RadioBanter
Page 17 of 26 « First 710111213141516 17 18192021222324 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   05-235 - Any new procode test arguments? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/81521-05-235-any-new-procode-test-arguments.html)

[email protected] December 8th 05 02:28 AM
Easier licensing
 
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Whatever. :-) First item is excellent.

I think it's awful, but that's not the point of this discussion. In
any event it's probably going to happen, good, bad or indifferent.

Second, okay.
Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the
third? What "assessments" were done in the past?

Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the
current 3 level license structure does not reflect a
good starting path for new hams because Techs are
(a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power
privileges for full 1500 watts.

Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

My personal view is
to have a beginners license with a variety of HF
and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output
(say 200 watts or less).

Makes sense to me.

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps. While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too
much like the traditional union concept of work with
levels of apprentice-journeyman-master.

Not really. If a person can meet the requirements of the
higher class licenses, they can go right to General or
Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow
that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Amateur radio
isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.
Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Differing
levels/classes of license only reinforce the already-
present class-distinction social divisions in U.S.
amateur radio.

Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio

2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would
exist with a single license class that required the same
knowledge

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them. There's no age
requirement, no educational requirement other than
ability to pass the test, no income requirement other
than ability to pay the testing fees (which is sometimes
waived by the VEs).

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

a recreational pursuit
done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some
artifice of social standing.

It's also done for public service.

Plenty of other
organizations exist for social climbers looking for
status and title.

In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same. Radio is
no different in that respect than, say, golf, Scrabble,
model airplanes, or almost anything else.

Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not. And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

nor is "amateur radio operation" some
kind of mystical event, requiring perfect
incantations to have some magic occur.

No magical incantations, although K0HB's idea of
sacrificing a goat in the antenna farm may have some merit ;-)

But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Unlicensed
(in radio) public safety people routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) aircraft crew routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) business people routinely do
that. Dozens of other examples are available where
unlicensed-in-radio individuals routinely operate
radio transmitters without some long "training"
period of months or years in order to be "proper"
operators in radio.

Except that's not the whole story.

The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators. They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments. In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Nor do those radio users have much if any technical responsibility
for the radios they use. That responsibility is carried by
technical people who install, test and maintain the radios.
Of course the person who uses the radio may sometimes
also be the technical person, but that is not a requirement
of use.

On top of all that, the radio users cited above may not be
FCC licensed, but they are trained, tested and often certified in
proper radio procedures for the radios they use. For
example, licenses to pilot aircraft with radios require that
the licensee know and demonstrate proper aircraft radio
procedures. The pilot's license cannot be obtained without
such radio procedure knowledge.

Amateur radio is completely different. A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station. In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license. So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Amateurs are also authorized to design, build, repair, and
modify their equipment without any formal certification or
type-acceptance requirements other than the spurious-emission
rules in Part 97. Most other radio services do not have
anything like that sort of freedom.

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF. And
unlike almost all other radio services, different modes
of transmission coexist on the same frequency bands.
For example, just between 7000 and 7300 kHz, one can
find amateurs using Morse Code, PSK31, RTTY, SSB,
AM, PACTOR, MFSK, SSTV, and a bunch of other modes,
without formal channelization and with only a few FCC
rules and voluntary bandplans to sort things out. Other
radio services are much more regimented, regulated, and
ordered so as to eliminate the need for user skill and
knowledge.

I see absolutely no reason for
amateur radio people engaging in a hobby to do that
sort of thing...except to salve the egos of the long-
"tenured" "senior" amateurs.

To do what sort of thing - have multiple license classes?
What's your alternative?

The current 3 licenses and privileges are the
result of piecepart change over time and the result has
some less than logical consequences regarding
privileges and entrance level testing when compared
to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50
years. YMMV.

Yet FCC says they think the 3 level system is the optimum
one. That's not just my opinion - it's clearly stated in the
NPRM.

My odometer reads the same as yours on regulations'
evolution of continuing piece-part changing. That is
a consequence of radio politics, and NOT, in my view,
of any "necessity" to have a layered system of
classes for a hobby.

Would you have just one class of license?

EM-space doesn't recognize
"classes" OR human politics; electrons, fields, and
waves are all unaffected by human regulations or
emotion or "needs" to stratify standing within some
"fellowship."

Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

The Novice class license is a failure in the long
run.

For most of its history it was a great success in its original
purpose, which was to ease the path into amateur radio. It
was perhaps *the* best idea to come out of the restructuring of 1951.

If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate. Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

While it might have been a good idea at the
beginning for some to "get their feet wet" (in radio
waters), it started off badly with the emotional
baggage of its class title, "Novice."

Only to someone like you, who attach such emotional
baggage. "Novice" simply means "beginner" and is an
accurate name for a license class aimed at beginners.

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

As viewed
from afar, it served only to initiate the completely
ferklempt with "proper" radiotelegraphy procedure
and with the "proper" jargon (which had evolved in
the particular activity of amateur radio)...not to
mention having the "proper attitude" of worship and
respect of "elders" (who thought they "ran" things).

That's just nonsense, Len.

After WW1 and before 1951, the only way to get started
in US amateur radio was to pass the Morse Code tests at
10 or 13 wpm (depending on whether the license was
earned before or after 1936) and to pass the Class B/C written
exam of about 50 questions that included essays, diagrams
and many other areas of knowledge. While people as young
as 9 years old managed to do that and earn the licenses, it
was a big investment of resources just to get started.

The Novice offered an easier entry point, with slower Morse
Code testing and a much simpler written exam - and much less
privileges. The idea was that it would be easier and better for
new hams to learn-by-doing.

But there was no requirement to start with a Novice. Anyone
who wanted to be a ham could start out with a Technician,
General or Conditional, same as the old Class B and C
licenses they replaced.

That can work on typical teen-agers who have yet to
experience more of life and the variety of humans
who exist in the real world. It does not work well
with adults.

Yet many adults started out as Novices.

Longevity of a regulation such as "novice" or
"beginner" or "entrant" in a field such as radio and
communications that has constantly been evolving over
the last half-century is not a logical necessity to
keep those regulations.

Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

Time has shown that the
newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades;
its class numbers are continuously decreasing.

No new Novices have been issued for 55 months - it's
no wonder they are decreasing.

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.
Another reason was the reduction of the Technician written testing in
1987.
The difference in requirements of the two licenses was reduced while
the
difference in privileges was so great that many either skipped the
Novice
or spent only a short time before upgrading to Technician.

Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby
field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to
"guide and educate the kids."

If true, there's nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps its a by-
product of parenthood or a surrogate for that?


It's about the future of amateur radio, and keeping
the diversity. All good things.

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Are saying we should *NOT* try to get more young
people into amateur radio? Why not?

Children don't have the monetary
base to build market sales which serve to benefit the
adults.

You'd be suprised how much buying power the under-21
folks have!

And even if they don't have the "monetary base" - so what?
Everything isn't about money. When the children grow
older, they may have more money to spend on radio.

Children don't have the experience to run
events or keep organizations (predominently adult)
together.

Very true - and amateur radio is one way for them
to see how events are run and organizations are
kept together. It can give them a view into the
world and help them learn. All good things.

At best, the drive to "get youngsters
interested" in a primarly-adult hobby seems to be
little more than eyewash, using politically-correct
psycho phrases.

Now you're just getting nasty, Len. What's your problem
with young people being hams, and with efforts to
recruit younger people?

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long. A radio amateur who is
licensed at the age of, say, 12 years and who continues as
a ham for the rest of his/her life will spend only a small
percent of their time as a "child ham".

One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education. That alone is a valid reason to recruit young people
to be radio amateurs, because the education they get from it
can be very substantial. Besides the purely technical side,
amateur radio can help teach geography, other languages,
time zones, government regulations, and much more.

On the other hand, targeting an entrance drive for
amateur radio to teenagers will tend to steer them
away from their contemporaries' activities...those
activities having evolved to fit that peer group and
not necessarily that of adults.

Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

It will serve to show
those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the
adult world ahead.

That's good! Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

It can also serve to alienate
them from their own peer group by making them
"different." That is a not-good thing among teen-
agers who seek the stability of "their" group, a
natural psychological need in that part of their life.

That's pure and utter nonsense.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different". Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved. Those
who learn a musical instrument are "different" from those
who don't. Those involved in sports are "different" from
those who aren't. Etc.

One of the main purposes of childhood and adolescence
is self-discovery. It is a good thing for young people to
try various activities to see what they enjoy and are
good at.

Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally. Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians. Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors. That doesn't mean the activities have
no value, just that the vast majority will never go beyond
the recreational level of those activities.

But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

My own experience on "entering HF" were rather drastic
in "apprenticeship" consisting only of a few days (at
most). So were the 4 newcomers with me, none of us
having been schooled on high-power HF transmitters.

But that's not the whole story, Len.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you? All
had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

You all went to microwave school, right? IIRC, that was at
least six months of intensive training, and must have included
a lot of radio theory and practice that wasn't specifically
microwave technology - didn't it?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch. While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen
and we did it.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right. You
weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

(some
of which were considerably more complicated than any
found in amateur radio operating).

Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

So did those that
came before us and those that came after us.

Right. As it should be.

Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

I was one of those kids who was curious about all things
electrical, from a very early age. By the age of 10 I was
building simple receivers, and by the age of 12 I had
built a working HF receiver. Almost all that I knew about
radio came from various books because there were no radio
amateurs or electronics types in my family or immediate
neighborhood before I came along. None of this was covered in
school back then.

I still remember the look on my fifth grade teacher's face
when she caught me reading an electrical textbook in class.
She happened to open it to a page that showed diagrams of
three-phase transformer connections, which I explained.....

Priceless.

I soon realized that in certain areas I knew far more than
my teachers did, and that I couldn't expect much in those
areas from school.

Almost all the parts for my radios came from old TV and
BC receivers, or anything else electrical or electronic that
I could get my hands on.

Simple things like figuring out the inductance of a coil
required that I teach myself some basic algebra in order
to understand the formulas. Practical stuff like soldering
and metalwork I learned from the books and from trial-and-error.

