Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#191
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article k.net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: snippage 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. Just because an idea was old, doesn't mean it wasn't bad! 8^) Watta concept! Thought you would like that..... I would have to suspect that the old Novice non-renewable was probably to allow the prospective "permanent" ham to hone his or her Morse CW skills rather than learn the writtens of the time. You suspect wrong! The old Novice was meant as a learner's permit for both the code and written - in fact, more for the written than the code. A Novice could upgrade to Tech with no more written skills (both licenses always required just 5 wpm code). But upgrading to *any* permanent/renewable license required the General/Tech/Conditional written test, which was much more involved than the old Novice written. The old Novice privileges included 2 meters (145-147 MHz) code and AM voice (until 1967). The idea was that some Novices would go on to General and others to Tech, depending on whether they were primarily interested in HF or VHF. Perhaps I am looking at it from a different view, because of my difficulties with Morse, but from what I've seen, the new tests aren't that hard - and well, what I've been able to glean is that the old tests were'nt that har either. So I may be a prejudiced observer. But how many people needed all that time to prepare for the writtens? And wasn't the General 12 wpm? So the big question is what is going to be different about this new class gap that ten years is an appropriate time lag. The idea is that the jump will be all the way to Extra-level written testing. The ten-year term is meant to be a generous allotment of time, plus the current license term is ten years. For a hobby, ten years is just too long a time. If there are going to be limits, they should be reasonable ones. Why is 10 years unreasonable? I recall Hans saying that if someone can't or won't reach the level required for a full-privs license in 10 years, they probably aren't that interested. (Correct me if I'm mistaken on that, Hans). Because they will probably be disinterested a lot sooner than ten years. Why not three? Why not one? Why not make the sorry you're out date the same time as the time in grade? 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 how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses. Hans' proposal would not affect any existing hams' privileges. Those with existing licenses other than Extra could keep them, renew them and modify them as long as they retain interest. Existing Techs could stay Tech forever - no problem. It is most *certainly* a problem with new hams who have the same goals as those who are happy being technicians now. So we get rid of Morse code because of the poor souls who are kept out of it because it is there, and then we force them to upgrade because of why? We kick them out because of why? And there it is. WHY? If a ham is perfectly capable of operating on HF at 10 years licensing, whay is he/she not qualified at 10 years and one day? WHY? It's arbitrary, and unfair. and in the end, a touch absurd. A forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person that only does public events, and uses the local repeater once in a while is not going to be very popular with them. And "they" are a pretty large percentage. Yes of course that is among people already licensed, but my point is that this proposal is very HF-centric. They wouldn't have to change anything. But it only applies to existing hams. Newbies might get ticked off that the same options weren't open to them. Uh-huh! The old Techs get to keep their licenses forever, (do they have to reregister after ten years, or are they techs forever with no renewal if they want to be) but the new class B's are this long-term one-shot deal. And if the simplified test *is* adequate, why should the higher-class test require more than the additional stuff needed to run high power? And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws. What stops me from running 5 kW? or more than the allowed power on 30 meters or the Novice bands? Go ahead and fire up that 5kW station! I bet you can be found fairly quickly. But seriously, the really big difference is that for you to run 5 kW, you have to do something above and beyond the ordinary, like put together or purchase an amplifier, tuner, and the like. Class B person simply has to turn that little RF power knob up past 50 watts. Perhaps the manufacturers will be forced to limit the output power to 50 watts? - Mike KB3EIA - |
#192
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: 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. Why would it be any more complex than what we have now? And in the old days, there was no big deal about enforcing Novices' use of no more than 75 watts input and crystal control. I think the old days were a bit different than today. I don't think that people drove thier cars 30-35 miles per hour over the speed limit as a routine thing. We just opend a new double laned road in the area. Has a 40 mph speed limit. The first day, there were something like ten people pulled over for going 75 mph and up on it. The local bypass is 55. I am regularly passed by cars going 100 mph. At least twice every trip. I'm going 70 and I'm a target. Going the speed limit is tantamount to suicide. My point is that if the radio can do 100 watts, that's where they are going to put it. And that being the case, forgo the useless regulation. 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. Maybe not! Look how many Tech Pluses are still on the books today, even though for the past 42 months they've been able to upgrade with just a single written - or in many cases, no test at all. And the number of Tech Pluses has also been dropping by renewals as Techs..... And this hurts what? 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. The same was true in the old days if a ham simply wanted to operate in the Novice bands with xtal control and 75 watts... Perhaps, but it doesn't make it any less absurd. When incentive licensing was reinstituted in 1968, a lot of hams had to upgrade just to do what they'd been doing for years. Is this like 3 lefts make a right? 8^) I really do like the idea of "time in grade". It is one of the best ideas ever abandoned by the FCC. Me too, but it's an uphill climb to get it back. 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. The big problem is that the license won't expire even if its holder does. The database will contain more and more entries of long-dead or lost-interest hams. True enough, kind of like JA Perhaps that's part of Hans' plan - the number of hams with that class of license will grow and grow and grow... FCC will cancel a license if proper paperwork is done. Usually this takes the form of a family member sending in a death certificate so that the SK's call can be reassigned to a friend, club or relative. Given the 10 year license term and such things as online renewal, I don't see renewal costs as a big line item in the FCC budget. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#193
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Coslo" wrote
And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses. And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license. A forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person that only does public events, and uses the local repeater once in a while is not going to be very popular with them. I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free to renew their current license. And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws. There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current 200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on 219-220MHz? How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!! (I quit using the word 'stupid'.) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#194
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dwight Stewart" wrote
