Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
KØHB wrote:
"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. And new people that intend to operate in this fashiion will have a very different set up. 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. So you are saying that present licenses will continue with the ten year operating cycle? This is beginning to look like there will be 5 classes of license in the end. 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'.) Just because an idea is bad, doesn't mean it isn't repeated, eh? BTW, you forgot ro add the ERP power limit on 60 meters. Rolling back the output power to 50 watts when most HF transcievers will do 100 watts is simply not going to work (if you want it to work that is) Perhaps it is just as easy to detect someone running at 100 watts as it is at 3kilowatts? But okay, perhaps you have the evidence of all the Technicians that have been injured by using 100 watts of RF power? What is the basis for 50 watts? Is it safety? Or is it arbitrary? - Mike KB3EIA - |
#202
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hans K0HB wrote:
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. So we'll have Novice, General, Technician, Extra, Advanced, and Class A and B. Simplification by complication. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#203
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
news ![]() "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 It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. Kim W5TIT |
#204
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"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. Would you accept "it's obvious" as an answer to "why a code test"? Didn't think so. 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. I disagree. Would you have skill testing for modes that few hams use, like EME or TV, on an equal par with those that are widely used, like voice and Morse? There is no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code. I disagree. YMMV. In the end, it's simply an opinion question. That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements. Does that mean FCC is always right? Was FCC right when they required 20 wpm for full privs and no waivers? As such, the unique Morse code test should be eliminated. And perhaps it will be - someday. 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. Nope. I simply point out that the same arguments used against the code test can be used against most of the written tests. But most people support the written tests as they are for opinion reasons, nothing more. No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their contents, serve a valid purpose today. What valid purpose do the General and Extra written tests serve? Why is *all* of their content necessary to operate HF beyond the small sample of privileges granted to Novices and Tech Pluses? None here, including you, have said otherwise. I've simply used the same arguments against them as are used against the code test. The same cannot be said about the Morse code test. Sure it can. I've done it. 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. You choose to ignore it because you don't have a definitive counterargument. You cannot prove that most of the content of the writtens, particularly the General and Extra writtens, are *necessary*. IOW, you know that if the same criteria of "is it necessary?" were applied to most of the written questions, the answer would be the same as you get for the code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#205
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "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. So what? The point is that anyone could use a cheat sheet to send and recieve morse. I never claimed it could be done at 5wpm. In reality, there is NO minimum code speed required for on-the-air use of the mode. The test requirement is only that...a test requirement. If two non-code hams decide to QSO on 2 meter simplex sometime, there is NO FCC rule requiring any specific minimum sending speed be used. 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. And the converse is true for morse. There is no longer any international treaty requirement and the FCC has already stated they see no rational for code testing to be retained. Ergo... no need for specific amateur testing of morse for HF licensning...IMHO Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#206
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly obvious. No, it isn't. You're avoiding my question, Dwight. Why must hams be forced to learn about *any* modes and technologies whose use is strictly optional? Indeed, someone who cannot speak and is totally deaf cannot use voice modes - yet the written exams are full of questions on AM, SSB, FM, etc. Why are such tests *necessary*? Why is *any* written test beyond the basics of rules, regulations and safety *necessary*? BUT none of these other modes has its own separate pass/fail test. Not any specific subject area either. Miss all the questions on RTTY and you can still pass the test. Or consider this: Techs are permitted to use all authorized (amateur) modes and frequencies above 30 MHz - at full authorized power. This authorization is based on the successful passing of a single 35 question written test. FCC says so - in fact, almost four years ago they drastically reduced the written testing needed to get a Tech license. Additiionally, those same techs can use Morse even if they never passed a morse test. Yet to have full privileges, a ham must pass additional written tests. Sure, the addtional tests include rules and regs a Tech doesn't need to know, as well as some things like HF/MF propagation. Buty those tests go far beyond the additional regs and propagation. Why is that sort of thing *necessary*, since a Tech has already shown that he/she is qualified on all authorized modes at full authorized power? I have previously agreed that the alignment of privileges vs license class makes little sense these days. Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test? Sure. Here goes: Considering the many advantages of Morse code, the number of frequencies and bands on which it is used, the number of amateurs who use it on the air and their exemplary conformance to the rules, regulations and operating procedures of the ARS, the necessity of the Morse code exam is clearly obvious. There you go. So how come the FCC didn't buy it in 98-143. How come no-code techs are NOT forbidden from using morse even though hey never passed a morse test. By the way..."their exemplary conformance to the rulkes" is a real stretch since most rule breakers seem to be coded hams anyway. Cheers, Bill |
#207
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it and found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an end--to licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely lacking in any pertinent application to the process of amateur radio, overall. I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you did not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM. There's nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot of HF are really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to use CW. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered wiring up a key from time to time, but decided against it. Shortchanging myself? I don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone. Now, I have met people who don't like phone, and I'm fine with that. 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 And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement that is laughable. Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them. Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying more weight than we should. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So, let me get this straight, you are saying it's necessary for me to use CW, and comparing not doing it with failing to get a physical. I don't think that argument will hold water. The consequences of not using CW are what, exactly? |
#208
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo wrote in
: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: 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? Same way all the other power limits are enforced. I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running way too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other hams too. But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the equipment manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50 watts. - Mike KB3EIA - It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the equipment, not vicea versa. |
#209
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "Alun" wrote in message .. . "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement that is laughable. Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them. Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying more weight than we should. Okay, so now morse code skill makes one "healthy?!?" :-) Yes, morse code skill is absolutely necessary to get rid of invading space aliens. [see movie "Independence Day"] Morse code skill is absolutely necessary to aid the survivors of the next Titanic sinking or get away from icebergs. [see movie "Titanic"] Morse code skill is absolutely necessary for ALL emergency and disaster communications...and that is why all the public safety folks depend on morse code skill for all their communications involving life and death situations. Right. LHA |
#210
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bert Craig" wrote in
et: "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. 5 wpm is certainly too slow to prove much, but it only still exists at that level as a residual requirement to meet the old s25.5, which has since been changed so that no code test is required atall. If the FCC truly thought that a CW test was necessary, the speed would be higher. 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. Well, I think that the real issue is that it's a different kind of test. 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 Whilst that is true, the point I was making is actually that since I can't read RTTY or PSK by ear, and they are legal modes, it doesn't help all that much that I can read CW (albeit not terribly well, since I never use it). 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
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 |