And I learned Morse Code by listening to hams on the 80
meter band, and sending to myself with a home-made code
practice oscillator.

By age 13 I had earned the Novice license. My first transmitter
was home-made - simple but effective. I had almost no
test equipment and only a few tools - a lot of things were simply
guessed at and cut-and-tried until they worked right. For example,
I had to figure out how to match the transmitter output to my
random-wire antenna using a flashlight bulb as an RF indicator.

By age 14 I'd upgraded to Advanced, acquired a better transmitter,
receiver and antenna, and was filling up log books with QSOs.

All with *no* formal training in electricity, radio, electronics,
almost no money, and the usual obligations of schoolwork,
chores, family activities, etc. My folks' contribution to my
efforts was to allow me to do them if I got everything else
done first.

I wasn't any sort of prodigy or genius, just a motivated kid
interested in radio. There were and are many like me, some
even younger.

The point of this little personal history of mine is to illustrate
how different the environment and resources of most new
amateur radio operators are. While few start out the way I did,
most are essentially working on their own, without formal
training in radio, yet with the usual obligations of life. And their
amateur radio activities are all self-funded.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

I can draw a parallel to the activities of infantry,
armor, and artillery soldiers who had to learn how to
operate radios necessary for military communications.
They did it by the thousands upon thousands of soldiers,
nearly all of them inexperienced in using any radio other
than a broadcast receiver before their service. Those
that say "they only push the button and talk" are doing
them an extreme disservice since there is considerably
more to do than that.

How much more? All the military radios I've seen that are/were
meant to be used by "line outfits" were made as simple to operate
as possible. That paradigm goes all the way back to the WW2
BC-611 "walkie talkie".

Radio training for line outfits
is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of
that being branch-specific procedural matters.

A couple *weeks* of intense formal training!

Now,
if they can all do that successfully in a short time,
it makes no logical sense to have class stratification
of being held in one class for a year or more.

The environments are completely different, Len. Most
radio amateurs are essentially self-taught, in their spare
time, using their own resources. What they could learn
in a week or two of intense formal training might take a
month to a year of part-time self-study.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.
Only the Advanced and Extra ever had such a requirement,
and the Advanced's 1 year requirement disappeared in 1953,
while the Extra's 2 year requirement was cut to 1 year in the
early 1970s and then eliminated about 1975.

I think the entry-level license for a US ham license could be
a lot better than the current Technician. What K2UNK proposes
is a good starting point. But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.

[email protected] December 8th 05 03:08 AM
Easier licensing
 
From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed, Dec 7 2005 2:51 pm


wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message

snip

Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because
the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down
to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference
from secret tests!

Yawn.... BUT publishing the questions was never proposed
by ARRL. That being so, who in the FCC do you
attribute the change to?

Those who wanted to save money by getting FCC out of the
exam-giving process.

So the reality is that no one in the ham community pushed that.
I'll conclude then that anytime the FCC proposes a change
even if not originated in the ham community, if you view it
as a lowering of requirements then it is automatically bad
per your opinion.

"That's about the size of it..."

snip

Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading
the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and
analyzing it a la AH0A.

ARRL is perfectly capable of that I'm sure.

But somebody has to pay for it.

["it's all about money"? :-) ]

ARRL has more than enough ability to fund such a study or
simply assign the task to one of the permanent ARRL staffers.

AH0A is hardly an objective analyzer...whatever he sees
is all about morse code... :-)


And you can bet that whatever
numbers ARRL puts out, some will say they are "massaged" and
accuse the ARRL of "fraud" and such.

WHO cares? There is always someone that will take issue
with any study conclusion, analysis, ets. If you expect
a 100% agreed to set of review and analysis as the end
result, tyhen yu're expecting the impossible.

The ARRL can do no wrong.

snip

I could care less about those that might want to wait for
changes they have no assurance are coming.

But those changes have an enormous impact on the numbers.
That's the point, whether we care about it or not.

The percent of people that might ultimately wait for "possible"
(emphasis on possible as opposed to actual)
future changes is, I suspect small. Odds are that there aren't
many current techs waiting for future free upgrades nor
where there likly many that shelved their upgrade plans
when the ARRL first proposed free upgrades. (IMHO of
course).

Morsemen are prescient, see all, know all. We cannot doubt
them. [they don't let us]

[email protected] December 8th 05 03:29 AM
Easier licensing
 
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Whatever. :-) First item is excellent.

I think it's awful, but that's not the point of this discussion. In
any event it's probably going to happen, good, bad or indifferent.

Second, okay.
Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the
third? What "assessments" were done in the past?

Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the
current 3 level license structure does not reflect a
good starting path for new hams because Techs are
(a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power
privileges for full 1500 watts.

Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

My personal view is
to have a beginners license with a variety of HF
and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output
(say 200 watts or less).

Makes sense to me.

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps. While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too
much like the traditional union concept of work with
levels of apprentice-journeyman-master.

Not really. If a person can meet the requirements of the
higher class licenses, they can go right to General or
Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow
that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Amateur radio
isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.
Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Differing
levels/classes of license only reinforce the already-
present class-distinction social divisions in U.S.
amateur radio.

Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio

2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would
exist with a single license class that required the same
knowledge

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them. There's no age
requirement, no educational requirement other than
ability to pass the test, no income requirement other
than ability to pay the testing fees (which is sometimes
waived by the VEs).

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

a recreational pursuit
done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some
artifice of social standing.

It's also done for public service.

Plenty of other
organizations exist for social climbers looking for
status and title.

In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same. Radio is
no different in that respect than, say, golf, Scrabble,
model airplanes, or almost anything else.

Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not. And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

nor is "amateur radio operation" some
kind of mystical event, requiring perfect
incantations to have some magic occur.

No magical incantations, although K0HB's idea of
sacrificing a goat in the antenna farm may have some merit ;-)

But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Unlicensed
(in radio) public safety people routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) aircraft crew routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) business people routinely do
that. Dozens of other examples are available where
unlicensed-in-radio individuals routinely operate
radio transmitters without some long "training"
period of months or years in order to be "proper"
operators in radio.

Except that's not the whole story.

The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators. They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments. In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Nor do those radio users have much if any technical responsibility
for the radios they use. That responsibility is carried by
technical people who install, test and maintain the radios.
Of course the person who uses the radio may sometimes
also be the technical person, but that is not a requirement
of use.

On top of all that, the radio users cited above may not be
FCC licensed, but they are trained, tested and often certified in
proper radio procedures for the radios they use. For
example, licenses to pilot aircraft with radios require that
the licensee know and demonstrate proper aircraft radio
procedures. The pilot's license cannot be obtained without
such radio procedure knowledge.

Amateur radio is completely different. A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station. In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license. So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Amateurs are also authorized to design, build, repair, and
modify their equipment without any formal certification or
type-acceptance requirements other than the spurious-emission
rules in Part 97. Most other radio services do not have
anything like that sort of freedom.

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF. And
unlike almost all other radio services, different modes
of transmission coexist on the same frequency bands.
For example, just between 7000 and 7300 kHz, one can
find amateurs using Morse Code, PSK31, RTTY, SSB,
AM, PACTOR, MFSK, SSTV, and a bunch of other modes,
without formal channelization and with only a few FCC
rules and voluntary bandplans to sort things out. Other
radio services are much more regimented, regulated, and
ordered so as to eliminate the need for user skill and
knowledge.

I see absolutely no reason for
amateur radio people engaging in a hobby to do that
sort of thing...except to salve the egos of the long-
"tenured" "senior" amateurs.

To do what sort of thing - have multiple license classes?
What's your alternative?

The current 3 licenses and privileges are the
result of piecepart change over time and the result has
some less than logical consequences regarding
privileges and entrance level testing when compared
to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50
years. YMMV.

Yet FCC says they think the 3 level system is the optimum
one. That's not just my opinion - it's clearly stated in the
NPRM.

My odometer reads the same as yours on regulations'
evolution of continuing piece-part changing. That is
a consequence of radio politics, and NOT, in my view,
of any "necessity" to have a layered system of
classes for a hobby.

Would you have just one class of license?

EM-space doesn't recognize
"classes" OR human politics; electrons, fields, and
waves are all unaffected by human regulations or
emotion or "needs" to stratify standing within some
"fellowship."

Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

The Novice class license is a failure in the long
run.

For most of its history it was a great success in its original
purpose, which was to ease the path into amateur radio. It
was perhaps *the* best idea to come out of the restructuring of 1951.

If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate. Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

While it might have been a good idea at the
beginning for some to "get their feet wet" (in radio
waters), it started off badly with the emotional
baggage of its class title, "Novice."

Only to someone like you, who attach such emotional
baggage. "Novice" simply means "beginner" and is an
accurate name for a license class aimed at beginners.

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

As viewed
from afar, it served only to initiate the completely
ferklempt with "proper" radiotelegraphy procedure
and with the "proper" jargon (which had evolved in
the particular activity of amateur radio)...not to
mention having the "proper attitude" of worship and
respect of "elders" (who thought they "ran" things).

That's just nonsense, Len.

After WW1 and before 1951, the only way to get started
in US amateur radio was to pass the Morse Code tests at
10 or 13 wpm (depending on whether the license was
earned before or after 1936) and to pass the Class B/C written
exam of about 50 questions that included essays, diagrams
and many other areas of knowledge. While people as young
as 9 years old managed to do that and earn the licenses, it
was a big investment of resources just to get started.

The Novice offered an easier entry point, with slower Morse
Code testing and a much simpler written exam - and much less
privileges. The idea was that it would be easier and better for
new hams to learn-by-doing.

But there was no requirement to start with a Novice. Anyone
who wanted to be a ham could start out with a Technician,
General or Conditional, same as the old Class B and C
licenses they replaced.

That can work on typical teen-agers who have yet to
experience more of life and the variety of humans
who exist in the real world. It does not work well
with adults.

Yet many adults started out as Novices.

