| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
January 16th 05, 04:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: all that learned talk of economics, socio-political whatsit out... This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: Unfortunately, it does NOT. Yes it does! ;-) All it points out is that you are using this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject instead of focussing on amateur radio policy. I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. In the end, Who cares? It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors, then "it's all good, man". I like the little side trips. It allows us to get to know each other better. The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Many of "you" want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else You mean by supporting continued code testing for an amateur radio license? If so, then what's the problem? Your demands that the code test be removed mean that *you* "want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else" and think "you" are some kind of Keepers of a Covenant (of some imagined god-inspired "service"). Not at all, Len. We simply think that dropping the code test would be a lowering of standards. Is there something wrong with that? All because you met some test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram. You sure do pontificate on other's motivations. Every time that Len speaks od Saint Hiram, it reminds me of the old cartoon Fearless Fly. Mild mannered Hiram Fly was his alter ego. Why all the fuss over a fly? 8^) As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindsets on all others. What's your suggestion, Len? Should amateur radio become like cb? You were a cber, once. You said it was a lot of fun. Are you still a cber? Or did that service stop being fun for you? You've told us about your home and how much it is worth and how close you are to a gated community of homes costing much more. Which is odd considering the rest of us aren't supposed to talk about off topic matters! Would you like it if someone wanted to change the zoning in ways that might make your property less valuable, reduce your enjoyment of it, etc.? I bet you would be caught in a territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindset on others. Not a good thing since the FCC is not chartered by law to be a reflection on "your" personal desires nor in the maintenance of a living museum of amateur radio antiquity. That's *your* mindset speaking Insofar as radio regulations go, the "ARS" does not stand for Archaic Radiotelegrphy Service. Then why do you use the term? Removal of the morse test does NOT "dumb anything down" That's not what I wrote. I wrote that it would lower the standards. And it would. Bingo! From my limited observations, the testing regimen as it exists today is not dumbed down from what it used to be. Every once in a while someone trots out an old test question that leaves a lot of us stumped. But it's just different, not harder. But to argue that elimination of Element one is not lowering the standards is just plain wrong. Doesn't matter if you think it is the right thing to do or not, it is most assureadly lowering the standards. And I don't think lowering standards is ever the right thing to do. Besides, amateurs *do* use Morse Code extensively. Therefore, it makes sense for a test of basic Morse Code skill to be part of license qualifications. It's really that simple. but rather makes the amateur hobby more open, In case you didn't notice, Len, there's been a no-code-test class of amateur radio license here in the USA for almost 14 years. And....... How many of those people that took the no-code tests just allow thier licenses to expire? The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum. freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined "amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and practices that date back to seven decades ago. Where do you get that, Len? Do you think hams stopped using Morse Code seven decades ago? You're wrong about that. "You" don't own anything but your own radio equipment in amateur radio. Never claimed to. But that's more than you own ;-) What I and other amateurs *do* have is something to lose. If changes in the rules mess up amateur radio, then we have lost something. Do you think we don't have the right to preserve what we think is valuable? And now we just may be approaching motive? "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations. That's right. Nor has anyone I know of tried to do that. You can spam ECFS all you want, Len. That's the right of *every* interested party. OTOH, I'm not the one telling others to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". You are. Or to insert things in some sort of I/O port; or to engage in self fornication. "You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything else. What does that mean? Are you telling me to shut up? Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality. Whose "reality", Len? You mean your opinions and mindset, that you want to impose on everyone else? Here's a clue: *Everyone* has a right to their opinions. And a right to express their opinions. That means you - and me. That means folks who are oldtimers and newcomers, "servers" and "nonservers", licensed and not licensed, etc. Right on down to th ehumblest little Feldwebel and hocky puck. ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#3
