|
What Law is Broken?
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:53:20 GMT, John
wrote: wrote: From: K0HB on Nov 30, 4:46 pm wrote Where in Part 97 does it say that anyone cannot comment outside the deadline dates? Part 97 is silent on the subject of comments outside, inside, above, before, after, abeam, abaft, or forward of the deadline. Try Part 0 and/or Part 1 of Title 47 C.F.R. It is NOT in BUPERSINST 1900.8B. Have a nice day, Are you saying that one cannot file comments outside the deadline? After all, you have done so! your evedeince? or have you been lsitening to stevie? everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders 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 |
An English Teacher
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:26:39 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: wrote: From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm wrote: From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: Mark, there's something curious about morsemen. I'm sure that you find any number of things curious, Leonard, like why would anyone devote the time and energy to learning a skill which can earn them no money and which you believe is quite useless? at the risk of being wrong lety me guess Len does not find that curious They are very SERIOUS about their hobby and INTENSE on certain skills. Perhaps you meant that they put serious effort into learning the material required for obtaining an HF amateur radio license and were INTENT on passing the exams. nope I am sure he did not mena it so you are trying by infeence Their sense of humor is limited only to THEM "laughing" at those who disagree on telegraphy testing. Since you are on the outside of amateur radio and you disagree on morse code testing, I can understand how you came to that conclusion. Radio amateurs who favor retention of the morse test can and do laugh at many other things. You write only from your experience. gee the insiders come to that conclusion too the insider and the outsider both agree The beginning of the solid-state era had begun. The beginning had begun? Third graders write better than that, Len. bad jimmie Stevie job is to play speling cop Sister Nun of the Above got into the act, spanking ruler at the ready. She didn't hit anything, though. I'm sure I heard a dull thud as you were struck amidships. now you are hearing thing Dave K8MN everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders 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 |
An English Teacher
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:26:17 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: wrote: From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm wrote: From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: I opt NOT to bother with CB radio since it is not to my needs in communicating anything by radio. The little two-way radio terminal called a "cell phone" serves both me and my wife very adequately in mobile communications needs. You're quite right, sir. A cell phone meets your needs. You needn't bother with CB or amateur radio. indeed he NEED and you need not My old Johnson...still works... That's nice. Jimmy, who never worked IN the FCC (and will never do so), thinks that just having an amateur license means he had "something to do with amateur radio regulations." :-) Will you ever work IN the FCC, Len? is something lacking in your reading skil dave it seems that way Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in amateur radio, anyway. not what I hear You have to give Jimmy some slack, Mark. Since his receiver can't pick up anything outside the "low end" of HF ham bands, he thinks HF is still "alive with the sounds of morse code" (as if Julie Andrews were singing it on top of a hill). Does your venerable Icom receiver still hit the bottom end of the HF ham bands, Leonard? You must think morse code is dead, poor morse is dead (as if Gordon McRae were singing it out by the corral). no he doesn't think is dead just dying I do too just not fast enough you Jim and steve certain makes a decent case for the notion that CW uUSE casues brain damage in some people Dave K8MN everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders 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 |
An English Teacher
|
What Law is Broken?
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:46:58 GMT, KØHB wrote:
Where in Part 97 does it say that anyone cannot comment outside the deadline dates? Part 97 is silent on the subject of comments outside, inside, above, before, after, abeam, abaft, or forward of the deadline. You left out "aloft" and "below", Master Chief..... ggg Sunuvagun! For the barracks lawyers, Part 1 of the FCC Rules and Title 5 of the C.F.R. deals with such minutia. When they totally foul interpretation of it up, they can hire a REAL lawyer to teach them about it. de Hans, K0HB -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
An English Teacher
|
An English Teacher
wrote After the incentive licnesing rules went into effect in the 1967-1969 period, the number of US hams began to grow much faster than it had during the 1960s. The growth of the 1970s continued into the 1980s. Are you suggesting that making it tougher to get full privileges was the cause that accelerated the growth of the ARS? That has to qualify as the most outrageous notion to hit RRAP (outside the dump huck posts from Mark) in the current century. Clearly other "market forces" were in play for the ARS to enjoy the popularity it did in the post-Sputnik years. Science was "cool" and the hot ticket for education and career planning. Scientifiic-seeming hobbies like electronics, radio, and astronomy were beneficiaries of this attitude. If anything, dis-incentive licensing was a damper (not an accelerant) on the growth of the ARS during that period. If incentive licensing was so awful, why was there so much growth in the ARS in the two decades after it was put in place? Can you imagine how much more growth we'd have had without its repressive effects on our hobby! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
An English Teacher
wrote:
wrote: From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm wrote: From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795 filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel of laffs! :-) [ chuckle, chuckle ] So you really don't know what you're talking about when you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments. he can make the same assumetion you can Which assumption is that? grow up old man Mark, there's something curious about morsemen. They are very SERIOUS about their hobby and INTENSE on certain skills. Is there anything wrong with being serious or intense? yes whn it result in them demanding that all must do as they did Let's see....WK3C and K2UNK spent their own time and money to visit FCC officials about the Morse Code test issue. That's pretty SERIOUS and INTENSE, isn't it? strawmen (not that there's anything wrong with that...) never said there was either BTW, there's 3,796 filings now, one was added on the 28th. :-) Was any law broken by such late filings? was it a late filing or merely the posting of some mail that was sent in timely fashion by US mail By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? becuase it isn't suposed to hapen at least if it does they are all supose to have been mailed before the deadline Who says it isn't supposed to happen? the FCC in writing te rules as required by the Congress The specific date periods on comments applies to the Commission's activities on decision-making for a final Memorandum Report and Order. That date period is determined by statements made in the publishing of a docket/proceedure in the Federal Register. Standard practice at the FCC. Your buddy Mark claims that late filings break some law or other. Straighten him out - if you can. no I don't I calim it violates "the rule of law" the respect of procedure it vilates the regs to consider them In the case of publishing NPRM 05-143, the Commission was 6 calendar weeks LATE. How? Is there a deadline for FCC? yes NPRM 05-143 was opened to the public on 19 July 2005. Publishing in the Federal Register didn't happen until 31 August 2005. So? Does FCC have to get NPRMs in the Federal Register within a certain amount of time? they are suposed to do in a timely manner it certainly looks improper Perhaps you should tell them off and put them right, Len - after all, you've said you're not afraid of authority. You could put in some of your diminutive nicknames and catchphrases, and criticize them for taking six long weeks..... The date period for comments was not specifically stated in NPRM 05-143, was specifically stated in the Federal Register on 31 August 2005. Which is why some of us didn't file comments right away. We waited for the official announcement. Others had no patience and just had to let fly before the official date. The normal delay on public release to publishing is anywhere from zero days to a week. A few have taken longer, but it would be a VERY long search to find a docket/proceeding that was delayed SIX WEEKS. So? It took them a little longer. Have you no patience? no pat with defiling the rule of law In those SIX WEEKS DELAY the public filed 52% of all comments filed. And the majority of those were anticodetest. The procodetest folks, in general, waited for the official comment period. What does that say about the two groups' understanding of the regulations? sluing people for assuming the FCC had moved in the manner they are supposed to a low blow down in the stevie range The "public" may not be fully aware of the official comment period beginning date. Nonsense. Most of those who filed comments are licensed amateurs, aren't they? your coment was nonsense all right The Commission is fairly speedy on getting proceedings published in the Federal Register. Not this time! Why don't you complain, Len? Tell 'em how it should be done! I thought he did as point of fact The "public" does not consist of just attorneys and beaurocrats handling law, so they would generally be unaware of that delay. Such a long time was unexpected. You filed before the deadline, didn't you? ;-) Did you file any of your 10 filings too early? Maybe the folks at FCC are chuckling over the fact that you couldn't follow the rules... no rule said he had to wait for the pulication? 1 comment - 8 reply comments - 1 exhibit - 146 pages if my count is right...... so? While you have every right in the world to comment to FCC, Len, did it ever occur to you that maybe - just maybe - your long wordy diatribes really don't help the nocodetest cause one bit? given the quality (or lack of it) from the ProCode side I don't think his coments helped the No Code side at all, but only because the rsult was something the Procoders had the clear burden to make the case or esle the FCC would go with the NoCode Position indeed I don't think any of the NoCode coments will play much role in the final outcome. I hope my coment my affect some issues on the margin of the NPRM but it is a slim hope why does it seem you don't care about the rul of of law when it suits you What "rule of law" prohibits late comments? one should avoid being late one should meet dealines Jimmy Noserve only cares about the preservation of morse code, everything from "operating skill" to the license test. He can't bear to give up any of that. Wrong on all counts there, Len. Completely wrong. then what have yo been fighting over Oh, right...the ARRL TOLD YOU! Or you channeled St. Hiram on the subject and you got the number in a vision? FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals, Len. Without the internet. That's a fact. indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was How was it a "disaster"? by being one and something hams are whining over how the ARRL tired to kill the ars How? By trying to raise the level of technical knowledge required for a full-provileges license? yes Mark, Jimmy has NOT proven his "fact." You have not disproved it, Len. yours is the burden you are maikng the assertion The only way to determine that "fact" is to visit the FCC Reading Room in DC and view all the filings. How do you know I haven't done that, Len? did you? For most of my life I've lived in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Washington DC is a day trip from here - done it many times. In fact, some things I have designed are in daily use in the DC metro area. It would be a simple thing for me to take a day or two to see all those 6000 "filings". Those old dockets and proceedings aren't on-line. So? They were reported in the publications of that time (1960s). Is something only true to you if it's online, Len? What evidence do you have that the 6000+ comments claim is not true? Perhaps you don't want to accept it because it disproves your opinions. As to "disaster," that is subjective opinion. Yep. FCC thought it was a good idea at the time. FCC still thinks it's a good idea, but with fewer levels. do they on what basis do you say that In the long run, "incentive licensing" only served to harden the class distinction among licensees. Subjective opinion. something had to do it what else do you sugest? It got too cumbersome for the future to the Commission, so they streamlined it via FCC 99-412. Yet the basic concept of a series of license classes, each with increasing test requirements and privileges, was reaffirmed by FCC. As for being "too cumbersome", FCC refused all proposals of free (no test) upgrades, which would have greatly simplified the license class structure and the rules. Instead, we now have the six license classes anyway, with Novice and Advanced no longer issued new (but renewable and modifiable indefinitely), and Technician Plus being renewed as Technician even though the privileges are different. In fact, a case could be made that there are at least 9 different license categories (for those who hold current licenses) if you count differences in operating privileges and test element credit: 1) Novice 2) Technician without code test 3) Tech Plus or Technician renewed from Tech Plus, pre-March 21, 1987 4) Tech Plus or Technician renewed from Tech Plus, post-March 21, 1987 5) Technician with code test CSCE less than 365 days old 6) Technician with code test CSCE more than 365 days old 7) General 8) Advanced 9) Extra There's even more if the test credits for certain expired licenses are considered) Doesn't seem to faze the FCC. The League lobbied for, and got "incentive licensing." But not just the League. There were no less than 10 other proposals in favor of the concept. They differed in details but not in the basic idea. There was widespread support for the idea both inside and outside the League. Also widespread opposition. The support won. It's odd that all the other proposals, and the features they suggested, are so often forgotten, and the League gets all the blame. Old-timers of the League loved radiotelegraphy, Is that a bad thing? yes everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders 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 |