Longevity of a regulation such as "novice" or
"beginner" or "entrant" in a field such as radio and
communications that has constantly been evolving over
the last half-century is not a logical necessity to
keep those regulations.

Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

Time has shown that the
newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades;
its class numbers are continuously decreasing.

No new Novices have been issued for 55 months - it's
no wonder they are decreasing.

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.
Another reason was the reduction of the Technician written testing in
1987.
The difference in requirements of the two licenses was reduced while
the
difference in privileges was so great that many either skipped the
Novice
or spent only a short time before upgrading to Technician.

Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby
field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to
"guide and educate the kids."

If true, there's nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps its a by-
product of parenthood or a surrogate for that?


It's about the future of amateur radio, and keeping
the diversity. All good things.

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Are saying we should *NOT* try to get more young
people into amateur radio? Why not?

Children don't have the monetary
base to build market sales which serve to benefit the
adults.

You'd be suprised how much buying power the under-21
folks have!

And even if they don't have the "monetary base" - so what?
Everything isn't about money. When the children grow
older, they may have more money to spend on radio.

Children don't have the experience to run
events or keep organizations (predominently adult)
together.

Very true - and amateur radio is one way for them
to see how events are run and organizations are
kept together. It can give them a view into the
world and help them learn. All good things.

At best, the drive to "get youngsters
interested" in a primarly-adult hobby seems to be
little more than eyewash, using politically-correct
psycho phrases.

Now you're just getting nasty, Len. What's your problem
with young people being hams, and with efforts to
recruit younger people?

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long. A radio amateur who is
licensed at the age of, say, 12 years and who continues as
a ham for the rest of his/her life will spend only a small
percent of their time as a "child ham".

One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education. That alone is a valid reason to recruit young people
to be radio amateurs, because the education they get from it
can be very substantial. Besides the purely technical side,
amateur radio can help teach geography, other languages,
time zones, government regulations, and much more.

On the other hand, targeting an entrance drive for
amateur radio to teenagers will tend to steer them
away from their contemporaries' activities...those
activities having evolved to fit that peer group and
not necessarily that of adults.

Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

It will serve to show
those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the
adult world ahead.

That's good! Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

It can also serve to alienate
them from their own peer group by making them
"different." That is a not-good thing among teen-
agers who seek the stability of "their" group, a
natural psychological need in that part of their life.

That's pure and utter nonsense.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different". Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved. Those
who learn a musical instrument are "different" from those
who don't. Those involved in sports are "different" from
those who aren't. Etc.

One of the main purposes of childhood and adolescence
is self-discovery. It is a good thing for young people to
try various activities to see what they enjoy and are
good at.

Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally. Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians. Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors. That doesn't mean the activities have
no value, just that the vast majority will never go beyond
the recreational level of those activities.

But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

My own experience on "entering HF" were rather drastic
in "apprenticeship" consisting only of a few days (at
most). So were the 4 newcomers with me, none of us
having been schooled on high-power HF transmitters.

But that's not the whole story, Len.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you? All
had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

You all went to microwave school, right? IIRC, that was at
least six months of intensive training, and must have included
a lot of radio theory and practice that wasn't specifically
microwave technology - didn't it?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch. While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen
and we did it.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right. You
weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

(some
of which were considerably more complicated than any
found in amateur radio operating).

Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

So did those that
came before us and those that came after us.

Right. As it should be.

Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

I was one of those kids who was curious about all things
electrical, from a very early age. By the age of 10 I was
building simple receivers, and by the age of 12 I had
built a working HF receiver. Almost all that I knew about
radio came from various books because there were no radio
amateurs or electronics types in my family or immediate
neighborhood before I came along. None of this was covered in
school back then.

I still remember the look on my fifth grade teacher's face
when she caught me reading an electrical textbook in class.
She happened to open it to a page that showed diagrams of
three-phase transformer connections, which I explained.....

Priceless.

I soon realized that in certain areas I knew far more than
my teachers did, and that I couldn't expect much in those
areas from school.

Almost all the parts for my radios came from old TV and
BC receivers, or anything else electrical or electronic that
I could get my hands on.

Simple things like figuring out the inductance of a coil
required that I teach myself some basic algebra in order
to understand the formulas. Practical stuff like soldering
and metalwork I learned from the books and from trial-and-error.

And I learned Morse Code by listening to hams on the 80
meter band, and sending to myself with a home-made code
practice oscillator.

By age 13 I had earned the Novice license. My first transmitter
was home-made - simple but effective. I had almost no
test equipment and only a few tools - a lot of things were simply
guessed at and cut-and-tried until they worked right. For example,
I had to figure out how to match the transmitter output to my
random-wire antenna using a flashlight bulb as an RF indicator.

By age 14 I'd upgraded to Advanced, acquired a better transmitter,
receiver and antenna, and was filling up log books with QSOs.

All with *no* formal training in electricity, radio, electronics,
almost no money, and the usual obligations of schoolwork,
chores, family activities, etc. My folks' contribution to my
efforts was to allow me to do them if I got everything else
done first.

I wasn't any sort of prodigy or genius, just a motivated kid
interested in radio. There were and are many like me, some
even younger.

The point of this little personal history of mine is to illustrate
how different the environment and resources of most new
amateur radio operators are. While few start out the way I did,
most are essentially working on their own, without formal
training in radio, yet with the usual obligations of life. And their
amateur radio activities are all self-funded.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

I can draw a parallel to the activities of infantry,
armor, and artillery soldiers who had to learn how to
operate radios necessary for military communications.
They did it by the thousands upon thousands of soldiers,
nearly all of them inexperienced in using any radio other
than a broadcast receiver before their service. Those
that say "they only push the button and talk" are doing
them an extreme disservice since there is considerably
more to do than that.

How much more? All the military radios I've seen that are/were
meant to be used by "line outfits" were made as simple to operate
as possible. That paradigm goes all the way back to the WW2
BC-611 "walkie talkie".

Radio training for line outfits
is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of
that being branch-specific procedural matters.

A couple *weeks* of intense formal training!

Now,
if they can all do that successfully in a short time,
it makes no logical sense to have class stratification
of being held in one class for a year or more.

The environments are completely different, Len. Most
radio amateurs are essentially self-taught, in their spare
time, using their own resources. What they could learn
in a week or two of intense formal training might take a
month to a year of part-time self-study.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.
Only the Advanced and Extra ever had such a requirement,
and the Advanced's 1 year requirement disappeared in 1953,
while the Extra's 2 year requirement was cut to 1 year in the
early 1970s and then eliminated about 1975.

I think the entry-level license for a US ham license could be
a lot better than the current Technician. What K2UNK proposes
is a good starting point. But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.

[email protected] December 8th 05 03:42 AM
Easier licensing
 
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Whatever. :-) First item is excellent.

I think it's awful, but that's not the point of this discussion. In
any event it's probably going to happen, good, bad or indifferent.

Second, okay.
Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the
third? What "assessments" were done in the past?

Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the
current 3 level license structure does not reflect a
good starting path for new hams because Techs are
(a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power
privileges for full 1500 watts.

Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

My personal view is
to have a beginners license with a variety of HF
and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output
(say 200 watts or less).

Makes sense to me.

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps. While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too
much like the traditional union concept of work with
levels of apprentice-journeyman-master.

Not really. If a person can meet the requirements of the
higher class licenses, they can go right to General or
Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow
that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Amateur radio
isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.
Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Differing
levels/classes of license only reinforce the already-
present class-distinction social divisions in U.S.
amateur radio.

Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio

2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would
exist with a single license class that required the same
knowledge

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them. There's no age
requirement, no educational requirement other than
ability to pass the test, no income requirement other
than ability to pay the testing fees (which is sometimes
waived by the VEs).

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

a recreational pursuit
done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some
artifice of social standing.

It's also done for public service.

Plenty of other
organizations exist for social climbers looking for
status and title.

In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same. Radio is
no different in that respect than, say, golf, Scrabble,
model airplanes, or almost anything else.

Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not. And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

nor is "amateur radio operation" some
kind of mystical event, requiring perfect
incantations to have some magic occur.

No magical incantations, although K0HB's idea of
sacrificing a goat in the antenna farm may have some merit ;-)

But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Unlicensed
(in radio) public safety people routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) aircraft crew routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) business people routinely do
that. Dozens of other examples are available where
unlicensed-in-radio individuals routinely operate
radio transmitters without some long "training"
period of months or years in order to be "proper"
operators in radio.

Except that's not the whole story.

The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators. They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments. In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Nor do those radio users have much if any technical responsibility
for the radios they use. That responsibility is carried by
technical people who install, test and maintain the radios.
Of course the person who uses the radio may sometimes
also be the technical person, but that is not a requirement
of use.

On top of all that, the radio users cited above may not be
FCC licensed, but they are trained, tested and often certified in
proper radio procedures for the radios they use. For
example, licenses to pilot aircraft with radios require that
the licensee know and demonstrate proper aircraft radio
procedures. The pilot's license cannot be obtained without
such radio procedure knowledge.

Amateur radio is completely different. A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station. In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license. So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Amateurs are also authorized to design, build, repair, and
modify their equipment without any formal certification or
type-acceptance requirements other than the spurious-emission
rules in Part 97. Most other radio services do not have
anything like that sort of freedom.

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF. And
unlike almost all other radio services, different modes
of transmission coexist on the same frequency bands.
For example, just between 7000 and 7300 kHz, one can
find amateurs using Morse Code, PSK31, RTTY, SSB,
AM, PACTOR, MFSK, SSTV, and a bunch of other modes,
without formal channelization and with only a few FCC
rules and voluntary bandplans to sort things out. Other
radio services are much more regimented, regulated, and
ordered so as to eliminate the need for user skill and
knowledge.

I see absolutely no reason for
amateur radio people engaging in a hobby to do that
sort of thing...except to salve the egos of the long-
"tenured" "senior" amateurs.

To do what sort of thing - have multiple license classes?
What's your alternative?

The current 3 licenses and privileges are the
result of piecepart change over time and the result has
some less than logical consequences regarding
privileges and entrance level testing when compared
to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50
years. YMMV.