you feel all should be forced to improve on that Nope, not at all. Under my proposal you'd be free to keep renewing your Technician (what a misnomer!) license until you assume room temperature. The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all. 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. Technicians could continue to renew their current license until they assume room temperature. As for privileges, once the code test is gone, Technicians can gain considerable HF privileges by taking the General written. My proposal would allow them a transition period to do just that. Then they could continue to renew their no-code General test until they assumed room temperature. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#195
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes: Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, (snip) You're avoiding my question, Dwight. No, you just don't like the answer given. If anything, I'm ignoring a fanciful, long-winded, exchange that cannot add anything of real substance to the discussion about Morse code testing (see below). Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim? Yes. The point is that some folks apply a double standard when deciding which tests to keep and which to get rid of. The only double standard that exists is not having the same testing for all operating modes. Unless there is a justification to do otherwise, either have skill testing for all modes or no skill testing for any mode. There is no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code. That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements. As such, the unique Morse code test should be eliminated. Not willing to accept that, you ignore the obvious double standard and instead try conjure up an imaginary double standard relating to the written tests. No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their contents, serve a valid purpose today. None here, including you, have said otherwise. The same cannot be said about the Morse code test. With all that in mind, I have no desire to engage in a fanciful discussion about the contents of the written tests, especially when that discussion cannot possibly lead to a valid point - no conflict or double standard exists concerning the written tests. As such, I've ignored the rest of your message and have instead addressed the specific point you've acknowledged trying to make. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#196
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 There's no cheat sheet for learning Morse code. If and when someone decideds to do it, they must rise up off their kiester and "learn" it. Herein lies the burr in the saddle. No matter how much more difficult the writtens become, as long as the Q&A pool are published, passing a written element will continue to require no more than a study guide and a highlighter...and perhaps a day or two of "study." Notice I didn't say "learn" the material in order to pass. This is why some folks consider it a filter. It's been said it filters out lids, CBers, etc...but in reality, it only filters out those who are not motivated enough to make the effort in the first place. Decode Morse code with a decoding chart at very slode speeds? Possible...not realistic, but possible. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
#197
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Alun" wrote in message ... What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have the desire to use the skill. Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that you're already aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm Elemnt 1 test does NOT leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It only gives one a taste so that one may make an educated choice as to whether or not they wish to persue CW any further. The majority of newbies I've worked sent at approx. 8 to 10-wpm. (That's right, just below the plateau.) We seem to gravitate to one another. Ok, the Novice/Tech"+" sub-bands help bring us together. My point is that those who actually get OTA are putting in more effort than needed just to pass Element 1. Those who pass Element 1 and wish to go no further with CW have made a truly educated dicision because they now have a little "practical" experience with the mode under their belt on which to base their decision...and are not just simply talking from their @$$! Learning the theory of modes you don't want to use is not too onerous, but having to pass a typing test to use phone would be just as annoying and stupid as having to pass a code test to use phone, for example. Besides, having to know about other modes is reasonable, but actually learning to use them is another matter. As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the issue...the having to really learn it is. Do away with the published Q&A pools and watch the whining escalate. Also, if I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty, but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance. You may have just touched on a selling point for CW. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
#198
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) Again keep in mind that I have said Morse is necessary. While I happen to believe that testing should be maintained that is NOT the point I am debating at this time and you keep trying to drag it back to testing. I am stating that Morse code itself is necessary. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were not for the code testing debate, Dee. That is why this mode is being discussed as opposed to some other mode or discussions about the weather. I've acknowledged that Morse code is enjoyable, entertaining, useful, and perhaps even necessary for you to make some of the contacts you want to make. But we're not just talking about you or the contacts you want to make. Your communications are recreational or avocational in nature, not a necessity. And, as long as your communications are not necessary, your use of Morse code in those communications is not necessary. This brings us back to the code testing debate. If Morse code is not necessary to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service today, Morse code testing should be eliminated. The _use_ of Morse code not an issue here. You will still be able to use that mode when you find it necessary to make the contacts you want. Others will still be able to learn code if they want. But the test itself, as a license requirement, should end. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#199
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
#200
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote: (snip) 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. (snip) Actually, most of them (coax, connectors, antenna tuning, SWR tests, equipment grounding, lightning protection, and RF exposure level estimates) were in the Novice/Technician question pool I studied (7/1/97~7/1/01 version). Just glancing through the question pool, here are some of the related questions I stumbled across... N4A06 ~ N4A11 - Station & antenna grounding T4A08 ~ T4A16 - Station & antenna grounding N4C01 ~ N4C11 - SWR measurements T9B09 ~ T9B12 - SWR measurements N4A04 ~ N4A05 - Lightning protection N9A09 ~ N9A13 - Antenna tuning N9C01 ~ N9C12 - Feed lines (coax and others) T9C01 ~ T9C03 - Connectors N0B01 ~ N0C27 - RF Safety (exposure levels) T0A01 ~ T0C22 - RF Safety (exposure levels) The study guide I used (Now You're Talking!) pretty much covered the rest (waterproofing, ground radials, masts, guy wires, and so on). Of course, I then had to transfer that written information into real world applications. I've set up a complete Field Day station in much less than an afternoon. (snip) Most of us have set up in remote locations, for various purposes. Again, almost none of the skills needed were on the license tests. If true, you must have taken some really basic tests back when you got your license years ago. The test I took seems much more comprehensive than what you describe. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
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 |