An English Teacher
wrote: From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm wrote: From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: Mark, there's something curious about morsemen. They are very SERIOUS about their hobby and INTENSE on certain skills. Is there anything wrong with being serious or intense? Let's see....WK3C and K2UNK spent their own time and money to visit FCC officials about the Morse Code test issue. That's pretty SERIOUS and INTENSE, isn't it? DETERMINED would be a better descriptor. Some morsemen get positively anal-retentive about morsemanship. BTW, Carl Stevenson wasn't "WK3C" when he and Bill appeared before the FCC. Accuracy, accuracy! :-) (not that there's anything wrong with that...) St. Hiram went to Washington after WW1. That established a precedent on "goodness" or "badness" of "spending their own time and money" didn't it? BTW, there's 3,796 filings now, one was added on the 28th. :-) Was any law broken by such late filings? Why do you ask? Guilty conscience about something? :-) [as of 2 Dec 05 there are 3,800 filings on WT Docket 05-235] [accuracy, accuracy!] By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being made on 5 August 2005! :-) Why does that matter? Oh, wow, I can't believe you would ask such a question?!? Let's see...FCC 99-412 (Memorandum Report and Order) established the last Restructuring effective in mid-2000, the R&O itself released at the end of December 1999. WT Docket 98-143 was ordered closed in a mid-2001 Memorandum Report and Order that denied a bunch of proposals and semi-petitions that had been filed in the past year and a half to that R&O. But...a hundred-plus filings were still made after mid-2001, the last one in 2004 (by a PhD ham, no less). He was STILL TRYING TO TALK ABOUT WT Docket 98-143! THREE YEARS AFTER THE FACT of closure on 98-143. :-) That is nothing more than dumb, stupid stubbornness, especially by someone who has obtained a Doctorate degree. Were any of those VERY LATE filers PAYING ATTENTION?!? I don't think so. Your buddy Mark claims that late filings break some law or other. INCORRECT. Mark cited NO "law or other." YOU brought out the charges of "illegality." Straighten him out - if you can. Straighten out YOURSELF. In the case of publishing NPRM 05-143, the Commission was 6 calendar weeks LATE. How? Is there a deadline for FCC? Why are you asking? To misdirect MORE than usual into "charges" that you invent as you go along? Or are you just trying to fight in words because of some frustration of yours? The Commission has typically published Notices in the Federal Register WITHIN A WEEK of such Notices being made to the public. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking FCC 05-143 was released on 15 July 2005. In that initial release, the heading carried the information that Comments [period] would exist for 60 days, Replies to Comments [period] would exist for 75 days AFTER PUBLISHING IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. Publishing did not happen until 31 August 2005. THEN the firm date period of filings was made. So? Does FCC have to get NPRMs in the Federal Register within a certain amount of time? If it wants to be of service to the PUBLIC, it should. Perhaps you should tell them off and put them right, Len - after all, you've said you're not afraid of authority. You could put in some of your diminutive nicknames and catchphrases, and criticize them for taking six long weeks..... Already filed. See ECFS on WT Docket 05-235 for 25 November 2005, filing type EXHIBIT. The normal delay on public release to publishing is anywhere from zero days to a week. A few have taken longer, but it would be a VERY long search to find a docket/proceeding that was delayed SIX WEEKS. So? It took them a little longer. Have you no patience? I have considerable patience. I also have fun with some dumbsnits who only want to ARGUE for the sake of arguing. :-) In those SIX WEEKS DELAY the public filed 52% of all comments filed. And the majority of those were anticodetest. The procodetest folks, in general, waited for the official comment period. Bullsnit. :-) What of all the "procodetest" folks who DID comment in the "unofficial" period? What of all those FOR the NPRM who filed during the "official" period? What does that say about the two groups' understanding of the regulations? What "regulation" states that an NPRM must be immediately published in the Federal Register? No, the general public EXPECTS federal agencies to perform their duties in manner established by considerable precedent. The Commission has done fairly fast work in the past on all regulation change documents publishing in the Federal Register. A SIX WEEK DELAY in publishing is an error in serving the public, a disservice. The "public" may not be fully aware of the official comment period beginning date. Nonsense. Most of those who filed comments are licensed amateurs, aren't they? WHAT "regulation" or "law" states that ONLY licensed radio amateurs may communicate with the federal government on amateur radio regulations? Name it. NOW. Not "six weeks from now." Not this time! Why don't you complain, Len? Already done, as I said. Are you suddenly blind? NOT aware and informed? You filed before the deadline, didn't you? ;-) Yes. What "law" did I break? While you have every right in the world to comment to FCC, Len, did it ever occur to you that maybe - just maybe - your long wordy diatribes really don't help the nocodetest cause one bit? None at all. Filings made to a federal agency are not "newsgroup style." I don't consider ANY of my filings as a "diatribe." The comments of those FOR the NPRM might be considered "polemical" but then so would those against the NPRM. The telegraphy test is a highly polarized, contentious issue. Poor baby, the rest of the world just doesn't share YOUR SUBJECTIVE VIEW of everything. Come to think of it, YOUR single filing is long, wordy, and filled with the conditioned-thinking phrases of the league. I thank YOU for helping the "nocodetest cause" a lot! Jimmy Noserve only cares about the preservation of morse code, everything from "operating skill" to the license test. He can't bear to give up any of that. Wrong on all counts there, Len. Completely wrong. Who is "Jimmy Noserve?" Mark, Jimmy has NOT proven his "fact." You have not disproved it, Len. What "fact" are you trying to argue about? The only way to determine that "fact" is to visit the FCC Reading Room in DC and view all the filings. How do you know I haven't done that, Len? How do you know I don't know? For most of my life I've lived in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Hardly anything to brag about... Washington DC is a day trip from here - done it many times. Irrelevant. As the song in the musical "Annie" says "Tomorrow is only a day away..." In fact, some things I have designed are in daily use in the DC metro area. You designed pooper scoopers?!? It would be a simple thing for me to take a day or two to see all those 6000 "filings". So...what HAVE you said? Nothing, really. :-) NOTHING what you said offers ANY proof that you've actually seen and read 6000 filings of anything in DC. Perhaps you don't want to accept it because it disproves your opinions. Perhaps you've just run out of logical responses? :-) snip Old-timers of the League loved radiotelegraphy, Is that a bad thing? In the year 2005? :-) following the "tradition" established by its first president, St. Hiram. Maxim was a genius. You're not, Len. How do you "know" that? :-) Do you live within a day's travel to Champaign-Urbana, IL, and have you read the University of Illinois' statewide high school testing efforts of 1950? All of my two-week- long test scores (including a Stanford-Binet IQ test) are there in their archives. And then why did ARRL *oppose* the creation of the Extra class license in 1951? And why did ARRL's 1963 proposal not include any additional code testing for full privileges? Excuse me for interrupting your misdirection diatribe but the POLICY subject concerns the 2005 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking FCC 05-143. Note the current year. And why did ARRL oppose FCC's 16 wpm code test proposal and "Amateur First Grade" license class in 1965? Tsk, tsk, tsk...you don't stop misdirecting, do you? :-) Hello? 1965 is FORTY YEARS AGO! 2005 is NOW. [really...] Of course logic isn't your strong suit, Len. Some dispute about that. My suits are all lightweight wool and have traveled thousands of miles. I don't have any suits with logic circuits in them, but I've read about some of those. Pointing out that you are not a radio amateur is not the same thing as saying you are not allowed to "discuss" or comment. Tsk. You contradict yourself. (What you do is not really discussion - it's mostly long boring wordy lectures repeating the same tired old mantras and insults as if they are sacred.) Tsk. That's what the league does. :-) Come to think of it, I read Chris Imlay's "Comment" in WT Docket 05-235 and found it long, boring, wordy lecturing repeating the same tired old mantras...as well as trying to take the Commission to task for having the gall to NOT ACCEPT the league's Petition entire (one of the 18 Petitions made during 2003-2004)! If the cell phone serves your radio needs, why are you so obsessed with changing the rules of the Amateur Radio Service? "Obsessed?" :-) Okay, why are YOU so OBSESSED with trying to prevent modernization of amateur radio regulations? :-) YOU are "obsessed" with OLD issues. My old Johnson Viking Messenger CB radio still works, is still operating within FCC regulations. How do you know? By actual measurement using calibrated test equipment. :-) Tsk, I have working experience in metrology, two years worth. It is a relatively easy task to connect it up to an antenna (mag-mount) in the car, plug it into the car's 12 VDC system, and operate. But you don't. Not in the 2005 Malibu MAXX my wife and I got in June. :-) How do you know I didn't in the 1992 Cavalier Wagon we had? :-) Of course you express contempt for all who *have* passed such tests... INCORRECT. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bad form, OM, you are displaying obvious HOSTILITY there... snip Not true! Most of my "working receivers" are general coverage. I also have several transceivers. You're not qualified to operate any of them, Len. I am not AUTHORIZED to transmit RF energy IN amateur-only bands or frequencies beyond the maximum level as stated in Part 15, Title 47 C.F.R. I have qualified to operate, test, maintain a great number of different receivers, transmitters, transceivers, electronic equipment of many kinds in the last half century. All one needs is an operating instruction manual, schematics, and an explanation of all the unmarked controls and conenctors are. Actually, I have co-owned a PLMRS base transceiver and mobile transceivers which radio amateurs were NOT AUTHORIZED to operate! :-) snip Actually, those electromechanical teletypewriters with 100 WPM throughput are still in use in a few places... Where? As TDDs (Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). As I/O devices for old-time computer hobbyists. Still used in a few businesses...who are too cheap to invest in electronic terminals. :-) Those are places I know about. There may be a few others. It isn't a hot topic to me. Teletype Corporation went defunct some years ago...they couldn't produce a product inexpensive enough to handle written communications needs. Even TDDs have dropped electromechanical teletypewriters in favor of smaller, easier to use solid-state terminals. So they're all dead or dying technologies, while Morse Code lives on and flourishes. "Flourishes?" You have flour in your eye. :-) Right NOW, there are hundreds of thousands of data terminals IN USE in the world, doing throughput at rates of 1200 BPS to 56 KBPS and faster, short-range to long-range, wired and wireless. DATA. Alphanumeric characters. Most with display screens, some with peripheral hard-copy printers for text on real paper with ink or toner. ElectroMECHANICAL teletypewriters went defunct as new products because the mechanics of