Yet FCC says they think the 3 level system is the optimum
one. That's not just my opinion - it's clearly stated in the
NPRM.

My odometer reads the same as yours on regulations'
evolution of continuing piece-part changing. That is
a consequence of radio politics, and NOT, in my view,
of any "necessity" to have a layered system of
classes for a hobby.

Would you have just one class of license?

EM-space doesn't recognize
"classes" OR human politics; electrons, fields, and
waves are all unaffected by human regulations or
emotion or "needs" to stratify standing within some
"fellowship."

Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

The Novice class license is a failure in the long
run.

For most of its history it was a great success in its original
purpose, which was to ease the path into amateur radio. It
was perhaps *the* best idea to come out of the restructuring of 1951.

If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate. Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

While it might have been a good idea at the
beginning for some to "get their feet wet" (in radio
waters), it started off badly with the emotional
baggage of its class title, "Novice."

Only to someone like you, who attach such emotional
baggage. "Novice" simply means "beginner" and is an
accurate name for a license class aimed at beginners.

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

As viewed
from afar, it served only to initiate the completely
ferklempt with "proper" radiotelegraphy procedure
and with the "proper" jargon (which had evolved in
the particular activity of amateur radio)...not to
mention having the "proper attitude" of worship and
respect of "elders" (who thought they "ran" things).

That's just nonsense, Len.

After WW1 and before 1951, the only way to get started
in US amateur radio was to pass the Morse Code tests at
10 or 13 wpm (depending on whether the license was
earned before or after 1936) and to pass the Class B/C written
exam of about 50 questions that included essays, diagrams
and many other areas of knowledge. While people as young
as 9 years old managed to do that and earn the licenses, it
was a big investment of resources just to get started.

The Novice offered an easier entry point, with slower Morse
Code testing and a much simpler written exam - and much less
privileges. The idea was that it would be easier and better for
new hams to learn-by-doing.

But there was no requirement to start with a Novice. Anyone
who wanted to be a ham could start out with a Technician,
General or Conditional, same as the old Class B and C
licenses they replaced.

That can work on typical teen-agers who have yet to
experience more of life and the variety of humans
who exist in the real world. It does not work well
with adults.

Yet many adults started out as Novices.

Longevity of a regulation such as "novice" or
"beginner" or "entrant" in a field such as radio and
communications that has constantly been evolving over
the last half-century is not a logical necessity to
keep those regulations.

Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

Time has shown that the
newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades;
its class numbers are continuously decreasing.

No new Novices have been issued for 55 months - it's
no wonder they are decreasing.

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.
Another reason was the reduction of the Technician written testing in
1987.
The difference in requirements of the two licenses was reduced while
the
difference in privileges was so great that many either skipped the
Novice
or spent only a short time before upgrading to Technician.

Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby
field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to
"guide and educate the kids."

If true, there's nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps its a by-
product of parenthood or a surrogate for that?


It's about the future of amateur radio, and keeping
the diversity. All good things.

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Are saying we should *NOT* try to get more young
people into amateur radio? Why not?

Children don't have the monetary
base to build market sales which serve to benefit the
adults.

You'd be suprised how much buying power the under-21
folks have!

And even if they don't have the "monetary base" - so what?
Everything isn't about money. When the children grow
older, they may have more money to spend on radio.

Children don't have the experience to run
events or keep organizations (predominently adult)
together.

Very true - and amateur radio is one way for them
to see how events are run and organizations are
kept together. It can give them a view into the
world and help them learn. All good things.

At best, the drive to "get youngsters
interested" in a primarly-adult hobby seems to be
little more than eyewash, using politically-correct
psycho phrases.

Now you're just getting nasty, Len. What's your problem
with young people being hams, and with efforts to
recruit younger people?

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long. A radio amateur who is
licensed at the age of, say, 12 years and who continues as
a ham for the rest of his/her life will spend only a small
percent of their time as a "child ham".

One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education. That alone is a valid reason to recruit young people
to be radio amateurs, because the education they get from it
can be very substantial. Besides the purely technical side,
amateur radio can help teach geography, other languages,
time zones, government regulations, and much more.

On the other hand, targeting an entrance drive for
amateur radio to teenagers will tend to steer them
away from their contemporaries' activities...those
activities having evolved to fit that peer group and
not necessarily that of adults.

Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

It will serve to show
those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the
adult world ahead.

That's good! Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

It can also serve to alienate
them from their own peer group by making them
"different." That is a not-good thing among teen-
agers who seek the stability of "their" group, a
natural psychological need in that part of their life.

That's pure and utter nonsense.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different". Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved. Those
who learn a musical instrument are "different" from those
who don't. Those involved in sports are "different" from
those who aren't. Etc.

One of the main purposes of childhood and adolescence
is self-discovery. It is a good thing for young people to
try various activities to see what they enjoy and are
good at.

Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally. Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians. Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors. That doesn't mean the activities have
no value, just that the vast majority will never go beyond
the recreational level of those activities.

But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

My own experience on "entering HF" were rather drastic
in "apprenticeship" consisting only of a few days (at
most). So were the 4 newcomers with me, none of us
having been schooled on high-power HF transmitters.

But that's not the whole story, Len.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you? All
had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

You all went to microwave school, right? IIRC, that was at
least six months of intensive training, and must have included
a lot of radio theory and practice that wasn't specifically
microwave technology - didn't it?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch. While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen
and we did it.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right. You
weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

(some
of which were considerably more complicated than any
found in amateur radio operating).

Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

So did those that
came before us and those that came after us.

Right. As it should be.

Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

I was one of those kids who was curious about all things
electrical, from a very early age. By the age of 10 I was
building simple receivers, and by the age of 12 I had
built a working HF receiver. Almost all that I knew about
radio came from various books because there were no radio
amateurs or electronics types in my family or immediate
neighborhood before I came along. None of this was covered in
school back then.

I still remember the look on my fifth grade teacher's face
when she caught me reading an electrical textbook in class.
She happened to open it to a page that showed diagrams of
three-phase transformer connections, which I explained.....

Priceless.

I soon realized that in certain areas I knew far more than
my teachers did, and that I couldn't expect much in those
areas from school.

Almost all the parts for my radios came from old TV and
BC receivers, or anything else electrical or electronic that
I could get my hands on.

Simple things like figuring out the inductance of a coil
required that I teach myself some basic algebra in order
to understand the formulas. Practical stuff like soldering
and metalwork I learned from the books and from trial-and-error.

And I learned Morse Code by listening to hams on the 80
meter band, and sending to myself with a home-made code
practice oscillator.

By age 13 I had earned the Novice license. My first transmitter
was home-made - simple but effective. I had almost no
test equipment and only a few tools - a lot of things were simply
guessed at and cut-and-tried until they worked right. For example,
I had to figure out how to match the transmitter output to my
random-wire antenna using a flashlight bulb as an RF indicator.

By age 14 I'd upgraded to Advanced, acquired a better transmitter,
receiver and antenna, and was filling up log books with QSOs.

All with *no* formal training in electricity, radio, electronics,
almost no money, and the usual obligations of schoolwork,
chores, family activities, etc. My folks' contribution to my
efforts was to allow me to do them if I got everything else
done first.

I wasn't any sort of prodigy or genius, just a motivated kid
interested in radio. There were and are many like me, some
even younger.

The point of this little personal history of mine is to illustrate
how different the environment and resources of most new
amateur radio operators are. While few start out the way I did,
most are essentially working on their own, without formal
training in radio, yet with the usual obligations of life. And their
amateur radio activities are all self-funded.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

I can draw a parallel to the activities of infantry,
armor, and artillery soldiers who had to learn how to
operate radios necessary for military communications.
They did it by the thousands upon thousands of soldiers,
nearly all of them inexperienced in using any radio other
than a broadcast receiver before their service. Those
that say "they only push the button and talk" are doing
them an extreme disservice since there is considerably
more to do than that.

How much more? All the military radios I've seen that are/were
meant to be used by "line outfits" were made as simple to operate
as possible. That paradigm goes all the way back to the WW2
BC-611 "walkie talkie".

Radio training for line outfits
is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of
that being branch-specific procedural matters.

A couple *weeks* of intense formal training!

Now,
if they can all do that successfully in a short time,
it makes no logical sense to have class stratification
of being held in one class for a year or more.

The environments are completely different, Len. Most
radio amateurs are essentially self-taught, in their spare
time, using their own resources. What they could learn
in a week or two of intense formal training might take a
month to a year of part-time self-study.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.
Only the Advanced and Extra ever had such a requirement,
and the Advanced's 1 year requirement disappeared in 1953,
while the Extra's 2 year requirement was cut to 1 year in the
early 1970s and then eliminated about 1975.

I think the entry-level license for a US ham license could be
a lot better than the current Technician. What K2UNK proposes
is a good starting point. But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.

[email protected] December 8th 05 03:44 AM
Easier licensing
 
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Whatever. :-) First item is excellent.

I think it's awful, but that's not the point of this discussion. In
any event it's probably going to happen, good, bad or indifferent.

Second, okay.
Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the
third? What "assessments" were done in the past?

Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the
current 3 level license structure does not reflect a
good starting path for new hams because Techs are
(a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power
privileges for full 1500 watts.

Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

My personal view is
to have a beginners license with a variety of HF
and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output
(say 200 watts or less).

Makes sense to me.

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps. While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too
much like the traditional union concept of work with
levels of apprentice-journeyman-master.

Not really. If a person can meet the requirements of the
higher class licenses, they can go right to General or
Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow
that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Amateur radio
isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.
Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Differing
levels/classes of license only reinforce the already-
present class-distinction social divisions in U.S.
amateur radio.

Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio

2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would
exist with a single license class that required the same
knowledge

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them. There's no age
requirement, no educational requirement other than
ability to pass the test, no income requirement other
than ability to pay the testing fees (which is sometimes
waived by the VEs).

It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

a recreational pursuit
done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some
artifice of social standing.

It's also done for public service.

Plenty of other
organizations exist for social climbers looking for
status and title.