January 16th 05, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: Mike Coslo Date: 1/15/2005 9:56 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. In the end, Who cares? It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors, then "it's all good, man". I like the little side trips. It allows us to get to know each other better. Absolutely, Mike. I don't think I ever conciously thought of it that way, but you're quite right (about getting to know each other better) And seems to me I remember the name of the NG being something to do with "Amateur Radio". Ironic then that we don't find any record of THIS Leonard H. Anderson being a licensed Amateur. (There was another fellow who is now SK...I don't think you were here when I pointed it out and Lennie went BESERK over the idea that it MIGHT be him! Heaven forbid!) All because you met some test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram. You sure do pontificate on other's motivations. Every time that Len speaks od Saint Hiram, it reminds me of the old cartoon Fearless Fly. Mild mannered Hiram Fly was his alter ego. Why all the fuss over a fly? 8^) The only fly Lennie ought to be concerned with is the one he keeps leaving unzipped in a public forum...There's laws against that! As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindsets on all others. What's your suggestion, Len? Should amateur radio become like cb? You were a cber, once. You said it was a lot of fun. Are you still a cber? Or did that service stop being fun for you? You've told us about your home and how much it is worth and how close you are to a gated community of homes costing much more. Which is odd considering the rest of us aren't supposed to talk about off topic matters! Of course, Mike! YOU aren't Lennie! If you were, you, and ONLY you would be allowed to act as the moderator of an unmoderated newsgroup, would be allowed to discuss anything you wanted to irregardless of thread topic (without expectation of redirect to the topic) and YOU and ONLY you would be allowed to denigrate, disparge and otherwise verbally insult and abuse others regardless of how they treat you and then claim to be the "vicitm" whenit got fed back to you! Removal of the morse test does NOT "dumb anything down" That's not what I wrote. I wrote that it would lower the standards. And it would. Bingo! From my limited observations, the testing regimen as it exists today is not dumbed down from what it used to be. Every once in a while someone trots out an old test question that leaves a lot of us stumped. But it's just different, not harder. Ummmmm.....I think the questions ARE harder, but it's exponentially easier to pass since you DON'T have to KNOW the material! Just read through the Q&A a few times! You'll pass! (eventually!) But to argue that elimination of Element one is not lowering the standards is just plain wrong. Doesn't matter if you think it is the right thing to do or not, it is most assureadly lowering the standards. And I don't think lowering standards is ever the right thing to do. But that's exactly what we do when we publish the test questions AND answers! In case you didn't notice, Len, there's been a no-code-test class of amateur radio license here in the USA for almost 14 years. And....... How many of those people that took the no-code tests just allow thier licenses to expire? The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum. Actually it's just a hair over 4% if you include 160 meters. A grand total of 3.75Mhz of bandwidth plus the five 60 meter "channels". The six meter band alone is wider than all of our MFHF spectrum. freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined "amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and practices that date back to seven decades ago. If all of Lennie's other misrepresentations and deceit weren't enough, that paragraph right there would be enough to convince any other person who is even marginally well informed on Amateur Radio matters that Lennie is an idiot and antagonist of monumental proportion. "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations. That's right. Nor has anyone I know of tried to do that. You can spam ECFS all you want, Len. That's the right of *every* interested party. What was the final count..?!?! 17 "responses" to various commenters, most of which were "cookie cutter insults" on the motives or character of the respondents? OTOH, I'm not the one telling others to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". You are. Or to insert things in some sort of I/O port; or to engage in self fornication. Lennie just wishes he could remember the last time he engaged in ANY mutually gratifying sexual act. As for the "self" part, I am sure he wished he remembered WHERE the parts were to fulfill same! "You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything else. What does that mean? Are you telling me to shut up? That's a Lenniesque effort to bring us down to his level. Lennie can't bring himself to take the same tests every current new Amateur takes, so he must bring all 600K+ of us down to him! Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality. Whose "reality", Len? You mean your opinions and mindset, that you want to impose on everyone else? Here's a clue: *Everyone* has a right to their opinions. And a right to express their opinions. That means you - and me. That means folks who are oldtimers and newcomers, "servers" and "nonservers", licensed and not licensed, etc. Right on down to the humblest little Feldwebel and hocky puck. ;^) Ich bin keine Feldwebel. Ich bin ein Hauptmann. Viele Danke! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#4