them didn't allow such high throughput. The last holdouts are the "chain printers" used in Information Technologies' activities, everything from wide printouts to mass check-writing. Those are being replaced with xerographic or ink-jet printing devices. Manual morse code "lives on" ONLY in AMATEUR radio. The maritime world has largely given up on manual morse code for long-distance HF communications. Where are the landline manual morse code telegraphy communications stations now? Where are the manual morse code communications stations in the military of the United States? Let's brush away some of your "flour." If morse code communications is "flourishing" in the "amateur bands," why is it only Number TWO in popularity? Once it was the ONLY way to communicated. How can morsemanship be "flourishing" when it is declining in popularity? Once upon a time, there were a great variety of commercial FCC operator licenses. Once upon a time there was NO RADIO. Once upon a time there were NO federal regulating agencies. Once upon a time there were no fairy stories beginning "Once upon a time..." :-) I don't recall anyone ever saying that an amateur radio license was anything other than a qualification to operate an amateur radio station. "Qualification?" It isn't an AUTHORIZATION? Oh, my, I've actually OPERATED amateur radio transmitters and have never had an amateur license! Operated: Set the controls, turned it on, tuned it up, reset some controls according to instructions in the manual, applied various modulation input, measured the RF output in terms of power, frequency, index of modulation, percentage distortion of modulation input, harmonic content, incidental RF radiation from the equipment other than the output connection, lots of things. Oh, yes, and OPERATED a morse code key turning the transmitter on and off! That actually only to test the key connection wiring...the rise/fall time of the RF envelope was measured using an astable multivibrator circuit driving a mercury- wetted contact relay that was connected to the keyer input. I have legally and successfully OPERATED communications radios from many places on land, aloft while flying in various places, from a Coast Guard vessel on water, a commercial ferry on water, and from a private sailing craft...all doing real, live communications. Also in a bunch of other applications like high-end audio equipment. Yes, by some purists who like the vacuum tube amplifier DISTORTION effects when the amplifier input is overdriven. No doubt that same group use "monster" cable with gold- plating to insure the "golden quality" of sound carried through such cable... A small shop in the Netherlands might still make a $16,000 four-tube amplifier ready-built, fitted with nice little white and blue LEDs to make it sparkle when turned on. I did describe that in HERE last year close to Christmas time (it was one of the "toys" featured in the IEEE SPECTRUM). European electronics hobbyists - a very few - are very much "into" Nixie and Nixie-like numeric displays and some are going all-out into making digital systems using tubes. Hans Summers, G0UPL, has collected a great number of specialized tubes with the intent on duplicating a radio clock that synchronizes automatically with the Rugby standard station on 60 KHz. He already did that in solid-state as a college project. All described on his large website www.hanssummers. com. Now compare that to NEW products like vacuum tube transmitters, BC or space-borne comm sat transponders...like optical system detectors using photomultipliers...like night observation devices using their specialized photomultipliers...like the hundreds of thousands of microwave ovens using specialized magnetrons. Vacuum tube technology is known, studied at length, but it has "flourished" in the PAST in NEW designs. except by those who can't hack engineering of solid-state circuits...or long for days of yore, when they were born (or before). Totally false, Len. Your electropolitical correctness is showing. Tsk, no. REALITY has been shown to those who cannot learn and keep up with the times. snip Jimmy sounds like he doesn't have much money. What does it matter? I may have more than you, Len. Or less. How do you "know?" :-) Tsk, tsk. I entered electronics and radio in the vacuum tube era and learned how to design circuits using tubes. Had to put aside everything but the basics of those circuits in order to work with transistors, then ICs. Took lots of learning AND relearning to do all that and I did it on my own time. The Army never gave you any training, Len? Half a year at Fort Monmouth Signal School on basic radar, then microwave radio relay. The rest was ON THE JOB...operating and maintaining HF transmitters, VHF and UHF receivers and transmitters, wireline voice and teletypewriter carrier equipment, inside plant telephone equipment. It was a case of "Here's the manuals, there's the equipment, DO IT." :-) Nor any of your employers? Not a single one of them. [howaboutthat?] It was worth it in the knowledge acquired, the experience gained in making successful designs, eminently satisfactory to me. Do you want a merit badge? Don't need one. I was never in the BSA, anyway. I was a soldier, a signalman. I got my Honorable Discharge in 1960 after serving MY country in the U.S. Army. What have YOU done to equal that? |
An English Teacher
KØHB wrote: wrote After the incentive licnesing rules went into effect in the 1967-1969 period, the number of US hams began to grow much faster than it had during the 1960s. The growth of the 1970s continued into the 1980s. Are you suggesting that making it tougher to get full privileges was the cause that accelerated the growth of the ARS? No, Hans. Correlation is not causation. That has to qualify as the most outrageous notion to hit RRAP (outside the dump huck posts from Mark) in the current century. Why? Do you say it's impossible with no evidence? Look at the facts: When US hams were allowed back on the air in late 1945, there were about 60,000 US amateurs. By the time of the 1951 restructuring, the total had reached about 90,000 - even though back then the "entry-level" license was equivalent to what would later be the General. Of course a good bit of that growth was pent-up demand from the WW2 shutdown, returning servicemen who'd learned radio in the military, etc. From the 1951 restructuring to 1964, the number of US hams went from about 90,000 to about 250,000 - and then the growth stopped dead, even though incentive licensing would not take effect until several years later (1968). Clearly other "market forces" were in play for the ARS to enjoy the popularity it did in the post-Sputnik years. Sputnik went up in 1957 IIRC. Science was "cool" and the hot ticket for education and career planning. Scientifiic-seeming hobbies like electronics, radio, and astronomy were beneficiaries of this attitude. Sort of. When Sputnik was launched, there was widespread consternation because the US was perceived to be lagging the USSR in the "space race". It did not help that the Soviets kept being the first to do things in space time and again for several years in the late 1950s and early 1960s. First animal in space - first human in space, first human to orbit, first woman in space, first pictures of the far side of the Moon - the list goes on and on. The USA was playing catch-up for several years. Most of all, the post WW2 growth ended *before* incentive licensing. And the incentive licensing changes did not make any big changes to the Novice or Technician, and did not remove any power, modes or bands from the General or Advanced. If anything, dis-incentive licensing was a damper (not an accelerant) on the growth ofthe ARS during that period. Really? Then *why* did the growth start up again after it was in place, after almost half a decade of stagnation and even some decline? Why did the number of US hams grow so fast in the 1970s and 1980s? If you want to talk about "market forces", consider these: - The 1960s were a very turbulent time, particularly for young people. Many were more interested in political/social causes than in "establishment" activities like amateur radio. - The "space race" and the technological advances it brought made amateur radio look a little old-fashioned in some ways. Remember Christmas Eve 1968, when the crew of Apollo 8 showed us the Earth from lunar orbit via live TV? How could any terrestrial "DX" compete with that? - CB radio, established in 1958, became popular in the mid-1960s as more and more people found out about it. No test at all, inexpensive, easy-to-use equipment, very little effort or skill needed to install or use cb. - Up until the 1960s, many newcomers were introduced to amateur radio by hearing hams using AM voice on the HF ham bands, particularly 75 meters. There was a natural progression from SWL to ham radio. But by the early 1960s, the HF ham bands were more full of SSB voice than AM. Many SWLs didn't know how to tune in SSB. Many if not most lowcost SWL-type receivers didn't have BFOs, or the slow tuning rate and stability needed to tune in SSB easily. - Up until 1964 or so, a considerable part of the USA was "Conditional country" - meaning that a trip to an FCC exam point was not needed for a lot of potential hams. But around 1964, FCC changed the distance requirement from 75 to 175 miles, and increased the number of exam locations so that very little of CONUS was "Conditional country" anymore. This meant a lot of hams who wanted Generals or above had to travel considerable distances to an FCC exam session, rather than going a few miles to a local ham acting as a volunteer examiner. If incentive licensing was so awful, why was there so much growth in the ARS in the two decades after it was put in place? Can you imagine how much more growth we'd have had without its repressive effects on our hobby! What repressive effects? The Novice and Technician did not really change under IL, except that the Novice license term was extended to two years in 1967. The upgrade to General was the same. Advanced just required another written test. And the tests weren't all that hard, really, even back then. I got the Advanced at age 14, in the summer between 8th and 9th grades. Extra two years later, and it only took that long because of the experience requirement. How "hard" could it have been if even a self-taught-in-radio kid with no hams in the family could do that? I remember how much wailing and gnashing of teeth there was back then. I was amazed that experienced hams were so intimidated by having to take another test or two. And this was in the Philadelphia metro area, where getting to an FCC exam session meant a quick subway ride, not a long cross-country journey. But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirements are "too high" and they keep being lowered. Yet the growth resulting isn't sustained. Maybe the very people we want to attract are those who want a challenge. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
An English Teacher
KØHB wrote: wrote After the incentive licnesing rules went into effect in the 1967-1969 period, the number of US hams began to grow much faster than it had during the 1960s. The growth of the 1970s continued into the 1980s. Are you suggesting that making it tougher to get full privileges was the cause that accelerated the growth of the ARS? That has to qualify as the most outrageous notion to hit RRAP (outside the dump huck posts from Mark) in the current century. Sounds pretty dump huck to me, too. Clearly other "market forces" were in play for the ARS to enjoy the popularity it did in the post-Sputnik years. Science was "cool" and the hot ticket for education and career planning. Scientifiic-seeming hobbies like electronics, radio, and astronomy were beneficiaries of this attitude. If anything, dis-incentive licensing was a damper (not an accelerant) on the growth ofthe ARS during that period. Amateur Radio might have been mainstreamed. Instead it remains a basement or attic activity, hidden from view by most Americans. If incentive licensing was so awful, why was there so much growth in the ARS in the two decades after it was put in place? Can you imagine how much more growth we'd have had without its repressive effects on our hobby! 73, de Hans, K0HB "Amateur Radio?" Isn't that like CB? |
An English Teacher
|
What Law is Broken?
Phil Kane wrote: On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:46:58 GMT, KØHB wrote: Where in Part 97 does it say that anyone cannot comment outside the deadline dates? Part 97 is silent on the subject of comments outside, inside, above, before, after, abeam, abaft, or forward of the deadline. You left out "aloft" and "below", Master Chief..... ggg Sunuvagun! For the barracks lawyers, Part 1 of the FCC Rules and Title 5 of the C.F.R. deals with such minutia. When they totally foul interpretation of it up, they can hire a REAL lawyer to teach them about it. de Hans, K0HB -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane No need. Premature and late filers will be dealt the wrenchy smitch. |
An English Teacher
