring but I have had experience with them and there simply is no specific skill required. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#162
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "KØHB" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote Hans also seems to be basing his idea on the faulty premise that one must advance in license class to learn..... I don't support that premise at all. Where did you read such off-target drivel? (snip) Well, lets see where I could have gotten that from. First, you propose a non-renewable license with a specific time limit to upgrade to a higher license class. That certainly fits what I said. Second, you justify the entire proposal by claiming the current tests are "not adequate to insure a high level of expertise in new applicants." This introduces the idea of raising the level of learning. And, finally, you set the license test all must take to upgrade at "a difficulty level similar to the current Extra class test." Those three together only suggest one thing - you don't think the lower class operators today re knowledgeable enough, you feel all should be forced to improve on that, and you offer the most difficult license test available today as the sole means to accomplish it. Perhaps you can explain where I'm wrong in that. (snip) My plan calls for a very simplified license structure of a broad-privileged learners permit (snip) The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all. You introduced the proposal by claiming the current tests "are not adequate to insure a high level of expertise in new applicants." But you later propose a greatly simplified test for those new applicants (much more basic than today's Technician test). How can you "insure a high level of expertise in new applicants" by offering a even more simplified test? On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just at a more modest power level of 50watts. (snip) More modest power levels? That 50 watts you propose is 1,450 watts less than what Technicians can use today. That's a pretty significant hit, not a modest one. As for privileges, once the code test is gone, Technicians can gain considerable HF privileges by taking the General written. Your proposal would intentionally take that away by setting the bar to upgrade even higher (the Extra class test). And, if newcomers fail to reach that higher bar, out they go - their non-renewable license is gone. And if this isn't all about assigning newcomers to a subordinate class, why don't you change the names of those new licenses you propose - Class A for the entry license class and Class B for the other license class? As it is, it's clear only someone who has taken an Extra class-like test can be a "Class A" Amateur Radio Operator. It's clear to me that you haven't even taken the time to read the proposal I've made to the FCC. (snip) I've read the proposal and what you've said about the proposal in this newsgroup. I stand by what I've said here and in the previous message. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#163
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dee D. Flint" wrote: Morse code is uniquely necessary. (snip) Saying so doesn't make it true, Dee. Within the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service, and to justify a unique testing requirement, how is Morse code uniquely necessary today? Do remember recreational use is not sufficient enough to justify a unique testing requirement (recreational use is equally applicable to all modes and they don't have a unique testing requirement). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#164
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
None of the other modes requires any skill at all beyond connecting the pieces per the diagrams and typing on the keyboard or pushing a mike button. (snip) Really? You mean all those things I did to get a properly operating station (putting coax and connectors together, waterproofing, antenna tuning, SWR tests, ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a microphone, equipment grounding, lightning protection, RF exposure level estimates, and so on) wasn't really needed and didn't really require any skills to do properly? Well, I guess I'll just forget about all that stuff in the future. (snip) Virtually anyone can put set up & run in an afternoon once they have acquired the equipment. (snip) In an afternoon? You mean I wasted all those days it took to get everything in my station working just right, not counting all the time I've spent fiddling around to get even better performance since then. Well, you're obviously a much more gifted operator than I am. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#165
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote And it has the unique characteristic that you can't take advantage of it until you have acquired a basic skill level. Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode which you can use without some basic skill level in that mode. What's unique is that most people old enough to pass the amateur radio license exams do not already have Morse skills, and will have to learn Morse skills in order to use the mode. But the vast majority of those same people already posess the skills to use other modes. So what it comes down to is that a little serious skill-learning is required to use Morse on the air, except for a very few people who have learned Morse elsewhere. I think that plain, simple fact bothers some of the most vociferous and abusive anti-code-test folks. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#166
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote: None of the other modes requires any skill at all beyond connecting the pieces per the diagrams and typing on the keyboard or pushing a mike button. (snip) Really? You mean all those things I did to get a properly operating station (putting coax and connectors together, waterproofing, antenna tuning, SWR tests, ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a microphone, equipment grounding, lightning protection, RF exposure level estimates, and so on) wasn't really needed and didn't really require any skills to do properly? Not at all. Just that all those things (except RF exposure estimate) were optional and your choice, determined by the technologies you decided to use. And most of them were not on your license tests. You figured out how to do them as a matter of practical necessity, not to pass a test. Well, I guess I'll just forget about all that stuff in the future. (snip) Virtually anyone can put set up & run in an afternoon once they have acquired the equipment. (snip) In an afternoon? You mean I wasted all those days it took to get everything in my station working just right, not counting all the time I've spent fiddling around to get even better performance since then. Well, you're obviously a much more gifted operator than I am. I've set up a complete Field Day station in much less than an afternoon. Again, almost none of the skills needed were on the license tests. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#167