January 17th 05, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: Unfortunately, it does NOT. Yes it does! ;-) All it points out is that you are using this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject instead of focussing on amateur radio policy. I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. In the end, Who cares? Len obviously cares a lot. It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors, then "it's all good, man". I don't know if "it's all good", but that doesn't really matter. This is an unmoderated newsgroup, and while Len may want to be the moderator, he just isn't. I like the little side trips. It allows us to get to know each other better. Perhaps that's what bothers Len so much. The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Many of "you" want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else You mean by supporting continued code testing for an amateur radio license? If so, then what's the problem? Your demands that the code test be removed mean that *you* "want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else" and think "you" are some kind of Keepers of a Covenant (of some imagined god-inspired "service"). Not at all, Len. We simply think that dropping the code test would be a lowering of standards. Is there something wrong with that? All because you met some test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram. You sure do pontificate on other's motivations. Every time that Len speaks od Saint Hiram, it reminds me of the old cartoon Fearless Fly. Mild mannered Hiram Fly was his alter ego. I don't know that one? Why all the fuss over a fly? 8^) See below. As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindsets on all others. What's your suggestion, Len? Should amateur radio become like cb? You were a cber, once. You said it was a lot of fun. Are you still a cber? Or did that service stop being fun for you? You've told us about your home and how much it is worth and how close you are to a gated community of homes costing much more. Which is odd considering the rest of us aren't supposed to talk about off topic matters! We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Unless we support the elimination of code testing, in which case we can do almost anything and it's OK with Len. Would you like it if someone wanted to change the zoning in ways that might make your property less valuable, reduce your enjoyment of it, etc.? I bet you would be caught in a territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindset on others. Not a good thing since the FCC is not chartered by law to be a reflection on "your" personal desires nor in the maintenance of a living museum of amateur radio antiquity. That's *your* mindset speaking Insofar as radio regulations go, the "ARS" does not stand for Archaic Radiotelegrphy Service. Then why do you use the term? Nobody else does. Removal of the morse test does NOT "dumb anything down" That's not what I wrote. I wrote that it would lower the standards. And it would. Bingo! From my limited observations, the testing regimen as it exists today is not dumbed down from what it used to be. Every once in a while someone trots out an old test question that leaves a lot of us stumped. But it's just different, not harder. I disagree, but see below for the discussion. But to argue that elimination of Element one is not lowering the standards is just plain wrong. Doesn't matter if you think it is the right thing to do or not, it is most assureadly lowering the standards. Yep. Particularly since hams still use Morse Code. And I don't think lowering standards is ever the right thing to do. All depends what results you want. Besides, amateurs *do* use Morse Code extensively. Therefore, it makes sense for a test of basic Morse Code skill to be part of license qualifications. It's really that simple. but rather makes the amateur hobby more open, In case you didn't notice, Len, there's been a no-code-test class of amateur radio license here in the USA for almost 14 years. And....... How many of those people that took the no-code tests just allow thier licenses to expire? Nobody really knows. One reason the number of Techs/TechPluses is shrinking is expirations like that. Another is upgrades. In another 5 years and 3-1/2 months, all the Tech Pluses will be gone. The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum. Yep. freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined "amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and practices that date back to seven decades ago. Where do you