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote After the incentive licnesing rules went into effect in the 1967-1969 period, the number of US hams began to grow much faster than it had during the 1960s. The growth of the 1970s continued into the 1980s. Are you suggesting that making it tougher to get full privileges was the cause that accelerated the growth of the ARS? That has to qualify as the most outrageous notion to hit RRAP (outside the dump huck posts from Mark) in the current century. Clearly other "market forces" were in play for the ARS to enjoy the popularity it did in the post-Sputnik years. Science was "cool" and the hot ticket for education and career planning. Scientifiic-seeming hobbies like electronics, radio, and astronomy were beneficiaries of this attitude. If anything, dis-incentive licensing was a damper (not an accelerant) on the growth of the ARS during that period. If incentive licensing was so awful, why was there so much growth in the ARS in the two decades after it was put in place? Can you imagine how much more growth we'd have had without its repressive effects on our hobby! 73, de Hans, K0HB We will never know for sure whether it had a beneficial or adverse effect on the hobby. Although it may have made it harder to get full privileges, it seems to have made it easier to get beginner and intermediate privileges. The prospective ham could take the journey in smaller steps and have meaningful privileges along the way. Although the implementation was poorly handled (i.e. some people actually losing privileges), the concept of having a series of smaller, easier to manage steps makes sense if you want to get people involved in the hobby. They don't have to go all out to sample the hobby. They can get basic privileges and see if they like it before they dive into it fully. Personally I think that the previous 5 license approach was too many and that 3 steps is about right. However as far as the written test material goes, I think the jump in difficulty from Tech to General is too small and the jump from General to Extra is too large. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
An English Teacher
"Dee Flint" wrote Although it may have made it harder to get full privileges, it seems to have made it easier to get beginner and intermediate privileges. The prospective ham could take the journey in smaller steps and have meaningful privileges along the way. Although the implementation was poorly handled (i.e. some people actually losing privileges), the concept of having a series of smaller, easier to manage steps makes sense if you want to get people involved in the hobby. They don't have to go all out to sample the hobby. They can get basic privileges and see if they like it before they dive into it fully. Neat sounding theory, but that isn't the way it happened. Dis-incentive licensing which went into effect in the fall of 1968 did not introduce any new "steps". Those "steps" originated at the restructuring in the early 50's when the six-class license structure was put in place. From the introduction of that license structure in early 50's until 1968, all the top 4 license classes had exactly the same privileges. The license structure (and the test structure) remained the same after dis-incentive licensing was introduced. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
An English Teacher
Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote After the incentive licnesing rules went into effect in the 1967-1969 period, the number of US hams began to grow much faster than it had during the 1960s. The growth of the 1970s continued into the 1980s. Are you suggesting that making it tougher to get full privileges was the cause that accelerated the growth of the ARS? That has to qualify as the most outrageous notion to hit RRAP (outside the dump huck posts from Mark) in the current century. Clearly other "market forces" were in play for the ARS to enjoy the popularity it did in the post-Sputnik years. Science was "cool" and the hot ticket for education and career planning. Scientifiic-seeming hobbies like electronics, radio, and astronomy were beneficiaries of this attitude. If anything, dis-incentive licensing was a damper (not an accelerant) on the growth of the ARS during that period. If incentive licensing was so awful, why was there so much growth in the ARS in the two decades after it was put in place? Can you imagine how much more growth we'd have had without its repressive effects on our hobby! We will never know for sure whether it had a beneficial or adverse effecton the hobby. Although it may have made it harder to get full privileges, it seems to have made it easier to get beginner and intermediate privileges. Well, sort of, Dee. The requirements for Novice didn't change at all. The requirements for Tech did not change until 1987, when the single written that had been used for both Tech and General was split into two elements. The prospective ham could take the journey in smaller steps and have meaningful privileges along the way. Although the implementation was poorly handled (i.e. some people actually losing privileges), the concept of having a series of smaller, easier to manage steps makes sense if you want to get people involved in the hobby. They don't have to go all out to sample the hobby. They can get basic privileges and see if they like it before they dive into it fully. That was the genius of the Novice license. What really torqued off a lot of hams was that for all the time they'd been hams, the General/Conditional had been the top license for all intents and purposes. Sure, the Advanced still existed, but it was closed to new issues and conveyed no additional operating privileges. The Extra was there too, and a few thousand hams got one, but again there wasn't much reason to get one. What IL did was move the finish line a lot further away. So for most post-1952 hams, the license process consisted of learning enough to get a Novice, using the Novice year to learn enough to get a General or Conditional, and then enjoying full amateur privileges. IL added two more license steps to full privileges, and the tests for those two steps were not usually available by mail. Some might say that there were actually three or four steps added - two written tests and one or two code tests (depending on whether you consider the sending and receiving code tests as one or two). Personally I think that the previous 5 license approach was too many and that 3 steps is about right. However as far as the written test material goes, I think the jump in difficulty from Tech to General is too small and the jump from General to Extra is too large. If it were up to me there would be four steps, and all four would contain a mix of HF, VHF and UHF privileges. But FCC's vision is different, and they said so in the NPRM. From what I've read from FCC, the step from Tech to General is intentionally kept rather small to encourage Techs to upgrade to General rather than to Tech Plus or "Tech-with-HF". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
An English Teacher
wrote But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirementsare "too high".... Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me. I have proposed to the FCC that the "standard" full privilege license technical requirements should be about on a par with the current Extra requirements. And that there should be one other level, a "learners permit" with a generous term of ten years to study and gain experience to qualfity for a "full privilege" license. Sorry to spoil your (il)logic. 73, de Hans, K0HB PS: Looking for EPA in ARRL 160 tonight. They were scarce last night. |
An English Teacher
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:26:17 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: wrote: From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm wrote: From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: I opt NOT to bother with CB radio since it is not to my needs in communicating anything by radio. The little two-way radio terminal called a "cell phone" serves both me and my wife very adequately in mobile communications needs. You're quite right, sir. A cell phone meets your needs. You needn't bother with CB or amateur radio. indeed he NEED and you need not My old Johnson...still works... That's nice. Jimmy, who never worked IN the FCC (and will never do so), thinks that just having an amateur license means he had "something to do with amateur radio regulations." :-) Will you ever work IN the FCC, Len? is something lacking in your reading skil dave it seems that way Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in amateur radio, anyway. not what I hear You have to give Jimmy some slack, Mark. Since his receiver can't pick up anything outside the "low end" of HF ham bands, he thinks HF is still "alive with the sounds of morse code" (as if Julie Andrews were singing it on top of a hill). Does your venerable Icom receiver still hit the bottom end of the HF ham bands, Leonard? You must think morse code is dead, poor morse is dead (as if Gordon McRae were singing it out by the corral). no he doesn't think is dead just dying I do too just not fast enough you Jim and steve certain makes a decent case for the notion that CW uUSE casues brain damage in some people Dave K8MN everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders 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 |
An English Teacher
KØHB wrote:
wrote But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirementsare "too high".... Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me. It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others. First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute- solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and look at the writtens: 1) there's the official publication of the written exams. 2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time. 3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written. 4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions from the 1976 exams? 5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over as long as time and the wallet hold out. In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes. And yet NCVEC says we need another license class because the current Tech is "too hard". I have proposed to the FCC that the "standard" full privilege license technical requirements should be about on a par with the current Extra requirements. That's good. And that there should be one other level, a "learners permit" with a generous term of ten years to study and gain experience to qualfity for a "full privilege" license. Except FCC turned you down. Sorry to spoil your (il)logic. I didn't say *you* were for lowering the requirements, Hans. But if you haven't seen anyone saying the license requirements are/were "too high" in the past 20 years, you haven't been paying attention. PS: Looking for EPA in ARRL 160 tonight. They were scarce last night. Sorry, I'm not set up for 160 here. Sold my Viking 2s and Valiant. (sigh). 73 de Jim, N2EY |
An English Teacher
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... [snip] PS: Looking for EPA in ARRL 160 tonight. They were scarce last night. Hope you got EPA tonight. For me, they were everywhere! Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
An English Teacher
wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: wrote But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirementsare "too high".... Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me. It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others. First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute- solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and look at the writtens: 1) there's the official publication of the written exams. Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition for the test questions to be published? 2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time. Your point? And again, who lobbied for that change? 3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written. 4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions from the 1976 exams? One could argue that is making the test more difficult...depending on the individual. 5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over as long as time and the wallet hold out. Hasn't that been recently changed? Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows retesting on the smae test at the same test session. In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes. And yet NCVEC says we need another license class because the current Tech is "too hard". Hasn't the ARRL said the same thing by proposing a new beginners license? (SNIP Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
An English Teacher
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: wrote But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirementsare "too high".... Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me. It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others. First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute- solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and look at the writtens: 1) there's the official publication of the written exams. Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition for the test questions to be published? Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it when the VEs ran the testing? 2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time. Your point? In the bad old days, all the elements for a particular license had to be passed at the same test session. For example, getting an Extra meant that you had to pass both code and theory at the same time. That's a tougher requirement than being able to take them separately. And again, who lobbied for that change? I don't recall if anyone did. 3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written. 4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions from the 1976 exams? One could argue that is making the test more difficult...depending on the individual. It's the difference between knowing a little bit of the basics of a wide variety of subjects vs. an in-depth knowledge of fewer subjects. Most people find the latter to be more challenging. 5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over as long as time and the wallet hold out. Hasn't that been recently changed? I don't think so. It was proposed but AFAIK not acted upon. Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows retesting on the smae test at the same test session. My understanding is that some do - if you pay another fee. In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes. And yet NCVEC says we need another license class because the current Tech is "too hard". Hasn't the ARRL said the same thing by proposing a new beginners license? (SNIP Have they really proposed a new license? Or different privileges for the existing one? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