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "KØHB" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote Hans also seems to be basing his idea on the faulty premise that one must advance in license class to learn..... I don't support that premise at all. Where did you read such off-target drivel? (snip) Well, lets see where I could have gotten that from. First, you propose a non-renewable license with a specific time limit to upgrade to a higher license class. Just like the old Novice class license that brought hundreds of thousands of new hams into amateur radio. Hans' proposal recycles that old idea. That certainly fits what I said. Second, you justify the entire proposal by claiming the current tests are "not adequate to insure a high level of expertise in new applicants." This introduces the idea of raising the level of learning. And, finally, you set the license test all must take to upgrade at "a difficulty level similar to the current Extra class test." Those three together only suggest one thing - you don't think the lower class operators today re knowledgeable enough, you feel all should be forced to improve on that, and you offer the most difficult license test available today as the sole means to accomplish it. Perhaps you can explain where I'm wrong in that. Looks right to me. Point is, newcomers would have a decade to do so. (snip) My plan calls for a very simplified license structure of a broad-privileged learners permit (snip) The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all. You introduced the proposal by claiming the current tests "are not adequate to insure a high level of expertise in new applicants." But you later propose a greatly simplified test for those new applicants (much more basic than today's Technician test). How can you "insure a high level of expertise in new applicants" by offering a even more simplified test? The idea isn't that they'll have a high level of expertise right off, but that they'll reach that level through the 'incentive' of having to either upgrade or leave the air. On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just at a more modest power level of 50watts. (snip) More modest power levels? That 50 watts you propose is 1,450 watts less than what Technicians can use today. That's a pretty significant hit, not a modest one. Sure. But at the same time, they will have all frequencies and all modes. That's a pretty significant increase. As for privileges, once the code test is gone, Technicians can gain considerable HF privileges by taking the General written. Right now, Technicians can gain almost all priviliges by passing the General written (only 35 questions) and the 5 wpm code receiving test. Been that way for almost three years. Your proposal would intentionally take that away by setting the bar to upgrade even higher (the Extra class test). And, if newcomers fail to reach that higher bar, out they go - their non-renewable license is gone. Exactly. But they would have 10 years to do it. In the bad old days, a new ham had to pass the old General written (which was split into the Tech and General writtens in 1987) to get a permanent/renewable license of any class. The old Novice was meant as a learning tool, not a permanent license. And if this isn't all about assigning newcomers to a subordinate class, why don't you change the names of those new licenses you propose - Class A for the entry license class and Class B for the other license class? As it is, it's clear only someone who has taken an Extra class-like test can be a "Class A" Amateur Radio Operator. Yup! It's clear to me that you haven't even taken the time to read the proposal I've made to the FCC. (snip) I've read the proposal and what you've said about the proposal in this newsgroup. I stand by what I've said here and in the previous message. I think you missed the major contradiction/paradox of Hans' proposal, Dwight. He proposes a simplified test for the LP license, yet all LPs would be allowed all frequencies and modes. So the simplified test has to be adequate for the LPs to use all freqs and modes - just not full power. How can a simplifed test do that? And if the simplified test *is* adequate, why should the higher-class test require more than the additional stuff needed to run high power? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#168
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote And it has the unique characteristic that you can't take advantage of it until you have acquired a basic skill level. Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode which you can use without some basic skill level in that mode. 73, Hans, K0HB None of the other modes requires any skill at all beyond connecting the pieces per the diagrams and typing on the keyboard or pushing a mike button. Although typing is a skill, it is not radio specific and the hunt & peck typist gets by. Virtually anyone can put set up & run in an afternoon once they have acquired the equipment. One can also use morse code with a "decoding" sheet to send and recieve at very slow speeds, The skill requirement to operate other modes is insignificant. The same can be said for morse...unless you want to operate at other than a basic level. For some reason, this discussion always seems to presume one must be code literate at speeds well above even 5 wpm for code to be useful to anyone. If one can "hunt & peck" via a keyboard, the same can be done for morse using a "cheat sheet" to send and receive morse at slow speeds. I've operated both RTTY and packet and other digital modes and found them totally boring but I have had experience with them and there simply is no specific skill required. Even "hunt & peck" requires an ability to use the keyboard at a very minimal level. You may not think that it is any skill level at all, but it is. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#169
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
KØHB wrote:
On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just at a more modest power level of 50watts. How are you going to enforce that? - Mike KB3EIA - |
#170
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
KØHB wrote:
A straightforward plan is already written and in the hands of the FCC. http://tinyurl.com/wce9 It really isn't too bad a plan, although there are a few weaknesses that are a bit bothersome. That 50 watt limit for the class B license is simply unenforcable, save some sort of training wheel governor device that they would have to put on their transmitters. If you want to put a time limit on upgrading, it really should be a lot shorter, like 3 years. Ten years is simply way too long. The prospective class A Ham almost certainly will upgrade in a year or two. But I still don't like the idea of a forced retirement. It brings up an absurdity like a person that operates exclusivly QRP having to upgrade so that he/she is now allowed to use 1.5 kW. That's all they get. So they are forced to upgrade and spend money for something that means nothing to them - save keeping their license. I really do like the idea of "time in grade". It is one of the best ideas ever abandoned by the FCC. A lifetime grant license? Well, I'm not too sure. I guess it is a pretty good thing. If you don't have to renew it, there aren't processing costs. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |