Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#141
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. (snip) Learning is part of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service, not the basis and purpose of the license exams. The basis and purpose of the license exams is to make possible the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. In other words, to bring people into the Amateur Radio Service so they can learn. The real learning comes after the exams in what we actually do. So, "real" radio operating experience can ONLY be done in AMATEUR radio? LHA |
#142
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! You WANT absurdity? more snippage so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. DOS tip: The FCC determines what it requires in licensing of radio operators, NOT the "amateur community" or the "communities" of any other radio service that require radio operators. We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! You can always petiiton the FCC for a complete change in scope and description of U.S. amateur radio. I'd suggest you change the name to "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service" for below-30-MHz. Make morse the prime definition of HF amateur radio. When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. Has anyone seen YOUR opposition to a "VEC group publishing what they want?" We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. Don't try to rationalize a weak argument of yours as "more noble, logical, in the best interests of the service," etc., etc. by feigning outrage at "improper acts of others." We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. Don't worry, 981 commenters on RM-10811 (largest number of respondents of the 14 petitions) have been busy stating things in public. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. WHY? You are just about to fall over the edge of the "I had to do it so everyone else has to do it in the future" non-argument. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. "Dramatic?!?!?" Only if you are a morseman is such a thing "dramatic." :-) They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Translation: You had to do something but if others in the future don't do as you did, they are getting something "free?" Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. There really is no impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply "get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements. Okay, begin with some fundamentals: 1. A radio boot camp where all "novices" have to learn to take orders from their "superior" license class holders, march in ranks to beep music determined by long-ago-dead-amateurs, know vacuum tube lore by heart, learn how to memorize all the radio ads in QST and desire each item. 2. Swear an oath of allegiance to amateur radio and the constitution of the ARRL, salute each vertical diamond logo as it passes in front of your eyes. Loyalty, fraternity, etc. 3. Wear cute little radio uniforms when operating, have shiny radio shields in a special holder giving you "authority" anyplace. Uniforms are a good place to show RANK and TIME IN GRADE while "in the (radio) service." 4. Demand immediate obeyance by all "civilians" not in your "service" as superior in the radio arts. Reject all those who do not think as you do. Remember that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does NOT apply to citizens on amateur radio matters...unless said citizen is licensed in amateur radio. 5. Petition the FCC for an immediate change of the HF amateur radio service to "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service," or perhaps "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society." That way you can keep the beloved code test and force all in the future to do exactly as you had to do. 6. Always remember that YOUR efforts in getting that amateur license were so awesome, overpowering, enobling that the individual efforts of mere "civilians" not into amateur radio are forever poor and puny by comparison. 7. Amateurs RULE. Professionals must obey the amateurs. LHA |
#143
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dee D. Flint" wrote: A. I was discussing the USE of code itself not the testing. So the last two sentences in the above paragraph are not relevant to this discussion. Isn't this overall discussion about the code test? The code test is part of it, but overall it is about many of the technical issues that will shape where the ARS goes in the future. The CODE TEST is a MAJOR PART of every one of the 14 petitions before the Commission [RM-10781 thru RM-10787, RM-10805 thru RM-10811]. Everyone's future happens right after now. LHA "today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday..." :-) |
#144
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc. are all non-necessities. (snip) Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those modes and the rules associated with them. Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Morse code should join those modes in that regard. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement. Can you prove otherwise? What is there to prove? Prove the necessity for a written test beyond the most basic rules and regulations. For example, Technicians are allowed to use all authorized modes on the six meter band at up to 1500 W output. This includes all modes allowed on the HF/MF bands. Therefore, the Technician test must, by definition, be adequate to insure that those who pass it are qualified on all authorized HF/MF modes and the use of transmitters up to 1500 W output on six meters MHz. Since the hazards of RF exposure on HF/MF are less than those on 50 MHz, and the modes authorized on HF/MF are a subset of those authorized on six, it logically follows that those who pass the Tech test are *mostly* qualified to operate HF/MF. The exceptions are those few things which are specific to HF/MF, such as propagation. But the General and Extra writtens go far beyond HF/MF propagation in their technical material. Why is that stuff necessary? Isn't that exactly the intent of the license exams - the fundamentals of radio and electronics, safety, rules and regulations, and so on. Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must go beyond those basics. When it comes to Amateur Radio, the FCC is not a school and nobody graduates with a degree in radio or electronics when they're handed a ham license. That's right. And nobody with a degree is handed a ham license either. That license exams (and licenses) are simply entrances into the various levels of Amateur Radio - the real learning comes with what is done afterwards (operating, building, experimenting, reading, practice, and the resulting experence from any or all of that). Sure. So what's the point of all that written testing? Why is a General qualified to use 1500 W on 14,026 kHz but not on 14,024? The FCC has never has never purported, or even suggested, that the Amateur Radio exams, and resulting licenses, are anything beyond that (only a few self-important hams have done so). Yet in the past there have been repeated instances where qualifed radio-electronics people were needed on short notice and they were recruited from the ranks of amateur radio. If what matters is the learning that happens *after* the license is in hand, why all the fuss about written tests? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#145