In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same. Radio is
no different in that respect than, say, golf, Scrabble,
model airplanes, or almost anything else.

Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not. And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

nor is "amateur radio operation" some
kind of mystical event, requiring perfect
incantations to have some magic occur.

No magical incantations, although K0HB's idea of
sacrificing a goat in the antenna farm may have some merit ;-)

But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Unlicensed
(in radio) public safety people routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) aircraft crew routinely do that.
Unlicensed (in radio) business people routinely do
that. Dozens of other examples are available where
unlicensed-in-radio individuals routinely operate
radio transmitters without some long "training"
period of months or years in order to be "proper"
operators in radio.

Except that's not the whole story.

The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators. They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments. In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Nor do those radio users have much if any technical responsibility
for the radios they use. That responsibility is carried by
technical people who install, test and maintain the radios.
Of course the person who uses the radio may sometimes
also be the technical person, but that is not a requirement
of use.

On top of all that, the radio users cited above may not be
FCC licensed, but they are trained, tested and often certified in
proper radio procedures for the radios they use. For
example, licenses to pilot aircraft with radios require that
the licensee know and demonstrate proper aircraft radio
procedures. The pilot's license cannot be obtained without
such radio procedure knowledge.

Amateur radio is completely different. A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station. In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license. So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Amateurs are also authorized to design, build, repair, and
modify their equipment without any formal certification or
type-acceptance requirements other than the spurious-emission
rules in Part 97. Most other radio services do not have
anything like that sort of freedom.

Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF. And
unlike almost all other radio services, different modes
of transmission coexist on the same frequency bands.
For example, just between 7000 and 7300 kHz, one can
find amateurs using Morse Code, PSK31, RTTY, SSB,
AM, PACTOR, MFSK, SSTV, and a bunch of other modes,
without formal channelization and with only a few FCC
rules and voluntary bandplans to sort things out. Other
radio services are much more regimented, regulated, and
ordered so as to eliminate the need for user skill and
knowledge.

I see absolutely no reason for
amateur radio people engaging in a hobby to do that
sort of thing...except to salve the egos of the long-
"tenured" "senior" amateurs.

To do what sort of thing - have multiple license classes?
What's your alternative?

The current 3 licenses and privileges are the
result of piecepart change over time and the result has
some less than logical consequences regarding
privileges and entrance level testing when compared
to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50
years. YMMV.

Yet FCC says they think the 3 level system is the optimum
one. That's not just my opinion - it's clearly stated in the
NPRM.

My odometer reads the same as yours on regulations'
evolution of continuing piece-part changing. That is
a consequence of radio politics, and NOT, in my view,
of any "necessity" to have a layered system of
classes for a hobby.

Would you have just one class of license?

EM-space doesn't recognize
"classes" OR human politics; electrons, fields, and
waves are all unaffected by human regulations or
emotion or "needs" to stratify standing within some
"fellowship."

Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

The Novice class license is a failure in the long
run.

For most of its history it was a great success in its original
purpose, which was to ease the path into amateur radio. It
was perhaps *the* best idea to come out of the restructuring of 1951.

If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate. Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

While it might have been a good idea at the
beginning for some to "get their feet wet" (in radio
waters), it started off badly with the emotional
baggage of its class title, "Novice."

Only to someone like you, who attach such emotional
baggage. "Novice" simply means "beginner" and is an
accurate name for a license class aimed at beginners.

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

As viewed
from afar, it served only to initiate the completely
ferklempt with "proper" radiotelegraphy procedure
and with the "proper" jargon (which had evolved in
the particular activity of amateur radio)...not to
mention having the "proper attitude" of worship and
respect of "elders" (who thought they "ran" things).

That's just nonsense, Len.

After WW1 and before 1951, the only way to get started
in US amateur radio was to pass the Morse Code tests at
10 or 13 wpm (depending on whether the license was
earned before or after 1936) and to pass the Class B/C written
exam of about 50 questions that included essays, diagrams
and many other areas of knowledge. While people as young
as 9 years old managed to do that and earn the licenses, it
was a big investment of resources just to get started.

The Novice offered an easier entry point, with slower Morse
Code testing and a much simpler written exam - and much less
privileges. The idea was that it would be easier and better for
new hams to learn-by-doing.

But there was no requirement to start with a Novice. Anyone
who wanted to be a ham could start out with a Technician,
General or Conditional, same as the old Class B and C
licenses they replaced.

That can work on typical teen-agers who have yet to
experience more of life and the variety of humans
who exist in the real world. It does not work well
with adults.

Yet many adults started out as Novices.

Longevity of a regulation such as "novice" or
"beginner" or "entrant" in a field such as radio and
communications that has constantly been evolving over
the last half-century is not a logical necessity to
keep those regulations.

Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

Time has shown that the
newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades;
its class numbers are continuously decreasing.

No new Novices have been issued for 55 months - it's
no wonder they are decreasing.

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.
Another reason was the reduction of the Technician written testing in
1987.
The difference in requirements of the two licenses was reduced while
the
difference in privileges was so great that many either skipped the
Novice
or spent only a short time before upgrading to Technician.

Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby
field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to
"guide and educate the kids."

If true, there's nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps its a by-
product of parenthood or a surrogate for that?


It's about the future of amateur radio, and keeping
the diversity. All good things.

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Are saying we should *NOT* try to get more young
people into amateur radio? Why not?

Children don't have the monetary
base to build market sales which serve to benefit the
adults.

You'd be suprised how much buying power the under-21
folks have!

And even if they don't have the "monetary base" - so what?
Everything isn't about money. When the children grow
older, they may have more money to spend on radio.

Children don't have the experience to run
events or keep organizations (predominently adult)
together.

Very true - and amateur radio is one way for them
to see how events are run and organizations are
kept together. It can give them a view into the
world and help them learn. All good things.

At best, the drive to "get youngsters
interested" in a primarly-adult hobby seems to be
little more than eyewash, using politically-correct
psycho phrases.

Now you're just getting nasty, Len. What's your problem
with young people being hams, and with efforts to
recruit younger people?

The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long. A radio amateur who is
licensed at the age of, say, 12 years and who continues as
a ham for the rest of his/her life will spend only a small
percent of their time as a "child ham".

One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education. That alone is a valid reason to recruit young people
to be radio amateurs, because the education they get from it
can be very substantial. Besides the purely technical side,
amateur radio can help teach geography, other languages,
time zones, government regulations, and much more.

On the other hand, targeting an entrance drive for
amateur radio to teenagers will tend to steer them
away from their contemporaries' activities...those
activities having evolved to fit that peer group and
not necessarily that of adults.

Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

It will serve to show
those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the
adult world ahead.

That's good! Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

It can also serve to alienate
them from their own peer group by making them
"different." That is a not-good thing among teen-
agers who seek the stability of "their" group, a
natural psychological need in that part of their life.

That's pure and utter nonsense.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different". Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved. Those
who learn a musical instrument are "different" from those
who don't. Those involved in sports are "different" from
those who aren't. Etc.

One of the main purposes of childhood and adolescence
is self-discovery. It is a good thing for young people to
try various activities to see what they enjoy and are
good at.

Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally. Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians. Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors. That doesn't mean the activities have
no value, just that the vast majority will never go beyond
the recreational level of those activities.

But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

My own experience on "entering HF" were rather drastic
in "apprenticeship" consisting only of a few days (at
most). So were the 4 newcomers with me, none of us
having been schooled on high-power HF transmitters.

But that's not the whole story, Len.

You all had at least a high school education, didn't you? All
had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

You all went to microwave school, right? IIRC, that was at
least six months of intensive training, and must have included
a lot of radio theory and practice that wasn't specifically
microwave technology - didn't it?

It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch. While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen
and we did it.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right. You
weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

(some
of which were considerably more complicated than any
found in amateur radio operating).

Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

So did those that
came before us and those that came after us.

Right. As it should be.

Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

I was one of those kids who was curious about all things
electrical, from a very early age. By the age of 10 I was
building simple receivers, and by the age of 12 I had
built a working HF receiver. Almost all that I knew about
radio came from various books because there were no radio
amateurs or electronics types in my family or immediate
neighborhood before I came along. None of this was covered in
school back then.

I still remember the look on my fifth grade teacher's face
when she caught me reading an electrical textbook in class.
She happened to open it to a page that showed diagrams of
three-phase transformer connections, which I explained.....

Priceless.

I soon realized that in certain areas I knew far more than
my teachers did, and that I couldn't expect much in those
areas from school.

Almost all the parts for my radios came from old TV and
BC receivers, or anything else electrical or electronic that
I could get my hands on.

Simple things like figuring out the inductance of a coil
required that I teach myself some basic algebra in order
to understand the formulas. Practical stuff like soldering
and metalwork I learned from the books and from trial-and-error.

And I learned Morse Code by listening to hams on the 80
meter band, and sending to myself with a home-made code
practice oscillator.

By age 13 I had earned the Novice license. My first transmitter
was home-made - simple but effective. I had almost no
test equipment and only a few tools - a lot of things were simply
guessed at and cut-and-tried until they worked right. For example,
I had to figure out how to match the transmitter output to my
random-wire antenna using a flashlight bulb as an RF indicator.

By age 14 I'd upgraded to Advanced, acquired a better transmitter,
receiver and antenna, and was filling up log books with QSOs.

All with *no* formal training in electricity, radio, electronics,
almost no money, and the usual obligations of schoolwork,
chores, family activities, etc. My folks' contribution to my
efforts was to allow me to do them if I got everything else
done first.

I wasn't any sort of prodigy or genius, just a motivated kid
interested in radio. There were and are many like me, some
even younger.

The point of this little personal history of mine is to illustrate
how different the environment and resources of most new
amateur radio operators are. While few start out the way I did,
most are essentially working on their own, without formal
training in radio, yet with the usual obligations of life. And their
amateur radio activities are all self-funded.

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

I can draw a parallel to the activities of infantry,
armor, and artillery soldiers who had to learn how to
operate radios necessary for military communications.
They did it by the thousands upon thousands of soldiers,
nearly all of them inexperienced in using any radio other
than a broadcast receiver before their service. Those
that say "they only push the button and talk" are doing
them an extreme disservice since there is considerably
more to do than that.

