Bill Sohl wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message


some snippage


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


While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation
of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the
majority of hams. Those of us that were Novices at one time
lived with a 75 watt limit. Did some novices violate
that? Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the
legal limit.

But even if that is the case, it would seem to me to make more sense to
us a limit that is easily handled by virtue of equipment that will
handle the limit already on the market.

Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?
Possibly, but what will be the resale value of the equipment? So the new
Class A ham has to go out and buy a new rig to make use of his or her
new priveliges? Remember not everyone wants to run a lot of power. 100
watts is something most people are comfortable with.

And the rationale for the reduction of power needs to be proven to me
anyway. How many Technicians have been hurt by using more than 50 watts
power?

And do you think that the prospective ham should not know about RF
safety until they reach the equivalent of an Extra? This plan seems to
advocate that.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) I want added test material for the
advanced licenses to fill the vacuum left
by the departure of Morse Code testing.
I don't want the additions as a way of
keeping people out - indeed if there are
some more questions, it is just a matter
of studying a little more. I want it to show
that we are not just getting rid of things,
and thereby simply making things easier
to get a ticket. (snip)



Several have said that, but I just don't see what can be added that
wouldn't fundamentality change the nature of the Amateur Radio Service. As I
see it, this is an amateur activity designed with three basic goals in
mind - provide some radio services to others (public service), some benefit
to the participants (recreational radio activities), and a mild introduction
to the field of electronics. Since the first two (and international
goodwill) don't seem to be a consideration, I'll ignore those for now.

Could be simply some more questions added to the test.


This leaves the last and a question about how far that should be taken.
Most are not clear at all about that. Some seem to suggest we add content to
more closely fit a college degree program. If so, do we add science,
history, social studies, general math, politics, language, art, economics,
health, and the other things colleges require? If not, can we honestly claim
the license is comprehensive training? But if we add those things, what
happens to the avocational nature of this activity?

Wow, you slippery sloped that one pretty well, Dwight! I'm not looking
for the equivalent of an engineering degree, and would never suggest
such a thing. I don't think that the addition of some relevant questions
to the writtens is at all a bad thing. And even an EE degree is only
partly relevant to the ARS.

I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where they're
lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.

This brings up something that I have wondered about for a while. What
is the basis for so many people avoiding education with a passion? It
isn't like even the Extra test is all that difficult. Takes some study
and time, but it isn't like the SAT's or the like.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And there it is. WHY?

Mike, I know it scares the bejeebers out of the professional-entry-level
licensees out there who have essentially zero interest in whatever
electrical thing happens when they mash the PPT switch, but by their license
grant they are responsible for a ensuring that their transmitted signal
meets a set of technical parameters beyond what the little blinky digits on
the faceplate read.

The current qualification process is woefully inadequate to ensure they can
fulfill that responsibility. The current rules have kept most of these QCAO
members in parts of the spectrum which have mostly local propagation, even
with 1.5KW output.

However, we can soon expect rules changes which may extend their turf to
parts of the spectrum where their ignorance can have worldwide visibility
and consequences. And that scares the bejeebers out of me.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Pee equals eye-squared are. It's not just a good idea, it's the law!

Bert Craig wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where

they're

lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.

Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the
General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize a
whole different set of questions."

73, de Hans, K0HB


"Hammer, meet nail."

When you're only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail! 8^)


I don't even think we need to change the questions. Eliminate the published
Q&A pools and reorder the answers, that'll do it.

Big deal! There will have to be a study guide, which will have the
answers in it in text form. I'd read it and know it. Probably quicker
and better than the pools

BTW, Bert, did you know that they change the order of the answers in the
actual test as compared to the question pool?


Q. Do what?

A. Require just a hair more cerebral activity than rote memorization.


Maybe for some.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?

I think they would if the market existed. In JA there is a class of 10W HF
hams, and there are all sorts of nice 10W HF rigs available there.

But let's just suppose that the manufacturers continue to build only 100W HF
rigs for the US market. It's not the manufacturers responsibility to comply
with the power limits. That responsibility lies with each individual
licensee.

In my experience, hams are almost universally scrupulous in observing the
limitations that their license grant imposes on them.

73, de Hans, K0HB

(Len Over 21) wrote

All newcomers MUST do as they
did in order for "acceptance" to the group.

Not at all, Len. I am proposing a huge increase in newcomer
privileges with an entry level test far more elementary than the
current entry-level examination.

But I am also recommending, after a generous period with 'training
wheels', a more strenuous qualification for standard privileges than
currently exists. The QCAO and IOoDHW cries of "the unfairness of it
all" are deafening.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:

I have no agenda.


Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers? This points to an obvious reason why you
would focus on the "electronics expert" portion of 97.1(d) while ignoring
the rest.


(snip) it lacks any foundation of credibility
when you consider that the successful
applicant for *any* amateur license is
authorized to build his own station. (snip)


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers?

Nope. My proposal has a dramatically less strenuous set of qualifications
for newcomers.


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she
wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

But there IS a mandate that each licensee is directly responsible for the
proper adjustment and operation of their equipment, including all sorts of
QCAO-unfriendly things like signal purity, etc. 97.307(a) thru (e) come to
mind. Personally, I don't believe that your (misnamed) Technician
qualification examination is adequate to ensure that you can carry out that
mandate.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Wow, you slippery sloped that one pretty
well, Dwight! I'm not looking for the
equivalent of an engineering degree, and
would never suggest such a thing. I don't
think that the addition of some relevant
questions to the writtens (snip)


If you've been following the discussion in this thread, and in general
over the last couple of years, it wasn't slippery sloped that much. It was
only a very slight exaggeration of what some (I'm not saying you) seem to
want.


This brings up something that I have wondered
about for a while. What is the basis for so many
people avoiding education with a passion? It
isn't like even the Extra test is all that difficult.
Takes some study and time, but it isn't like the
SAT's or the like.


I can't speak for others, Mike. But, in our case, it's not avoiding
education per se. Education is a routine in this household. We're both
college graduates. Correspondence courses, college courses, and technical
seminars, are endless. We're both looking towards retirement and want to
change directions in our lives. To do that, we've both recently went back to
school. I just completed an associate degree in electronics (thought I'd
play around with it a little more seriously) and my wife just completed a BA
(math major/history minor) and will start her masters degree program in
January (secondary education). On top of that, we own several businesses,
have a full social life, and have several volunteer activities we're
involved in. Plus we like to have a little time for other things (like this
newsgroup, spending time together, and so on). That leaves very little time
for other things. Since we don't really have a place to fully exploit HF,
and don't want to waste time learning code, getting another license class is
just not that high on our list of things to do.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"KØHB" wrote:

Yes, it is required by 97.1(e).


Well, goodwill is certainly important. So, by all means, go. :-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/