get that, Len? Do you think hams stopped using Morse Code seven decades ago? You're wrong about that. "You" don't own anything but your own radio equipment in amateur radio. Never claimed to. But that's more than you own ;-) What I and other amateurs *do* have is something to lose. If changes in the rules mess up amateur radio, then we have lost something. Do you think we don't have the right to preserve what we think is valuable? And now we just may be approaching motive? Yep. Notice how Len never describes in detail what he thinks the rules for the ARS should be. It's like a Zen exercise - he'll tell you what he thinks amateur radio license requirements should not be, but he won't tell you what he thinks they should be. "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations. That's right. Nor has anyone I know of tried to do that. You can spam ECFS all you want, Len. That's the right of *every* interested party. OTOH, I'm not the one telling others to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". You are. Or to insert things in some sort of I/O port; or to engage in self fornication. Don't forget telling W4NTI he fills the target... "You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything else. What does that mean? Are you telling me to shut up? Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality. Whose "reality", Len? You mean your opinions and mindset, that you want to impose on everyone else? Here's a clue: *Everyone* has a right to their opinions. And a right to express their opinions. That means you - and me. That means folks who are oldtimers and newcomers, "servers" and "nonservers", licensed and not licensed, etc. Right on down to th ehumblest little Feldwebel and hocky puck. ;^) Yep. And now for the Very Basic Concept: In the early days of radio, operation of any sort of radio set required considerable technical knowledge and operating skills. The level required was so high, and the equipment so fussy, that "radio operator" quickly became a speciality in itself. Professional radio operators did it for money, amateur radio operators did it for fun, but the skills and knowledge were needed to get the equipment to work at all. That's ultimately why licenses were required - to make sure those on the air had needed skills and knowledge. Even operating a receiver took a lot of skill. Over time, technological progress improved radio sets in all sorts of ways. Cost came down, reliability went up, all sorts of technical benchmarks were met and surpassed. Some improvements were aimed at making the sets perform better. Other focused on reducing the level of skill needed to operate them. Compare a BC receiver from the early 1920s with one from the late 1930s, and the differences are striking. What was once a large, expensive, complex device running on batteries and requiring careful adjustment of multiple controls just to hear a local broadcast became a small box with only two controls. Similar things happened in "two-way" radio, but over a longer time span. The goals were similar: improve the technical performance, and reduce the level of skill needed to operate them. In the latter area, the ultimate goal was to completely eliminate the need for a skilled radio operator. In order for this to happen, operations were channelized, automation was incorporated to a high degree, and modes were chosen that did not require special operator skills. A prime example of this is the land mobile radio services, using VHF/UHF FM voice. The first-generation sets were expensive and complex by the standards of the time - but almost anyone could use the sets. Push to talk, volume, squelch. Maybe a four-position channel selector. No tuning, no adjustments, clear FM audio. And no radio operator. Almost all radio services have gone in the direction of "no radio operator needed", for the obvious reasons. Radio to them is a tool, not an end in itself. If the maritime folks could replace "Sparks" with an automatic system, they'd do it just to save Sparks' salary and benefits. This is where amateur radio diverges sharply from other services, and becomes unique in many ways. Removing the skilled radio operator would eliminate what we're all about, which is "radio for its own sake". That's why so many hams want to keep the standards high. Because if they are lost, what's left isn't amateur radio. It's a very basic concept, this business of the skilled radio operator. Most if not all of the other radio services have eliminated them, or are trying to do so. Yet it's precisely what we hams aspire to be! And it's precisely what Len either doesn't understand, or understands and wants to destroy. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#5