How much more? All the military radios I've seen that are/were
meant to be used by "line outfits" were made as simple to operate
as possible. That paradigm goes all the way back to the WW2
BC-611 "walkie talkie".

Radio training for line outfits
is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of
that being branch-specific procedural matters.

A couple *weeks* of intense formal training!

Now,
if they can all do that successfully in a short time,
it makes no logical sense to have class stratification
of being held in one class for a year or more.

The environments are completely different, Len. Most
radio amateurs are essentially self-taught, in their spare
time, using their own resources. What they could learn
in a week or two of intense formal training might take a
month to a year of part-time self-study.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.
Only the Advanced and Extra ever had such a requirement,
and the Advanced's 1 year requirement disappeared in 1953,
while the Extra's 2 year requirement was cut to 1 year in the
early 1970s and then eliminated about 1975.

I think the entry-level license for a US ham license could be
a lot better than the current Technician. What K2UNK proposes
is a good starting point. But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.

[email protected] December 8th 05 04:05 AM
Easier licensing
 
From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed, Dec 7 2005 2:51 pm


wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message

snip

Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because
the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down
to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference
from secret tests!

Yawn.... BUT publishing the questions was never proposed
by ARRL. That being so, who in the FCC do you
attribute the change to?

Those who wanted to save money by getting FCC out of the
exam-giving process.

So the reality is that no one in the ham community pushed that.
I'll conclude then that anytime the FCC proposes a change
even if not originated in the ham community, if you view it
as a lowering of requirements then it is automatically bad
per your opinion.

"That's about the size of it..."

snip

Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading
the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and
analyzing it a la AH0A.

ARRL is perfectly capable of that I'm sure.

But somebody has to pay for it.

["it's all about money"? :-) ]

ARRL has more than enough ability to fund such a study or
simply assign the task to one of the permanent ARRL staffers.

AH0A is hardly an objective analyzer...whatever he sees
is all about morse code... :-)


And you can bet that whatever
numbers ARRL puts out, some will say they are "massaged" and
accuse the ARRL of "fraud" and such.

WHO cares? There is always someone that will take issue
with any study conclusion, analysis, ets. If you expect
a 100% agreed to set of review and analysis as the end
result, tyhen yu're expecting the impossible.

The ARRL can do no wrong.

snip

I could care less about those that might want to wait for
changes they have no assurance are coming.

But those changes have an enormous impact on the numbers.
That's the point, whether we care about it or not.

The percent of people that might ultimately wait for "possible"
(emphasis on possible as opposed to actual)
future changes is, I suspect small. Odds are that there aren't
many current techs waiting for future free upgrades nor
where there likly many that shelved their upgrade plans
when the ARRL first proposed free upgrades. (IMHO of
course).

Morsemen are prescient, see all, know all. We cannot doubt
them. [they don't let us]

Frank Gilliland December 8th 05 04:15 AM
Easier licensing
 
On 7 Dec 2005 17:28:40 -0800, wrote in
. com:

snip
But many forms of amateur radio operation *do*
require unique, specialized skills and
knowledge that most nonamateurs have not developed.

Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.
snip more to this effect


I have to butt in here.....

Radio communication has two parts: 'Radio' and 'Communication'. From
what I have seen over the years, hams seem to be more concerned with
the 'radio' than the 'communication'. IOW, many hams have developed
technical skills but too few have developed communication skills for
use with the radio. The radio is just a tool -- a device that allows
the operator to communicate. Unfortunately, the written test doesn't
require an applicant to prove communication skills beyond the ability
to memorize the answers to the pool questions.

Morse Code is no exception. Knowing Morse Code does not a skilled
communicator make. All it means is that some knob-turner can tap out
the alphabet; and all that's required to pass the Morse test is a
rudimentary skill level. Or am I wrong? If a third-grader can read and
write a few words using all the letters of the alphabet, does that
make him/her a skilled communicator? Of course not..... except maybe
on a third-grade level. And a skilled communicator doesn't necessarily
need a technically complex tranceiver with all the bells and whistles.
Even a cheap CB radio can (and frequently does) get the job done if it
can be used as a means of communication (flame retardant suit on).

Personally, I think that Morse -should- be required for several
reasons, not the least of which is because it's a language that's used
and understood internationally. But if the amateur isn't required to
have the communication skills needed to use Morse to its minimum
potential, why even bother to make it a requirement? at a skill level
that has little practical application? and especially when no other
communication skills are required?

It really doesn't matter anyway. The ARRL wants to make ARS testing as
easy as possible to increase its membership; i.e, revenue. And since
they control the ARS lobby, the point is moot -- color the code gone.
It's all good though, because maybe hams will then be able to focus a
little more on the neglected aspect of radio communication.










----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[email protected] December 8th 05 11:01 PM
Easier licensing
 
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm


wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message


Agreed, Bill. The Technician privs are, IMHO,
not optimum for an entry-level license.

To whom are you commenting? My name isn't "bill."



I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps.

The ONLY alternative? :-)

It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

How often have we heard "ham radio isn't for everyone!"

:-)


Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too
much like the traditional union concept of work with
levels of apprentice-journeyman-master.

Not really.

Yes, REALLY. Amateur radio is NOT an occupation.

If a person can meet the requirements of the
higher class licenses, they can go right to General or
Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow
that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Says who? The only Guild I have a card for doesn't
require those levels.

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Why does one have to "upgrade" through license
classes? "Upgrading" can be done for oneself, to
keep abrest of technology advancements (see the
old "Amateurs Code" on that).

If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

But, such a one-class system would take away all the
"fun" that some have of needing to be "better than
others!" :-)

Amateur radio isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft.

Len, you're the only one who makes that comparison.

No, I got that from a licensed radio amateur some
years ago. It IS parallel to the license classes
as well as the thinking of those needing rank-status-
privilege "upgrades" for longer-tenured amateurs.

Even if it's valid, it means nothing in terms of how many
Amateur Radio license classes should exist.

Well now, I just don't think ANY multiple classes
should exist. ONE license. How about that?


Not really. The license classes exist for two reasons:

1) To offer an easy way to get started in amateur radio

One can't go into an HRO, plunk down plastic, walk out
with a working two-way radio? :-)

What would be easier?

2) To offer an easier path to full privileges than would
exist with a single license class that required the same
knowledge

Removing the artificiality of all that class distinction
with carrot-stick "privileges" would erase all of that.

Face it, Jimmie, all those classes GREW in order to
satisfy some POLITICAL reasons within the amateur
community. In the beginning there was only ONE license.

Anyone who can meet the requirements of the
various license classes can earn them.

"Earn them?" :-) "I load sixteen tons and what do I get?"

[ol' Ern singing away a once popular song :-) ]

If there were NO classes, just ONE license, wouldn't the
applicants have "earned" those?

In the beginning there was only ONE license.


It is a HOBBY,

And a lot more!

As far as the federal government is concerned, it is a NON-PAYING
radio activity that is expressly forbidden to broadcast or engage
in common-carrier communications. That boils down to a HOBBY.

It's also done for public service.

Jimmie, grow up. You are NOT the ARRL trying to do a snow job on
the public, trying to get more membership.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

Hobbies, ALL hobbies, can be made into a "service" for SOME of the
public.

Now, if you thought you were doing some "service" to the nation,
you are delusional. In Title 47 C.F.R., the word "service" is
used as a regulatory word meaning the type and kind of radio
activity being regulated by a Part, ALL Parts.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

Individuals engaged in that HOBBY are licensed because the FCC,
the federal agency regulating all civil radio, think that
licensing is a tool of regulation.


In almost every human activity there are levels of
achievement and recognition for same.

"Recognition?" Tsk, now you are back to CLASS DISTINCTION
again!

Level of achievement with a no-class, one-license
system: Have a license or not have a license.


Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a
complex task

That depends on the transmitter. Some require a lot
of skill and knowledge, others do not.

Crap. It isn't anywhere close to rocket science.

If very ordinary young men can operate multi-control
vacuum tube transmitters of high power output with
success and rapidity with only a few days of on-the-
job instruction, then your "lot of skill and
knowledge" is crap squared.

And there is
far more to amateur radio operation than "operating
a transmitter".

Anyone, with or without a license can operate a
RECEIVER. Crap-cubed, Jimmie.

UNLICENSED people by the thousands every day in the
USA are OPERATING TRANSCEIVERS.

Crap to the fourth power, Jimmie.


Perhaps this skill and knowledge requirement is why
you have such a dislike of Morse Code, Len. Morse
Code operation in amateur radio usually involves
skilled operators.

Crap to the fifth power, Jimmie.

Don't try that "you ain't good enough to be in the same
universe as you morsemen."

"Morse code operation in amateur radio" does NOT
involve ALL "skilled operators." Is 5 WPM rate
something that is "skilled?" Geez, Jimmie, you've
written that "20 WPM CW [code] isn't high rate."
You elevated yourself to being better than most
with morse and you deride thousands of old extras
who passed a 20 WPM test. Tsk, tsk.

The license test element 1 doesn't involve full-day
shifts of relaying messages on some net, doesn't
involve emergency messaging from ships or people in
danger, doesn't involve anything but a very simple
test of cognition. VECs can delete sending tests at
their option.

If you've looked at the ARRL home page lately you
would have seen a little Quiz box. 45.6 percent of
those who took that Quiz said they NEVER used
radiotelegraphy!


The people you cite do not "operate radio transmitters"
in the same sense that radio amateurs do. They are, in
reality, radio *users*, not operators in the sense of
amateur radio operators.

The radios they USE are either owned by their employers
(businesses, public safety agences as examples) or
themselves (private boat or aircraft owners as an
example). Some of those radios DO require a licensed
person to oversee their operation and technical details,
but some do NOT. Depends on the particular radio service.

They are not required to have
much if any technical knowledge of their
radio equipment, nor does that equipment have any
technical adjustments.

