Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#171
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
news ![]() "Kim W5TIT" wrote: 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. Learning is one aspect of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service, not the total sum. When discussing term limits on license class, all aspects of that should be considered. And, when it comes to those other aspects, there is no real benefit from term limits. Indeed, one could argue that it may actually harm those other things (reducing our overall numbers, for example). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Well, what I would support would be something like a pretty simple test--I mean darned simple--with a minimal operating privilege built in with it. At the end of something like a year or 2 years, then one would either have to upgrade with a more technical and knowledge-based test and a higher, permanent license class. I still would leave CW out of the mix, too... However, I don't think there's going to be any major changes to the licensing or testing structure for another couple of years. Jim, I think it was, had a thread going with the predictions of when CW would be taken out and I think I had a couple of years while others were guessing pretty quick. I think CW testing is here to stay for a while. Kim W5TIT |
#172
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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^) 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. So the big question is what is going to be different about this new class gap that ten years is an appropriate time lag. For a hobby, ten years is just too long a time. If there are going to be limits, they should be reasonable ones. 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. 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. 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. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#173
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... 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 - Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or even monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more dollars and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen. Kim W5TIT |
#174
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "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). Well Dwight saying it isn't doesn't make that true either Dwight. I speak from personal experience. How much HF experience have you had? How much weak signal VHF experience have you had? 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. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#175
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "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. Soldering requires some modest skill but one can hire that done if desired. The other items are necessary but no skill is required just taking the time to do it. (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. Doesn't require a gift merely knowing what to do and when to do it. Most people don't try to set up the station and all the options at once. They generally work at it in stages gaining experience as the go. You will find that most experienced hams could set up a complete station, including antennas, digital modes etc within a matter of hours. Many do so for single station operation in Field Day. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#176
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote in message ... 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 Excellent summary there, Jim. I think that is what many of us are trying to say but not finding the right words. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#177
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... [snip] 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. No 5wpm is useful just a tedious for the listener. Learning it to a higher speed simply makes it easier to communicate and increases the probability that the person will not forget his/her code over time. However, using a "cheat sheet" won't even let you go 5wpm as it takes too long to look up the letters. 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. In today's world, most people have to learn that skill at a minimmal anyway whether or not they wish to be radio Amateurs so do not include that as something unique to Amateur Radio. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#178
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... 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 - Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy. You have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength measurements. Just reading the signal strength from another station won't do it as we've all experienced working a QRP station when propagation was good and receiving them at 10 over S9. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#179
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com: "N2EY" wrote in message ... 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 Excellent summary there, Jim. I think that is what many of us are trying to say but not finding the right words. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have the desire to use the skill. 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. 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. |
#180
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
news ![]() "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "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). Well Dwight saying it isn't doesn't make that true either Dwight. I speak from personal experience. How much HF experience have you had? How much weak signal VHF experience have you had? 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. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I don't know about Dwight, but I use HF a lot, and I have done weak signal work on VHF in the past. For the former I have never found CW to be necessary, as it has never been necessary that I make any particular QSO. As for the latter, I have never even heard any CW above 30 MHz, except repeater IDs! This includes VHF contests. You may be using it, but I guess I can't hear your sigs. |
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 |