An English Teacher
Have they really proposed a new license? Or different privileges for
the existing one? Both. Both in Petitions, one that was already denied in part, the other supposedly pending before the Commission (no RM number assigned to it yet so it hasn't yet been accepted AS a Petition). Tsk, tsk, you haven't looked at the league website? Both were up there. |
An English Teacher
wrote:
wrote: From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm wrote: From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm wrote: Mark, there's something curious about morsemen. They are very SERIOUS about their hobby and INTENSE on certain skills. Is there anything wrong with being serious or intense? Let's see....WK3C and K2UNK spent their own time and money to visit FCC officials about the Morse Code test issue. That's pretty SERIOUS and INTENSE, isn't it? DETERMINED would be a better descriptor. So procodetest people are DETERMINED. (not that there's anything wrong with that...) St. Hiram went to Washington after WW1. Who is "St. Hiram"? Hiram Percy Maxim went to Washington DC after WW1. He and some others also went to Paris a few times in the 1920s to attend world radio conferences. Those were good things because they helped insure the continued existence of amateur radio. That established a precedent on "goodness" or "badness" of "spending their own time and money" didn't it? Depends on the goal. Your buddy Mark claims that late filings break some law or other. INCORRECT. Mark cited NO "law or other." Yes, he did. YOU brought out the charges of "illegality." He said I had no respect for the rule of law. I asked what law was broken by late comments. Straighten him out - if you can. Straighten out YOURSELF. Nothing wrong with me. In the case of publishing NPRM 05-143, the Commission was 6 calendar weeks LATE. How? Is there a deadline for FCC? Why are you asking? Because you stated the FCC was LATE. To be LATE, there has to be a deadline that was exceeded. To misdirect MORE than usual into "charges" that you invent as you go along? Or are you just trying to fight in words because of some frustration of yours? I'm just trying to determine how the FCC was LATE. The Commission has typically published Notices in the Federal Register WITHIN A WEEK of such Notices being made to the public. So it took unusually long to get the NPRM into the Federal Register. That's not the same as being LATE. Can't be LATE without a deadline. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking FCC 05-143 was released on 15 July 2005. In that initial release, the heading carried the information that Comments [period] would exist for 60 days, Replies to Comments [period] would exist for 75 days AFTER PUBLISHING IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. And yet you jumped the gun. Maybe FCC won't read your comments that were filed too early, Len. ;-) Publishing did not happen until 31 August 2005. THEN the firm date period of filings was made. But you couldn't wait.... So? Does FCC have to get NPRMs in the Federal Register within a certain amount of time? If it wants to be of service to the PUBLIC, it should. Who are you to pass judgement on FCC? Perhaps you should tell them off and put them right, Len - after all, you've said you're not afraid of authority. You could put in some of your diminutive nicknames and catchphrases, and criticize them for taking six long weeks..... Already filed. See ECFS on WT Docket 05-235 for 25 November 2005, filing type EXHIBIT. Did you call them diminutive nicknames and use your catchphrases? The normal delay on public release to publishing is anywhere from zero days to a week. A few have taken longer, but it would be a VERY long search to find a docket/proceeding that was delayed SIX WEEKS. So? It took them a little longer. Have you no patience? I have considerable patience. Not from what I've seen ;-) I also have fun with some dumbsnits who only want to ARGUE for the sake of arguing. :-) So you have fun with yourself.... In those SIX WEEKS DELAY the public filed 52% of all comments filed. And the majority of those were anticodetest. The procodetest folks, in general, waited for the official comment period. Bullsnit. :-) No, it's true - according to your tally, anyway. Isn't your tally accurate? As of August 31, didn't the majority of filings support the nocodetest position? What of all the "procodetest" folks who DID comment in the "unofficial" period? They were outnumbered by the nocodetest commentary - according to you, anyway. What of all those FOR the NPRM who filed during the "official" period? They were outnumbered by the procodetest commentary in the same period. What does that say about the two groups' understanding of the regulations? What "regulation" states that an NPRM must be immediately published in the Federal Register? I don't know of any - but you keep yelling that FCC was "LATE". No, the general public EXPECTS federal agencies to perform their duties in manner established by considerable precedent. The Commission has done fairly fast work in the past on all regulation change documents publishing in the Federal Register. A SIX WEEK DELAY in publishing is an error in serving the public, a disservice. Horrors! Oh woe, Len had to wait SIX WEEKS! The "public" may not be fully aware of the official comment period beginning date. Nonsense. Most of those who filed comments are licensed amateurs, aren't they? WHAT "regulation" or "law" states that ONLY licensed radio amateurs may communicate with the federal government on amateur radio regulations? There's none. But that's not the point! Most of those who filed comments are licensed amateurs. The six week delay did not prevent anyone from filing, nor did it somehow prevent "the public" (which includes radio amateurs) from filing comments. Name it. NOW. You're not in charge, Len. Not "six weeks from now." Not this time! Why don't you complain, Len? Already done, as I said. Are you suddenly blind? NOT aware and informed? I'm more aware and informed than you, Len. You filed before the deadline, didn't you? ;-) Yes. What "law" did I break? While you have every right in the world to comment to FCC, Len, did it ever occur to you that maybe - just maybe - your long wordy diatribes really don't help the nocodetest cause one bit? None at all. Typical. Filings made to a federal agency are not "newsgroup style." Yours read that way. I don't consider ANY of my filings as a "diatribe." Others do. They're only slightly different than you blatherings here. The big differences are that you get to stick in footnotes and italics and bold type. For most of my life I've lived in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Hardly anything to brag about... Why not? Philly is a great town. Lots of history, lots of culture, lots of diversity, lots of fun. Better than living some place where the earth shakes every so often, the hillsides either catch fire or slide away, and the people elect aging movie actors to important public offices when they're not busy trying to preserve their "views" at the expense of others' property rights. Washington DC is a day trip from here - done it many times. Irrelevant. As the song in the musical "Annie" says "Tomorrow is only a day away..." In fact, some things I have designed are in daily use in the DC metro area. You designed pooper scoopers?!? Nope. Did you? ;-) ;-) It would be a simple thing for me to take a day or two to see all those 6000 "filings". So...what HAVE you said? Nothing, really. :-) NOTHING what you said offers ANY proof that you've actually seen and read 6000 filings of anything in DC. I didn't say I did - or did not. Just that it's not an impossible or even difficult thing for me to do. Old-timers of the League loved radiotelegraphy, Is that a bad thing? In the year 2005? :-) Yes. But the discussion was about the past. following the "tradition" established by its first president, St. Hiram. Maxim was a genius. You're not, Len. How do you "know" that? :-) Your behavior here proves it. Do you live within a day's travel to Champaign-Urbana, IL, and have you read the University of Illinois' statewide high school testing efforts of 1950? All of my two-week- long test scores (including a Stanford-Binet IQ test) are there in their archives. Do you think you're a genius, Len? And then why did ARRL *oppose* the creation of the Extra class license in 1951? And why did ARRL's 1963 proposal not include any additional code testing for full privileges? Excuse me for interrupting your misdirection diatribe but the POLICY subject concerns the 2005 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking FCC 05-143. Note the current year. The discussion was about the past, Len. Note the context. And why did ARRL oppose FCC's 16 wpm code test proposal and "Amateur First Grade" license class in 1965? Tsk, tsk, tsk...you don't stop misdirecting, do you? :-) Hello? 1965 is FORTY YEARS AGO! The discussion was about the creation of the Extra license. Pointing out that you are not a radio amateur is not the same thing as saying you are not allowed to "discuss" or comment. Tsk. You contradict yourself. How? My old Johnson Viking Messenger CB radio still works, is still operating within FCC regulations. How do you know? By actual measurement using calibrated test equipment. :-) So you don't really know. Tsk, I have working experience in metrology, two years worth. Yes, you kept changing jobs... Not true! Most of my "working receivers" are general coverage. I also have several transceivers. You're not qualified to operate any of them, Len. I am not AUTHORIZED to transmit RF energy IN amateur-only bands or frequencies beyond the maximum level as stated in Part 15, Title 47 C.F.R. That's a good thing. I have qualified to operate, test, maintain a great number of different receivers, transmitters, transceivers, electronic equipment of many kinds in the last half century. But not an amateur radio station. All one needs is an operating instruction manual, schematics, and an explanation of all the unmarked controls and conenctors are. And the required license and operating skills. Actually, I have co-owned a PLMRS base transceiver and mobile transceivers which radio amateurs were NOT AUTHORIZED to operate! :-) But you have never been qualified to operate and amateur radio station. Actually, those electromechanical teletypewriters with 100 WPM throughput are still in use in a few places... Where? As TDDs (Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Not so many anymore. As I/O devices for old-time computer hobbyists. Museum pieces. Still used in a few businesses...who are too cheap to invest in electronic terminals. :-) Those are places I know about. There may be a few others. It isn't a hot topic to me. So it's a nearly-dead technology. Teletype Corporation went defunct some years ago...they couldn't produce a product inexpensive enough to handle written communications needs. Even TDDs have dropped electromechanical teletypewriters in favor of smaller, easier to use solid-state terminals. So they're all dead or dying technologies, while Morse Code lives on and flourishes. "Flourishes?" You have flour in your eye. :-) Right NOW, there are hundreds of thousands of data terminals IN USE in the world, doing throughput at rates of 1200 BPS to 56 KBPS and faster, short-range to long-range, wired and wireless. DATA. Alphanumeric characters. Most with display screens, some with peripheral hard-copy printers for text on real paper with ink or toner. But not 100 wpm teleprinters. ElectroMECHANICAL teletypewriters went defunct as new products because the mechanics of them didn't allow such high throughput. The last holdouts are the "chain printers" used in Information Technologies' activities, everything from wide printouts to mass check-writing. Those are being replaced with xerographic or ink-jet printing devices. Manual morse code "lives on" ONLY in AMATEUR radio. By the choice of radio amateurs. Why are you so against choice, Len? The maritime world has largely given up on manual morse code for long-distance HF communications. Where are the landline manual morse code telegraphy communications stations now? Where are the manual morse code communications stations in the military of the United States? Same place as the 100 wpm teleprinters. Let's brush away some of your "flour." If morse code communications is "flourishing" in the "amateur bands," why is it only Number TWO in popularity? Once it was the ONLY way to communicated. "only way to communicated"?? That ended in 1900. How can morsemanship be "flourishing" when it is declining in popularity? How do you know it's declining? I don't recall anyone ever saying that an amateur radio license was anything other than a qualification to operate an amateur radio