An amateur radio license is ALSO a radio station license.
That is the difference. Amateurs ARE allowed to build
their own transmitters (within limits of regulations) but
all other radio services (some exceptions in Part 15
devices) require type-acceptance of RF emitters.

Being allowed to home-build does NOT impact USE, Jimmie.
Amateur USE is the same whether home-built or ready-
built. "Adjustment" to meet the technical requirements
of Part 97 is NOT USE.

In fact the radios are usually
set up so that the only adjustments are on-off-volume,
channel select, and maybe squelch. In many cases the
latter two do not exist.

You forgot the Push-To-Talk "adjustment." :-)

In case you are wondering about some boat or aircraft
owners, take a look at a popular seller of private
marine radios, SGC in Belleview, WA. Their SGC 2020
model is for both marine and amateur HF bands, the
chief difference being in frequency control ranges. The
front panel controls are the same and not as simple as
you describe. [there's plenty of other examples,
especially in small-boat radar] In general aviation
craft, the civil communications band transceiver IS
simple. It should be since a pilot has to give their
attention to FLYING, not playing ham. Add to that the
civil navigation band receiver with OBS for VOR, the
crossed needles for LOC and GS, the Marker Beacon
lights, is NOT "simple." Toss in the transponder and
its operation (not complex, but woe if you squawk the
wrong code these days!).

That they do not require radio operator licenses is proof of
that difference.

Crap to the sixth power, Jimmie. The REGULATIONS were
SIMPLIFIED to streamline them by removing old, antiquated
regulations that no longer benefitted anyone. The
governments (worldwide) did that.

This isn't 1920 and some ship's radio room with a single
"skilled" radio operator the only one "qualified" to
operate a spark transmitter and crystal set receiver.
Times have changed.


On top of all that, the radio users cited above may not be
FCC licensed, but they are trained, tested and often certified in
proper radio procedures for the radios they use.

"Certified?" They get neat little certificates (suitable
for framing)? Wow!

Each and every radio service has their own set of jargon
and lingo, plus communications procedures. shrug So?
They generall use the same lingo and jargon when using
wired telephones. It is JOB-SPECIFIC.

For
example, licenses to pilot aircraft with radios require that
the licensee know and demonstrate proper aircraft radio
procedures. The pilot's license cannot be obtained without
such radio procedure knowledge.

By the Federal AVIATION Administration, NOT the FCC.

The FAA makes the regulations for flying/piloting, Jimmie.

Amateur radio is completely different.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY. Pilots don't go
chasing DX or engaging in contact contests or sending QSLs.
Ignore a ham transceiver and all you do is miss a contact
or two, maybe offend the person at the other end. Ignore
an airplane's attitude or instruments and it crashes and
the pilot is DEAD, perhaps with many more on the ground.

Completely different. I agree.


A radio amateur
is, by definition and regulation, both operationally and
technically responsible for his/her station.

Tsk, the vast majority have NO means except a contact at
the other end of the radio circuit, NO way of insuring
that their RF emitters meet the prescribed technical
characteristics given in Part 97.

In the vast
majority of situations, the radio amateur sets up his/her station
and operates it without special formal training, testing or
certification other than the amateur radio license.

Yeah, they pay by plastic, perhaps follow the maker's
instructions and fumble around until things sound right.

So the
license tests must be more comprehensive than those for
services where the "operator" is really more of a user.

Crap to the seventh order, Jimmie.

"Modern" amateur band transceivers, transmitters, receivers, etc.
are ready-to-play right out of the box. Those are aligned,
tested, calibrated, ready-to-go. Sort of like the SGC 2020
private marine version SSB transceiver. :-)

Typical amateur radio equipment - particularly HF/MF
equipment - has many technical adjustments and controls.
Skill and knowledge *are* required to operate such radios
to best advantage.

Oh, back to lower-order CRAP, Jimmie. After an hour's
instruction (maybe less) I was QSYing a BC-339 1 KW HF
transmitter. It had MORE "technical adjustments and
controls" than the average amateur transmitter of
comparable power. Wanna see what those looke like? He

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/BroadcastHistory/uploads/
My3Years.pdf


Unlike almost all other radio services, amateur radio is
not formally channelized, particularly on HF/MF.

Except the "60m band."

Except for all those VHF and UHF repeaters which have
been frequency-coordinated.

snip of squealing to the chorus

Would you have just one class of license?

Yes. NO class, ONE license.

If you need gold stars or pretty certificates, get those at
Office Depot.



Would you prefer the chaos of unregulation? Or perhaps
much more regulation that would eliminate much of the
freedom and flexibility radio amateurs enjoy?

Reducto ad absurdum "questions" don't win you anything.



If any license has been a failure at its original purpose, it is the
Technician. That license was created to encourage the development and
use of VHF/UHF after WW2, and not to be an entry-level license at all.
The original Technician license privileges were for 220 MHz and up. The
license was intended for technically-oriented folks who wanted to
tinker and build and experiment, and occasionally operate.

What do you mean "occasionally operate?" And just what is
YOUR experience at ham bands of 220 MHz and up? Especially
right after WW2.

Yet most
Technicians then and now are primarily communicators, not
builder/experimenters.

Funny thing about your sneer, Jimmie, it almost makes you smile,
but not quite.

Right now the combined numbers of no-code-Technician and Technician
Plus classes make up a bit more that 48% of ALL U.S. amateur radio
licenses granted. Almost HALF, Jimmie.

Newcomers to amateur radio are entering through the no-code-test
Technician class level...because it has NO code test.

Sunnuvagun!

Perhaps that emotional baggage is why you never
held a Novice license, Len. Perhaps you disliked being
known as a beginner.

In 1951 I would have accepted that "Novice" grading...as a teen-
ager. Maybe in early 1953 at age 20 when learning to operate
high-power HF transmitters. NOT by late 1954 as an E-5 and
supervisor of an operating team. Sure as hell NOT by early
1956 after being a supervisor of microwave radio relay
equipment vital to the linkage of all parts of a military
radio station.

You call me a "beginner" in radio now you will get laughed at
and become a target for rotten tomatoes.

Get the picture?


"history" lesson omitted from one who wasn't there then


Neither is it a reason to discard the concept. The details
may need changing but the concept is valid. It offers a way
for newcomers to get started in amateur radio without
having to make a large investment of resources.

More crap of no particular order.

You are stuck in an endless loop of repeating past regulatory
standards AS IF time and attitudes have not changed. For
example of blindness to actual fact:

One big reason the Novice lost favor as the entry point
for new hams was its lack of privileges on the most popular
VHF/UHF bands - 2 meters and 440, where most of the repeaters are.

Just ordinary crap. The Novice class started before "repeaters"
were numerous in major urban areas.

After 1990, newcomers were shunning "Novice" and going for the
NO-CODE-TEST Technician class license. Sure, it was straight-
jacketed to VHF and above but it was fun for most in urban
areas and the equipment makers had equipment on the shelves
for them to buy.

snip to Jimmie mumbling about kiddies

It is
misplaced in a "community" whose active members are
predominently adult.

No, it isn't misplaced at all. Including young people in
amateur radio is a *good* thing, not a problem.

Goodie...have fun attending nursery school activities with
all the kiddies.


Now you're just getting nasty, Len.

No, I've only touched on your apparent pedophilia.


The reason amateur radio is "primarily adult" is that young
people don't stay young for long.

Remarkable! You've made a DISCOVERY!

Ah, but you've talked only about their physicality. Mentally
some NEVER outgrow their childhood...keeping the kiddie thoughts
and pretending to be grown-ups long into their old age.


One of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio Service
is education.

In case you haven't noticed, the FCC was NEVER chartered as
an educational institution.

FCC say "SELF-education," Jimmie. About radio.

"Teach goegraphy?" What are public schools for? Recess?

"Other languages?" Morsemen say "morse code is an
international language" therefore only ONE is needed.

"Time zones?" WTF you tawkin bout?

"Government regulations?" BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!!!!

Part 97 is one of the SMALLEST Parts in Title 47 C.F.R.



Amateur Radio is for people of almost any age, not
just "adults". It is not an age-specific activity.

I'm sure that pedophiles love it.


Amateur radio is one place where adults
and children can often interact as functional equals.

You've GOT to be kidding if you want to be "functional
equals" with a six-year-old Technician!!!!


Young people do not need to be isolated from adults
and most adult activities. They need just the opposite -
inclusion and integration, so they learn to be part of
the community rather than alienated from it.

Note: Got word from Psychology Today magazine that
your application as Editor-in-Chief has been revoked.
You really DO have to have a passing grade on Psych 101
to qualify.


Of course there are a few activities that are not suitable
for young people, but amateur radio isn't one of them.

*Any* activity has the capacity to make a young
person "different".

Now you are contradicting yourself.

Those who are involved in Scouting
are "different" from those who are not involved.

Here's a hint, Sherlock. BOY scouts and GIRL scouts
are/were purposely FOR children. They weren't intended
for grown-ups. If you need to wear a uniform and be in
the woods, try enlisting in the army...which you've
never done.


Most young people who play sports will never be able to
play professionally.

Are there professionals in radiosport?

Most young people who learn a
musical instrument will never be able to be professional
musicians.

You can't play music over the amateur bands.

Most young people who perform in school plays
will not become actors.

Yet some TRY to be actors (or salespeople) toward others,
trying to impress others on their lofty abilities. :-)


But amateur radio can be the path to a number of careers, like
engineering.

The MAJORITY of my contemporaries in electronics got into it
WITHOUT first getting an amateur radio license.



You all had at least a high school education, didn't you?

Wasn't required then. Even literacy wasn't a requirement!
There were special classes to teach English then but that
required an extension of the service time to compensate.

All had passed various aptitude tests to become signalmen, didn't
they?

No. The ONLY aptitude test given in regards to radio was
a morse code cognition test given to all recruits. Steering
of recruits in the military then was DEMAND-driven. One
goes where one is told to go.

You all went to microwave school, right?