January 17th 05, 03:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way: Unfortunately, it does NOT. Yes it does! ;-) All it points out is that you are using this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject instead of focussing on amateur radio policy. I think you don't like the fact that it does relate. In the end, Who cares? Len obviously cares a lot. It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors, then "it's all good, man". I don't know if "it's all good", but that doesn't really matter. This is an unmoderated newsgroup, and while Len may want to be the moderator, he just isn't. I like the little side trips. It allows us to get to know each other better. Perhaps that's what bothers Len so much. The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset. Many of "you" want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else You mean by supporting continued code testing for an amateur radio license? If so, then what's the problem? Your demands that the code test be removed mean that *you* "want to enforce your personal desires on everyone else" and think "you" are some kind of Keepers of a Covenant (of some imagined god-inspired "service"). Not at all, Len. We simply think that dropping the code test would be a lowering of standards. Is there something wrong with that? All because you met some test requirements long ago, established by other Keepers of an even older Covenant and are firm Believers in the Church of St. Hiram. You sure do pontificate on other's motivations. Every time that Len speaks od Saint Hiram, it reminds me of the old cartoon Fearless Fly. Mild mannered Hiram Fly was his alter ego. I don't know that one? http://www.geocities.com/fearlessfly2003/ He was part of the Milton the Monster show. There was trend at that time, for goofy superheros. Why all the fuss over a fly? 8^) See below. As usual, you olde-tymers are caught in the territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindsets on all others. What's your suggestion, Len? Should amateur radio become like cb? You were a cber, once. You said it was a lot of fun. Are you still a cber? Or did that service stop being fun for you? You've told us about your home and how much it is worth and how close you are to a gated community of homes costing much more. Which is odd considering the rest of us aren't supposed to talk about off topic matters! We're supposed to do as Len says, not as Len does. Unless we support the elimination of code testing, in which case we can do almost anything and it's OK with Len. He probably wouldn't find it very interesting around here then! Would you like it if someone wanted to change the zoning in ways that might make your property less valuable, reduce your enjoyment of it, etc.? I bet you would be caught in a territorial imperative emotionalism of a personal activity and want to enforce your personal mindset on others. Not a good thing since the FCC is not chartered by law to be a reflection on "your" personal desires nor in the maintenance of a living museum of amateur radio antiquity. That's *your* mindset speaking Insofar as radio regulations go, the "ARS" does not stand for Archaic Radiotelegrphy Service. Then why do you use the term? Nobody else does. Removal of the morse test does NOT "dumb anything down" That's not what I wrote. I wrote that it would lower the standards. And it would. Bingo! From my limited observations, the testing regimen as it exists today is not dumbed down from what it used to be. Every once in a while someone trots out an old test question that leaves a lot of us stumped. But it's just different, not harder. I disagree, but see below for the discussion. But to argue that elimination of Element one is not lowering the standards is just plain wrong. Doesn't matter if you think it is the right thing to do or not, it is most assureadly lowering the standards. Yep. Particularly since hams still use Morse Code. And I don't think lowering standards is ever the right thing to do. All depends what results you want. Besides, amateurs *do* use Morse Code extensively. Therefore, it makes sense for a test of basic Morse Code skill to be part of license qualifications. It's really that simple. but rather makes the amateur hobby more open, In case you didn't notice, Len, there's been a no-code-test class of amateur radio license here in the USA for almost 14 years. And....... How many of those people that took the no-code tests just allow thier licenses to expire? Nobody really knows. One reason the number of Techs/TechPluses is shrinking is expirations like that. Another is upgrades. In another 5 years and 3-1/2 months, all the Tech Pluses will be gone. Regardless of the specific reasons, they allowed their licenses to lapse. If the no-code test system were any kind of success, there would not be a falloff like that. The no-code license allows priveliges in most of the amateur allocations. HF is just a small part of our portion of the spectrum. Yep. So the big question is why aren't those bands crowded with the Technicians? It is worth noting that the 6 meter band is open to Technicians also. So they can get some HF like action also. But they by and large don't. Code test good or code test bad, elimination of it will probably not bring anything to the ARS. freeing it from all the tight confines of an imagined "amateur profession" with all the rigid, inflexible standards and practices that date back to seven decades ago. Where do you get that, Len? Do you think hams stopped using Morse Code seven decades ago? You're wrong about that. "You" don't own anything but your own radio equipment in amateur radio. Never claimed to. But that's more than you own ;-) What I and other amateurs *do* have is something to lose. If changes in