station. "Qualification?" It isn't an AUTHORIZATION? It's both. You have neither. Oh, my, I've actually OPERATED amateur radio transmitters and have never had an amateur license! No, you haven't. Not legally, anyway. Operated: Set the controls, turned it on, tuned it up, reset some controls according to instructions in the manual, applied various modulation input, measured the RF output in terms of power, frequency, index of modulation, percentage distortion of modulation input, harmonic content, incidental RF radiation from the equipment other than the output connection, lots of things. But not legally. Not as control operator. You're neither qualified nor authorized. Oh, yes, and OPERATED a morse code key turning the transmitter on and off! That actually only to test the key connection wiring...the rise/fall time of the RF envelope was measured using an astable multivibrator circuit driving a mercury- wetted contact relay that was connected to the keyer input. Into a dummy load, right? I have legally and successfully OPERATED communications radios But not amateur radio. from many places on land, aloft while flying in various places, from a Coast Guard vessel on water, a commercial ferry on water, and from a private sailing craft...all doing real, live communications. So you used a cell phone... Also in a bunch of other applications like high-end audio equipment. Yes, by some purists who like the vacuum tube amplifier DISTORTION effects when the amplifier input is overdriven. No. European electronics hobbyists - a very few - are very much "into" Nixie and Nixie-like numeric displays and some are going all-out into making digital systems using tubes. Hans Summers, G0UPL, has collected a great number of specialized tubes with the intent on duplicating a radio clock that synchronizes automatically with the Rugby standard station on 60 KHz. He already did that in solid-state as a college project. All described on his large website www.hanssummers. com. Yep. I have had a QSO with Hans on 80 CW. You haven't. Tsk, tsk. I entered electronics and radio in the vacuum tube era and learned how to design circuits using tubes. Had to put aside everything but the basics of those circuits in order to work with transistors, then ICs. Took lots of learning AND relearning to do all that and I did it on my own time. The Army never gave you any training, Len? Half a year at Fort Monmouth Signal School on basic radar, then microwave radio relay. The rest was ON THE JOB...operating and maintaining HF transmitters, VHF and UHF receivers and transmitters, wireline voice and teletypewriter carrier equipment, inside plant telephone equipment. It was a case of "Here's the manuals, there's the equipment, DO IT." :-) And Sarge was there to help you... I was a soldier, a signalman. I got my Honorable Discharge in 1960 after serving MY country in the U.S. Army. What have YOU done to equal that? Len, you've done things I haven't. I've done things you haven't. But you've made it clear that nothing can equal or surpass what you've done, if you disagree with the person who did it. You'll call someone with much more military service than you names if they disagree, and claim their service did not exist. Typical of you. |
Easier licensing
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: wrote But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirementsare "too high".... Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me. It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others. In other words, that is your opinion based on your view of certain actions of others but you have NO example where anyone has said the requirements are too high. So the reality is that we have NOT been told by anyone that the requirements are too high. First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute- solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and look at the writtens: 1) there's the official publication of the written exams. Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition for the test questions to be published? Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it when the VEs ran the testing? 2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time. Your point? In the bad old days, all the elements for a particular license had to be passed at the same test session. For example, getting an Extra meant that you had to pass both code and theory at the same time. That's a tougher requirement than being able to take them separately. But again, that wasn't asked for by amateurs or any amateur organization. And again, who lobbied for that change? I don't recall if anyone did. Exactly! 3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written. 4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions from the 1976 exams? One could argue that is making the test more difficult...depending on the individual. It's the difference between knowing a little bit of the basics of a wide variety of subjects vs. an in-depth knowledge of fewer subjects. Most people find the latter to be more challenging. Amd you know this to be true based on what scientific study/analysis? And again, who asked for that or drove that change? 5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over as long as time and the wallet hold out. Hasn't that been recently changed? I don't think so. It was proposed but AFAIK not acted upon. Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows retesting on the smae test at the same test session. My understanding is that some do - if you pay another fee. Do they allow the taking of the exact same test? I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the exact same test a second time on that same session regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also is that the VEs running the session have no desire to allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's money runs out. In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes. And yet NCVEC says we need another license class because the current Tech is "too hard". Hasn't the ARRL said the same thing by proposing a new beginners license? (SNIP Have they really proposed a new license? Or (just) different privileges for the existing one? In another reply to your question, Len stated the ARRL has filed both proposals. I'll take his word on that. 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. Cheers Bill K2UNK |
Easier licensing
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: wrote But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirementsare "too high".... Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me. It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others. In other words, that is your opinion based on your view of certain actions of others but you have NO example where anyone has said the requirements are too high. So the reality is that we have NOT been told by anyone that the requirements are too high. Here are some more examples: - ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams. These proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech Pluses getting Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds getting Extras with no additional testing. While they don't come right out and say the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are too high. Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements. NCI agreed with the ARRL proposal on the free upgrades, btw. But FCC disagreed and denied all proposals for free upgrades. FCC cited the comments of certain people in that denial - see footnote 142 in the NPRM. (ahem) - NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed the "21st Century" paper closely. First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute- solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and look at the writtens: 1) there's the official publication of the written exams. Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition for the test questions to be published? Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it when the VEs ran the testing? 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! For example, in the old days we knew there would be Ohm's Law problems on the exam, possibly including series and parallel resistors, voltage dividers, power calculations and more. But we didn't know exactly what the problems to be solved would look like, so we learned to solve almost anything we could think up. With open pools the exact form of the problem is known, and only solutions for the problems which may be on the test need be learned. 2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time. Your point? In the bad old days, all the elements for a particular license had to be passed at the same test session. For example, getting an Extra meant that you had to pass both code and theory at the same time. That's a tougher requirement than being able to take them separately. But again, that wasn't asked for by amateurs or any amateur organization. And again, who lobbied for that change? I don't recall if anyone did. Exactly! 3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written. 4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions from the 1976 exams? One could argue that is making the test more difficult...depending on the individual. It's the difference between knowing a little bit of the basics of a wide variety of subjects vs. an in-depth knowledge of fewer subjects. Most people find the latter to be more challenging. Amd you know this to be true based on what scientific study/analysis? Observation of human beings for over half a century ;-) A typical first grader knows a little bit about a lot of things, but not that much about any one thing. And again, who asked for that or drove that change? It was driven by the QPC and NCVEC. 5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over as long as time and the wallet hold out. Hasn't that been recently changed? I don't think so. It was proposed but AFAIK not acted upon. Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows retesting on the smae test at the same test session. My understanding is that some do - if you pay another fee. Do they allow the taking of the exact same test? No. I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the exact same test a second time on that same session regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also is that the VEs running the session have no desire to allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's money runs out. Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory 30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the test *really* prepared because coming back was not that easy. In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes. And yet NCVEC says we need another license class because the current Tech is "too hard". Hasn't the ARRL said the same thing by proposing a new beginners license? (SNIP Have they really proposed a new license? Or (just) different privileges for the existing one? In another reply to your question, Len stated the ARRL has filed both proposals. I'll take his word on that. He's hardly a reliable source. ARRL proposed a new license class in 2004. NCVEC has too, and some others. FCC denied them all. The original 2004 ARRL proposal would have given all Techs and Tech pluses a free upgrade to General. Advanceds would get a free upgrade to Extra, too. ARRL then proposed that the Technician then be replaced by a new entry-level license that had a balance of HF and VHF/UHF privileges, instead of the current Technician's all-VHF/UHF setup. That part of the 2004 ARRL proposal was denied by FCC. Now, in comments on the current NPRM, ARRL has recommended expanded privileges for all Technicians, rather than a completely new license class. The claim is that the all-VHF/UHF privileges of the Technician are not optimum for the entry-class license, and that it would be expecting too much for new hams to get a General just to get on HF - *even without any code test for General*. 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 Will probably happen regardless of anything else. 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. 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. It would not be possible to determine "never before" hams as opposed to "retreads" without a lot of historic info. Upgrades could be derived by comparing the current license class of each license with the license class from the previous analysis. 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" - do all the analysis work? It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes. If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders have an incentive to pass the tests. But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL got you a free upgrade? Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back. As an example, yesterday I was in BestBuy and took a look at the HDTVs. All sorts of them on the market - and some of the older ones were being sold at clearance prices. But I decided not to get one now, because I think the prices will come down. I don't "need" an HD set just yet, so why pay the high price now? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Easier licensing