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! Exactly. more snippage Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements, etc. And of course there's debate as to whether the old way was better. As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a Federally mandated welfare/support program? Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license. We are effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, I think you mean "all"... so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. But even that will not *prove* that the requirements for a license need to be such-and-so. For example, we can get a consensus that it's desirable for all hams to know Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil. Does that mean Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil *must* be test requirements? Of course not! It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. I like some of the things Hans proposes and dislike other things. The biggest problem I see in his proposals are the We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! Some say that the bar is already too high. For example, Hans' proposal says that it's necessary and reasonable for all hams to have to pass the Extra written to stay on the air more than 10 years, but that it's *not* necessary or reasonable to require any code test at all. When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. I'd say we have to present strong, reasoned arguments. We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. Exactly. Which is perhaps the most important point of this whole exercise. Note how many times I've been told to shut up about this, called "poster boy for NTI" and other names, etc. Says a lot, doesn't it? We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. Maybe it already has. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. How? Many will say that no such vacuum is created, and there's nothing to replace. Others will say that the writtens are *harder* today than they were in the past. Etc. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. I've been repeatedly told here that there should not be *any* skills tests for a ham license. They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Sure. And there's also the concept of what constitutes a giveaway. Heck, the old 20 wpm/5 written test Extra has been passed by several children in their pre-teen years - how hard could it have been? Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. Some would say "That's a good thing!" There really is no impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply "get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements. And how do you *prove* they are necessary, in a modern-day environment where even the self-proclaimed "professionals in radio" are using or will use manufactured rigs that are virtually foolproof? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#146
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... "Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote: As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. (snip) Learning is part of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service, not the basis and purpose of the license exams. The basis and purpose of the license exams is to make possible the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. In other words, to bring people into the Amateur Radio Service so they can learn. The real learning comes after the exams in what we actually do. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Wow. Good point, Dwight. Maybe that idea of a term limitation license makes more sense than ever. I haven't been in favor of it...but maybe there's a part of it I haven't thought of, such as your comment above. Kim W5TIT |
#147
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! Exactly. more snippage Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements, etc. And of course there's debate as to whether the old way was better. As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a Federally mandated welfare/support program? Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license. We are effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, I think you mean "all"... so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. But even that will not *prove* that the requirements for a license need to be such-and-so. For example, we can get a consensus that it's desirable for all hams to know Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil. Does that mean Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil *must* be test requirements? Of course not! Glad you brought that up! Article 25, paragraph 6 refers to administrators verifying operational and technical qualifications. It refers to "guidance" that can be taken from Recommendation ITU-R-M.1544. Ouch! "Guidance and "Reccomendations"? What have we here? That administrations can bend the rules as they wish, with W1AW making broadcasts, (which I support, BTW) third party operations between schoolkids and the International space station, just to name a few. So if they can bend rules, imagine their needed reaction to "guidelines". I'm saying that the framework for NTI is in place, and no treaty changes are needed. Maybe that deregulation argument I brough up the other day isn't so far fetched after all. It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. I like some of the things Hans proposes and dislike other things. The biggest problem I see in his proposals are the Misssd something there Jim! 8^) We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! Some say that the bar is already too high. For example, Hans' proposal says that it's necessary and reasonable for all hams to have to pass the Extra written to stay on the air more than 10 years, but that it's *not* necessary or reasonable to require any code test at all. When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. I'd say we have to present strong, reasoned arguments. Sure, strong, well reasoned, loud and strong. 8^) We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. Exactly. Which is perhaps the most important point of this whole exercise. Note how many times I've been told to shut up about this, called "poster boy for NTI" and other names, etc. Says a lot, doesn't it? Classic blame the messenger. We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. Maybe it already has. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. How? Many will say that no such vacuum is created, and there's nothing to replace. Others will say that the writtens are *harder* today than they were in the past. Etc. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. I've been repeatedly told here that there should not be *any* skills tests for a ham license. They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Sure. And there's also the concept of what constitutes a giveaway. Heck, the old 20 wpm/5 written test Extra has been passed by several children in their pre-teen years - how hard could it have been? All I can say is that I studied over 6 months to get to 5 wpm. I have been working now for the past 4 months to get my speed up. I've tried several different methods, and am just now getting to the point where I can pick out some of the words on the air. at least an hour a day, seven days a week doing both computer and on the air, and I still suck. The only thing that keeps me working at it is the personal challenge. So while I am happy for those children that have learned 20 wpm Morse, I have to say that it just ain't the same for everybody. If those rules from long ago were still in effect, I'd probably have to have a different hobby! My Novice ticket would run out, and that would be it. Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. Some would say "That's a good thing!" HAH! Some hobby! - Mike KB3EIA - |
#148
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#149
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#150
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
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 |