the rules mess up amateur radio, then we have lost something. Do you think we don't have the right to preserve what we think is valuable? And now we just may be approaching motive? Yep. Notice how Len never describes in detail what he thinks the rules for the ARS should be. It's like a Zen exercise - he'll tell you what he thinks amateur radio license requirements should not be, but he won't tell you what he thinks they should be. If I were to hazard a deduction, I would have to say that from everything I have seen, he is more interested in the destruction of Amateur radio than anything else. I had concluded as much before, but the diatribe of a few days ago was especially telling, in the ARS license numbers thread, where he starts out with Lenof21 Well, Herr Gruppekommandant, it's time to "show you my papers" Lenof21 and confess all - Lots of analysis fodder. "You" do not have any "power" to prevent non-amateurs from communicating with their government on federal laws and regulations. That's right. Nor has anyone I know of tried to do that. You can spam ECFS all you want, Len. That's the right of *every* interested party. OTOH, I'm not the one telling others to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". You are. Or to insert things in some sort of I/O port; or to engage in self fornication. Don't forget telling W4NTI he fills the target... That is one I would like to forget. "You" olde-tymers have no claim over others on "rights" or anything else. What does that mean? Are you telling me to shut up? Try to conduct yourself appropriately when faced with reality. Whose "reality", Len? You mean your opinions and mindset, that you want to impose on everyone else? Here's a clue: *Everyone* has a right to their opinions. And a right to express their opinions. That means you - and me. That means folks who are oldtimers and newcomers, "servers" and "nonservers", licensed and not licensed, etc. Right on down to th ehumblest little Feldwebel and hocky puck. ;^) Yep. And now for the Very Basic Concept: In the early days of radio, operation of any sort of radio set required considerable technical knowledge and operating skills. The level required was so high, and the equipment so fussy, that "radio operator" quickly became a speciality in itself. Professional radio operators did it for money, amateur radio operators did it for fun, but the skills and knowledge were needed to get the equipment to work at all. That's ultimately why licenses were required - to make sure those on the air had needed skills and knowledge. Even operating a receiver took a lot of skill. Over time, technological progress improved radio sets in all sorts of ways. Cost came down, reliability went up, all sorts of technical benchmarks were met and surpassed. Some improvements were aimed at making the sets perform better. Other focused on reducing the level of skill needed to operate them. Compare a BC receiver from the early 1920s with one from the late 1930s, and the differences are striking. What was once a large, expensive, complex device running on batteries and requiring careful adjustment of multiple controls just to hear a local broadcast became a small box with only two controls. Similar things happened in "two-way" radio, but over a longer time span. The goals were similar: improve the technical performance, and reduce the level of skill needed to operate them. In the latter area, the ultimate goal was to completely eliminate the need for a skilled radio operator. In order for this to happen, operations were channelized, automation was incorporated to a high degree, and modes were chosen that did not require special operator skills. A prime example of this is the land mobile radio services, using VHF/UHF FM voice. The first-generation sets were expensive and complex by the standards of the time - but almost anyone could use the sets. Push to talk, volume, squelch. Maybe a four-position channel selector. No tuning, no adjustments, clear FM audio. And no radio operator. Almost all radio services have gone in the direction of "no radio operator needed", for the obvious reasons. Radio to them is a tool, not an end in itself. If the maritime folks could replace "Sparks" with an automatic system, they'd do it just to save Sparks' salary and benefits. This is where amateur radio diverges sharply from other services, and becomes unique in many ways. Removing the skilled radio operator would eliminate what we're all about, which is "radio for its own sake". That's why so many hams want to keep the standards high. Because if they are lost, what's left isn't amateur radio. It's a very basic concept, this business of the skilled radio operator. Most if not all of the other radio services have eliminated them, or are trying to do so. Yet it's precisely what we hams aspire to be! And it's precisely what Len either doesn't understand, or understands and wants to destroy. There isn't much I can add to that, Jim. Well said. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Problem for boaters and APRS? | Policy | |||
| Problem for boaters and APRS? | General | |||
| Problem for boaters and APRS? | Policy | |||
| APRS Safety Question | Digital | |||
| APRS Safety Question | Digital | |||
Hybrid Mode