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: wrote But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirementsare "too high".... Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me. It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others. In other words, that is your opinion based on your view of certain actions of others but you have NO example where anyone has said the requirements are too high. So the reality is that we have NOT been told by anyone that the requirements are too high. Here are some more examples: - ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams. These proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech Pluses getting Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds getting Extras with no additional testing. While they don't come right out and say the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are too high. bunk! Your logic is failed because those free upgrades were proposed as a one time only set of upgrades to get people to a newly aligned set of licenses and privileges without subjecting anyone to a lose of privileges. Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements. Ditto my last comment. NCI agreed with the ARRL proposal on the free upgrades, btw. But FCC disagreed and denied all proposals for free upgrades. FCC cited the comments of certain people in that denial - see footnote 142 in the NPRM. (ahem) OK, no point there. - NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed the "21st Century" paper closely. Prior to 2000, was the Novice too high? If the FCC went back or changed Tech to a Novice level test (retaining the General and Extra as is) would that bother you? First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute- solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and look at the writtens: 1) there's the official publication of the written exams. Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition for the test questions to be published? Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it when the VEs ran the testing? 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? (SNIP) I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the exact same test a second time on that same session regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also is that the VEs running the session have no desire to allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's money runs out. Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory 30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the test *really* prepared because coming back was not that easy. So? If someone wants to risk failing that's their choice. It's a real stretch to consider that making requirements easier. (SNIP) 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 Will probably happen regardless of anything else. 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. 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. It would not be possible to determine "never before" hams as opposed to "retreads" without a lot of historic info. The number of "retreads" is propably a very small percentage of those that appear as new. Upgrades could be derived by comparing the current license class of each license with the license class from the previous analysis. OK 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" - do all the analysis work? ARRL can do it. It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes. If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders have an incentive to pass the tests. But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL got you a free upgrade? Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back. I could care less about those that might want to wait for changes they have no assurance are coming. (SNIP) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Easier licensing
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message k.net... wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: wrote [snip] Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows retesting on the smae test at the same test session. My understanding is that some do - if you pay another fee. Do they allow the taking of the exact same test? I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the exact same test a second time on that same session regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also is that the VEs running the session have no desire to allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's money runs out. Well the VE teams that I have been on allow the applicant to keep testing on the same element until one of the following things happens: 1. The applicant passes 2. The team runs out of different versions of the test for the element that the applicant trying to pass 3. The applicant runs out of money or patience 4. The VE team runs out of time or patience. The team is not required to stay just because an applicant wants to keep trying. It is within the team's rights to set the length of the test session and whether or not to extend it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Easier licensing
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message k.net... wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: wrote [snip] Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows retesting on the same test at the same test session. My understanding is that some do - if you pay another fee. Do they allow the taking of the exact same test? I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the exact same test a second time on that same session regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also is that the VEs running the session have no desire to allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's money runs out. Well the VE teams that I have been on allow the applicant to keep testing on the same element until one of the following things happens: 1. The applicant passes 2. The team runs out of different versions of the test for the element that the applicant trying to pass 3. The applicant runs out of money or patience 4. The VE team runs out of time or patience. The team is not required to stay just because an applicant wants to keep trying. It is within the team's rights to set the length of the test session and whether or not to extend it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I have no problem with that since, per your point 2, the applicant doesn't retest the same version of the test already taken at that VE session. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Easier licensing
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 5, 6:48 am
wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message K؈B wrote: wrote snip First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute- solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and look at the writtens: 1) there's the official publication of the written exams. Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition for the test questions to be published? Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence of the VEC system. License examination privatization happed to BOTH the commercial radio operator license exams as well as radio amateurs. There was no "VEC system" any more than it was a "COLEM system." Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it when the VEs ran the testing? There were no "secrets" prior to the "Bash Books" since the essential questions were included in the "Q & A" books available in the 1950s. The copyright laws of the United States haven't changed appreciably since 1950 insofar as the federal government has NO copyright on anything it publishes. One example that should be familiar to civilians looking at news stands is J. K. Lassers Income Tax guide books which include copies of all IRS forms. It's the difference between knowing a little bit of the basics of a wide variety of subjects vs. an in-depth knowledge of fewer subjects. Most people find the latter to be more challenging. Amd you know this to be true based on what scientific study/analysis? And again, who asked for that or drove that change? Those who don't like the amateur radio license examination written questions can communicate with the VEC Question Pool Committee. The VEC QPC makes up ALL the questions for EACH class' written examinations. That situation is eminently fair to me and should be to all radio amateurs desiring the "clubhouse" kind of "community." :-) It seems more likely that the longer a complainant has been licensed, the smarter they are, and the newcomers are way dumber than they, the OTs, were. :-) Have they really proposed a new license? Or (just) different privileges for the existing one? In another reply to your question, Len stated the ARRL has filed both proposals. I'll take his word on that. ARRL's Petition RM-10867. ARRL's Comments filed on 31 October 2005 on NPRM 05-143 is partly a slight rewrite of RM-10867. [Chris is trying very hard to get his handiwork approved? :-) ] ARRL's new "petition" (no RM assignment yet) calls for a revision of the "band plans." That is accessible from their www.arrl.org splash page. 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. Second, okay. Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the third? What "assessments" were done in the past? |
Easier licensing
wrote in message oups.com... From: Bill Sohl on Dec 5, 6:48 am 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. 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. 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). 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Easier licensing
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message t... wrote in message oups.com... From: Bill Sohl on Dec 5, 6:48 am 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. 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. 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). 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Well I would propose dropping the Tech altogether and upping the General written to 50 question test once the code is dropped. The difference in technical material is not great and it's not that hard to memorize the difference in privileges. Once the code is dropped, in the classes that I teach, I will combine the material and encourage all the students to go straight to General. There really won't be a need for an introductory license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Easier licensing
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. 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. 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). I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary. Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too much like the traditional union concept of work with levels of apprentice-journeyman-master. Amateur radio isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft. Differing levels/classes of license only reinforce the already- present class-distinction social divisions in U.S. amateur radio. It is a HOBBY, a recreational pursuit done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some artifice of social standing. Plenty of other organizations exist for social climbers looking for status and title. Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a complex task nor is "amateur radio operation" some kind of mystical event, requiring perfect incantations to have some magic occur. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." The Novice class license is a failure in the long run. 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." 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 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. 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. Time has shown that the newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades; its class numbers are continuously decreasing. Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to "guide and educate the kids." Perhaps its a by- product of parenthood or a surrogate for that? It is misplaced in a "community" whose active members are predominently adult. Children don't have the monetary base to build market sales which serve to benefit the adults. Children don't have the experience to run events or keep organizations (predominently adult) together. 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. 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. It will serve to show those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the adult world ahead. 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. 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. We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen and we did it. Those that did it wrong were shown why and had to practice getting it right. No re- criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no ostracizing. We all learned and did our tasks (some of which were considerably more complicated than any found in amateur radio operating). So did those that came before us and those that came after us. 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. Radio training for line outfits is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of that being branch-specific procedural matters. 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. |
Easier licensing