No. Some went to Field Radio School, some went to tele-
typewriter school, a few went to inside-plant telephone
school. We had a separate group for outside-plant telephone
people...the "pole cats" who put up the poles for wire
antennas and strung the wire.


It wasn't like you and the others had no "radio-electronics"
background at all, and had to start from scratch.

Tsk. Try NOT to TELL ME what I or any contemporaries were
doing, Jimmie. You don't know dink about it.

Some DID start with no previous experience other than turning
on a broadcast receiver. One was a chemist in his 3rd year
of college (not quite old enough to escape the draft and too
young to escape drafting by the Wehrmacht!). One was a farmer
from Iowa. Others were from different occupations having
nothing to do with radio or electronics.

While you
may have not had specific "HF" training, was there no
transfer from the training you did have?

One did, in fact, transfer out...didn't like all that
electronics snit at Monmouth and asked to go into Infantry.

So you had experienced people to supervise, teach and guide
everything you did, and make sure you did it right.

That's normal in the military. :-)

They didn't hold any hands or coddle lower ranks if that's
what you mean...guffaw!

You weren't on your own at all until the experienced people thought
you were ready - right?

Not entirely true. If ANY situation arose that required
handling, it was handled as best as one could. That is ALSO
true in ANY aspect of military experience.

What you did was all according to set procedures that had
been worked out carefully by trained and experienced people,
correct?

Not entirely true. With experience, learning, paying
attention, lower rankings become higher rankings and are
thus considered "trained and experienced." :-)

And you had all sorts of manuals, training materials, tools,
parts and test equipment to do the job - right?

Not entirely true. But, it is useless to try to explain it
to you since you have NO similar experience and NONE in that
time frame.

Those that did it wrong were shown
why and had to practice getting it right. No re-
criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no
ostracizing.

All good stuff - but it all amounts to a considerable
training period, doesn't it? A lot more than a few days.

What, to QSY a BC-339? A BC-340? An LD-T2? Simple task.
The PW-15 was a bit more difficult due to the large double-
shorting links for the final tank (15 KW conservative RF
output, looked like it was built for three times that).
Piece of cake to anyone with a normal memory.

Memorizing new jargon was more "difficult", memorizing
new procedures on the order-wire teletypewriter were more
"difficult," some with bad pitch would set up the Shift on
the RTTY exciters to 425 cycles instead of the 850 cycles
standard. Jimmie, I WAS THERE, YOU WERE NOT. I've
explained all of it before. I have a nice photo essay on
it that is a free download. Did you get it?

We all learned and did our tasks

I'm sure you did - and there were incentives to do so!

What "incentives" did we have? Name them.

Do one's job well enough and one does NOT get demoted,
does NOT get Company Punishment ("Captain's Mast" in
the Navy), does NOT get **** details...although some
military tasks ARE **** details for all.

Promotion in rank an "incentive?" IF there is an
opening (not guaranteed) in the TO&E and one is
evaluated to be a responsible type, MAYBE a
promotion. Of course, such an "incentive" also
requires an additional responsibility and, with that,
a whole new set of "gradings" on performance.


Like what, Len? Compared to amateurs who have done
things like building and operating complete EME stations
on their own time, with only their own resources?

Describe YOUR "EME" station, Jimmie.

Military life is NOT a hobby, Jimmie. You don't understand
that and it is useless to explain it to you.


Now I'll tell you about *my* experience on "entering HF".

We've all heard that before in here...yawn.

It sounds JUST like some cute human-interest stories
published now and then in amateur radio publications.

"priceless" ego-boo story snipped

A completely different environment than what you described for
yourself.

Yes. Big difference. I never considered myself "superior"
to anyone except of lower rank (superiority was already
pre-defined). While all what I've described was going on,
WE (the soldiers) ALSO had to undergo periodic training
to keep up our warfighting skills. NONE of that was a
HOBBY, Jimmie.


All the military radios I've seen that are/were
meant to be used by "line outfits" were made as simple to operate
as possible. That paradigm goes all the way back to the WW2
BC-611 "walkie talkie".

"Handie-talkie," Jimmie. The "walkie-talkie" was the SCR-300
(R/T being BC-1000). Both designed by MOTOROLA.

Tell us YOUR experiences WITH "line" outfits. How good can
you do morse keying while rattling around IN a moving tank?

Why do you think that military radios SHOULD have lots of
complicated controls with lots of time available for operators
to play with knobs, dials, and switches?

Ever "wear" an AN/PRC-9? [or its cousins PRC-8, PRC-10?).
How about carrying an AN/PRC-25 or a PRC-77? How about an
AN/PRC-104 or the SINCGARS AN/PRC-119? Ever enter the
"hopset" on a 119? I have. As a civilian.

If you want knobs, dials, switches to play with, try the old
post-WW2 USMC HF transmitter T-195 designed by Collins Radio.
First Jeep-mounted Autotune critter, first one with an
automatic antenna tuner...and enormously INEFFICIENT in terms
of DC power drain on the Jeep versus its RF power output.

I can rattle off dozens more but you won't accept any of
those that haven't appeared in the Military Ring of the
boatanchors afficionados.


The environments are completely different, Len.

NO KIDDING?!? Amateur radio is a HOBBY. Military is all
about WARFIGHTING, Jimmie.

Most
radio amateurs are essentially self-taught, in their spare
time, using their own resources. What they could learn
in a week or two of intense formal training might take a
month to a year of part-time self-study.

WTF is this "intense" formal training? Is there a whips
and chains punisher in the classroom as "teachers' aide?"

YOU tell ME EXACTLY how much compensation I got for keeping
up with the state-of-the-art in electronics (and radio, if
you insist on making those two indestinguishable fields
"separate")...and how many "intense instruction classes"
I got during my civilian career? I can tell you exactly
to both: ZERO.

Anyone who tries to apply themselves in anything MUST do a
whole helluvalot of SELF-STUDY...for their work OR for their
hobby. SELF-STUDY on one's own free time...at nights, during
lunch, anywhere keeping their eyes open and being receptive
to new things. If that means taking the trouble to go to
seminars, take extension classes without credit on one's
own wallet payments, then one does it...if they really,
really want to know more...in a hobby OR in a career.

More important, the only experience requirements for
amateur licenses in the USA disappeared 30+ years ago.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Someone somewhere FINALLY
figured out that amateur radio was a HOBBY way back then!

Gotta love the fantasy that the amateurs had way back,
being oh-so-important communications providers to the
nation! :-) That fantasy still persists. :-(


... But it's an uphill road with FCC because
the NPRM clearly states that FCC doesn't see it that way.

WHICH NPRM? FCC 05-143? You are getting mixed up on what
their discussion-on-other-Petitions have versus their
proposal to just end all morse code test requirements for
an amateur radio license.

Hey, if you wanna have a big boo-hoo on "the FCC doesn't
see YOUR way," then check the newspaper coupons at your
local market. There may be a special on Kleenex or other
tissues.

If you want some nice gold stars to paste on your Extra
license, go down to Office Depot and buy them. Then you
can explain to your friends and neighbors how so very good
you are ("see the gold stars?") and they will all gush
all over you. [Kleenex will also absorb extra gushing]

Stay dry.

[email protected] December 9th 05 02:19 AM
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps.

The ONLY alternative? :-)

If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes.

It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too
much like the traditional union concept of work with
levels of apprentice-journeyman-master.

Not really.

Yes, REALLY.

No, not REALLY.

Amateur radio is NOT an occupation.

Who said it was?

If a person can meet the requirements of the
higher class licenses, they can go right to General or
Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow
that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Says who? The only Guild I have a card for doesn't
require those levels.

That's an extraordinary circumstance.

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Why does one have to "upgrade" through license
classes?

One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box".
You haven't.

"Upgrading" can be done for oneself, to
keep abrest of technology advancements (see the
old "Amateurs Code" on that).

How about keeping abreast of correct spelling? ;-)

If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

Right.

And if there were only one license, regardless of
what it would be called, its test(s) would
have to contain everything that is now contained in
the three written tests for the Amateur Extra.
Otherwise the standards would be reduced.

So what you propose is that all new amateurs would
have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests
for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an
amateur radio license.

Is that what you want?

k4yz December 9th 05 03:37 AM
One Class of Amateur Radio License?
 
On 8 Dec 2005 17:19:44 -0800, wrote:

wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps.

The ONLY alternative? :-)

If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes.

which is of course an opiton

yes that course of action has it price but cleally it benifits as well

It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too
much like the traditional union concept of work with
levels of apprentice-journeyman-master.

Not really.

Yes, REALLY.

No, not REALLY.

yes realy

as an extra yourself you are not in postion to realy know Len and in
this case myself esp are in the best postion to know


Amateur radio is NOT an occupation.

Who said it was?

If a person can meet the requirements of the
higher class licenses, they can go right to General or
Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow
that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Says who? The only Guild I have a card for doesn't
require those levels.

That's an extraordinary circumstance.

why?

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Why does one have to "upgrade" through license
classes?

One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box".
You haven't.

"Upgrading" can be done for oneself, to
keep abrest of technology advancements (see the
old "Amateurs Code" on that).

How about keeping abreast of correct spelling? ;-)

shove it if you are goignt o play spelling cop


If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

Right.

And if there were only one license, regardless of
what it would be called, its test(s) would
have to contain everything that is now contained in
the three written tests for the Amateur Extra.

no it would not

Otherwise the standards would be reduced.

that isn't even true a lot of the material in the exists test drops
out iin a one class license system

and other matter become redundant as well, like obviously no need for
clas absed who can ve question and a lot fot he stuff in the test now
is pretty repitious

So what you propose is that all new amateurs would
have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests
for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an
amateur radio license.

nope he does not nor do I

I susgest a license test be created thatmeet the nees of the ARS under
the system regardless of how hard or easy it is


Is that what you want?
nope more of your strwmen
everyone should be advised that The following person
has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name

he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes
he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable

STEVEN J ROBESON
151 12TH AVE NW
WINCHESTER TN 37398
931-967-6282


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM.
Page 17 of 26 « First 710111213141516 17 18192021222324 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com