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: wrote But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirementsare "too high".... Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me. It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others. In other words, that is your opinion based on your view of certain actions of others but you have NO example where anyone has said the requirements are too high. So the reality is that we have NOT been told by anyone that the requirements are too high. Here are some more examples: - ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams. These proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech Pluses getting Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds getting Extras with no additional testing. While they don't come right out and say the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are too high. bunk! Your logic is failed because those free upgrades were proposed as a one time only set of upgrades to get people to a newly aligned set of licenses and privileges without subjecting anyone to a lose of privileges. I don't think it's "bunk" at all. Neither does FCC. Here's why: ARRL proposed that Technicians and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General without taking any tests. Any such action by FCC would need an effective date - a date when the rules would change, and the free upgrade would take effect. A new amateur who earned the Technician the day before the effective date would get the free upgrade, just like all other Techs. The result would be that Generals who hadn't taken the General test would outnumber Generals who *had* taken the General test. Worse, new hams who were licensed after the effective date would still have to pass the General exam. IOW, if the effective date were February 1, a Tech first licensed on January 31 would be a General on February 2, yet have only taken the Tech test. But a new ham licensed on Feb 2 would have to take the General test for the same privileges. IOW, new hams would have to pass more and harder tests for the same privileges that others got for free. Or to put it plainly: If the General test isn't needed for those who got the free upgrade, why is it needed at all? Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements. Ditto my last comment. FCC agrees with me, though. NCI agreed with the ARRL proposal on the free upgrades, btw. But FCC disagreed and denied all proposals for free upgrades. FCC cited the comments of certain people in that denial - see footnote 142 in the NPRM. (ahem) OK, no point there. - NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed the "21st Century" paper closely. Prior to 2000, was the Novice too high? Not for the privileges granted. If the FCC went back or changed Tech to a Novice level test (retaining the General and Extra as is) would that bother you? If it retained the privileges, yes. First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute- solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and look at the writtens: 1) there's the official publication of the written exams. Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition for the test questions to be published? Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it when the VEs ran the testing? 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. (SNIP) I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the exact same test a second time on that same session regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also is that the VEs running the session have no desire to allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's money runs out. Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory 30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the test *really* prepared because coming back was not that easy. So? If someone wants to risk failing that's their choice. It's a real stretch to consider that making requirements easier. I disagree. (SNIP) 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 Will probably happen regardless of anything else. 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. 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. And you can bet that whatever numbers ARRL puts out, some will say they are "massaged" and accuse the ARRL of "fraud" and such. It would not be possible to determine "never before" hams as opposed to "retreads" without a lot of historic info. The number of "retreads" is propably a very small percentage of those that appear as new. Agreed. Upgrades could be derived by comparing the current license class of each license with the license class from the previous analysis. OK 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" - do all the analysis work? ARRL can do it. How do we get them to do it? It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes. If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders have an incentive to pass the tests. But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL got you a free upgrade? Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back. 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Easier licensing
|
Easier licensing
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message Here are some more examples: - ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams. These proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech Pluses getting Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds getting Extras with no additional testing. While they don't come right out and say the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are too high. bunk! Your logic is failed because those free upgrades were proposed as a one time only set of upgrades to get people to a newly aligned set of licenses and privileges without subjecting anyone to a lose of privileges. I don't think it's "bunk" at all. Neither does FCC. The FCC never considered it a long term lowering of requirements on any permananent basis. That is YOUR conclusion only. Here's why: ARRL proposed that Technicians and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General without taking any tests. Any such action by FCC would need an effective date - a date when the rules would change, and the free upgrade would take effect. A new amateur who earned the Technician the day before the effective date would get the free upgrade, just like all other Techs. The result would be that Generals who hadn't taken the General test would outnumber Generals who *had* taken the General test. Worse, new hams who were licensed after the effective date would still have to pass the General exam. That is NOT the reason the FCC rejected the idea. The FCC seems much more aligned with the idea of minimum changes for now and a wait and see attitude. (IMHO) IOW, if the effective date were February 1, a Tech first licensed on January 31 would be a General on February 2, yet have only taken the Tech test. But a new ham licensed on Feb 2 would have to take the General test for the same privileges. IOW, new hams would have to pass more and harder tests for the same privileges that others got for free. Again, none of your argument presented here was a part of the FCC commentary. You may believe it is so, but the FCC never stated it as so. Or to put it plainly: If the General test isn't needed for those who got the free upgrade, why is it needed at all? Please point out wwhere the FCC said that. Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements. Ditto my last comment. FCC agrees with me, though. No they didn't. The FCC never said anything even close to what you are concluding. - NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed the "21st Century" paper closely. Prior to 2000, was the Novice too high? Not for the privileges granted. If the FCC went back or changed Tech to a Novice level test (retaining the General and Extra as is) would that bother you? If it retained the privileges, yes. And if it didn't retain the privileges, should the FCC (a) lower privileges for all existing techs or (b) ?? (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. (SNIP) I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the exact same test a second time on that same session regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also is that the VEs running the session have no desire to allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's money runs out. Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory 30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the test *really* prepared because coming back was not that easy. So? If someone wants to risk failing that's their choice. It's a real stretch to consider that making requirements easier. I disagree. WHY must there be a waiting period? If applicant X passes a different test at the same VE session, the applicant has still passed the test. If the applicant had taken the one he nowed passed after failing a different one first then the applicant passed...PERIOD. You seem to want a punitive element attached to failing such that the applicant is prohibited from retesting for 'N' period of time. There is NO rhyme or reason to why you want that. (SNIP) 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 Will probably happen regardless of anything else. 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. 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. ARRL has more than enough ability to fund such a study or simply assign the task to one of the permanent ARRL staffers. 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. (Snip) 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" - do the analysis work? ARRL can do it. How do we get them to do it? Given the analysis I've seen before presented in QST on various subjects, especially as to ham population and, indirectly ARRL membership, I'll bet the ARRL is always looking at ham and new ham numbers. It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes. If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders have an incentive to pass the tests. But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL got you a free upgrade? Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back. 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). Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Easier licensing
"Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. "Bill Sohl" wrote in message t... wrote in message oups.com... From: Bill Sohl on Dec 5, 6:48 am 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. 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. 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). The current 3 licenses and privileges are the result of piecemeal 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. Bill K2UNK Well I would propose dropping the Tech altogether and upping the General written to 50 question test once the code is dropped. The difference in technical material is not great and it's not that hard to memorize the difference in privileges. Sounds reasonable to me. My ultimate view/perspective... we need a tiered license structure that makes sense. Once the code is dropped, in the classes that I teach, I will combine the material and encourage all the students to go straight to General. There really won't be a need for an introductory license. But they'll still need to approach the testing on a two element basis. My question to you... should there be a true introductory license to bring new hams, especially youth, to ham radio along the lines of the previous Novice. THE only reason (IMHO) that Novice ceased to be the entry level exam was because Novice didn't get folks the majority of repeater operation which is now a mainstay of ham radio. Back in the 50s and 60s (until '68 anyway) we really only had 3 licenses: Novice, Tech and General with the ONLY difference between Tech and General being 13 wpm vs 5 wpm...and that was until 1987. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Easier licensing
Bill Sohl wrote: 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. 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). 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Needs a top-down review, starting with "basis and purpose." Don't build in merit badge-like license classes to make certain segments of society feel good. Three license classes would probably be one more than needed. |
Easier licensing
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message . net... "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. [snip] Well I would propose dropping the Tech altogether and upping the General written to 50 question test once the code is dropped. The difference in technical material is not great and it's not that hard to memorize the difference in privileges. Sounds reasonable to me. My ultimate view/perspective... we need a tiered license structure that makes sense. Once the code is dropped, in the classes that I teach, I will combine the material and encourage all the students to go straight to General. There really won't be a need for an introductory license. But they'll still need to approach the testing on a two element basis. Agreed. Just like when I got my Tech+ (called Tech with HF then) in 1992. I had to take all the elements involved (i.e. code and two writtens) but I went straight to the Tech+ and never held a Novice. For now, people will still have to take two writtens to get to General after the code is dropped but I can see the possibility of an eventual two license system (General and Extra). My question to you... should there be a true introductory license to bring new hams, especially youth, to ham radio along the lines of the previous Novice. THE only reason (IMHO) that Novice ceased to be the entry level exam was because Novice didn't get folks the majority of repeater operation which is now a mainstay of ham radio. No I don't think an introductory license is needed anymore. The material for the General written is well within the grasp of young people to learn and comprehend. It's really no more difficult than what they are supposed to be learning in school. It is merely different. Going straight to General will result in the candidate having a wide range of privileges available at both VHFand up and at HF and down. This will be more meaningful and (in my opinion) more successful than some scaled down introductory license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com