In article , "Brian Hill"
wrote:

"helmsman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:32:01 -0500, He'sDoneItAgain
wrote:

Looks like "no-code" is finally here...

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-269012A1.pdf

All the CBer's should be happy.


The ham bands sound like LIDville nowadays. Have you not been
listening and the most dysfunctional newsgroups on Usenet are amateur
topic groups.

I noticed this years ago. It was my hope that I could joint the
amateur antenna news group and learn something but found it populated
with a bunch of idiots that post there everyday with threads that go
into the hundreds. I've never seen such BS in my life even coming from a
politician.

I feel sorry for the good hams that have to put up with the ****.
They should make the test to where anyone with a IQ of less than 120
can not apply. I remember listening to some pretty sharp guys on the
ham bands when I was a kid. Learned a lot about propagation and
antennas etc.. just listening to them. Now days you gotta dig for a
good QSO. They should set a part of the hf bands for just CW
operators and you can't operate unless you have a CW license and they
should have a test to see if your a retarded LID and if so you get
the jackoff spectrum. I mean why not?

Hams used to build at least some of their equipment. I think it should
be a requirement that you built your own transmitter that passes FCC
specifications to transmit. A prior requirement would be a real
electronics test where you have to solve problems on the test to show
the ability to build a compliant transmitter and antenna system to get a
license. Multiple choice questions are not enough.

Along with the electronics requirement would be test questions on
operator proficiency. There is no reason that marginal people can't be
eliminated from having a license. The bands would then be easier to
regulate and the nonsense would stop.

A person allowed a privilege should be required to show knowledge and
ability to get a license and then build the equipment to utilize a
frequency in this case. The present licensing situation is pointless in
my opinion. Most Hams can't fix their own equipment and they don't
understand how their antennas systems work so the country can't depend
on them when the chips are down.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article . com,
wrote:

He'sDoneItAgain wrote:
Looks like "no-code" is finally here...

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-269012A1.pdf


This sentence summarizes it very well: This change eliminates an
unnecessary regulatory burden that may discourage current amateur
radio operators from advancing their skills and participating more
fully in the benefits of amateur radio.

It's about 30 years too late, but a start in the right direction.
Next we have to eliminate the current test and replace it with
something that actually tests for skills that are important. A test
that combines knowlege of theory with the skills to safely setup and
courteously operate a station. Once potential ham passes that single
test he is granted full operating privileges on all amateur bands.
Currently licensed hams would be grandfathered in with full operating
privileges.

No way. What is the point of raising the bar if you let a bunch of
non-compliant people on the bands.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

helmsman wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:32:01 -0500, He'sDoneItAgain
wrote:

Looks like "no-code" is finally here...

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-269012A1.pdf

All the CBer's should be happy.

Amateur Electronic Supply (AES) will be opening up shops in every truck stop
across the country.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

John Kasupski wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 10:45:27 -0800, wrote:

This sentence summarizes it very well: This change eliminates an
unnecessary regulatory burden that may discourage current amateur radio
operators from advancing their skills and participating more fully in
the benefits of amateur radio.

It's about 30 years too late, but a start in the right direction.

I agree with all the above, including the time frame for when this
change should probably have been made to begin with.

Next
we have to eliminate the current test and replace it with something
that actually tests for skills that are important. A test that
combines knowlege of theory with the skills to safely setup and
courteously operate a station. Once potential ham passes that single
test he is granted full operating privileges on all amateur bands.

This approach would produce one class of license, one test, all or
nothing. I'm not sure that's in the best interests of the ARS. There
is something to be said for having an entry-level license and letting
people work their way up as their skills and experience increase.


It appears to be just another silly purposeless impediment. Once you
have proven that you can set up a station safely and operate
courteously how do the skills needed differ between one portion of a
band and another. Or, which are the skills that improve with time and
how does the current test gauge them.




Put another way, while there are 8-year olds who have made Extra,
they're the exception rather than the norm. We need to attract young
people to ham radio. Hitting 'em with a written test like the one for
Amateur Extra right out of the starting gate probably isn't going to
accomplish that.

I suspect that if we took a zero-based approach to the question of
testing we might come up with something very different than the current
design. Which specific bits of information about radio theory and
operational skills are needed to give some level of assurance that the
proposed ham can operate successfully and safely.

The days of guys building a shack from scratch using surplus radio
equipment and components from the electrical supply house are largely
over. My sense is that the technical testing is geared in some manner
to that world.



Currently licensed hams would be grandfathered in with full operating
privileges.

So you're going to hand Extra privileges to everyone who currently has
a Novice, Technician, General, or Advanced? Well...I currently hold a
General class ticket, and would stand to gain significant additional
band segments on which to operate if I were to be grandfathered in at
Extra-level privileges. Nevertheless, I have to disagree with that.
The fact that the code test is being dropped does not affect the other
technical qualifications for holding a ticket.

Not sure I understand your last point. But that may be from a lack of
caffeine on my part too....



John D. Kasupski, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York
http://kc2hmz.net

Telamon wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

He'sDoneItAgain wrote:
Looks like "no-code" is finally here...

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-269012A1.pdf


This sentence summarizes it very well: This change eliminates an
unnecessary regulatory burden that may discourage current amateur
radio operators from advancing their skills and participating more
fully in the benefits of amateur radio.

It's about 30 years too late, but a start in the right direction.
Next we have to eliminate the current test and replace it with
something that actually tests for skills that are important. A test
that combines knowlege of theory with the skills to safely setup and
courteously operate a station. Once potential ham passes that single
test he is granted full operating privileges on all amateur bands.
Currently licensed hams would be grandfathered in with full operating
privileges.

No way. What is the point of raising the bar if you let a bunch of
non-compliant people on the bands.

Non-compliant with what exactly.



--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

Hams used to build at least some of their equipment.

....and many still do. Looked at any of the construction articles in QST
lately? (like for the last 15 or 20 years)

I think it should be a requirement that you built your own
transmitter that passes FCC specifications to transmit.

Why? And do you have *any* clue as to how complex modern transceivers
are? The test equipment to verify that it "passes FCC specifications to
transmit"? (Priced any spectrum analyzers lately?) Furthermore, why
build just the transmitter? Why wouldn't you require them to build their
receiver too?

Most Hams can't fix their own equipment

You say "Most hams can't fix their own equipment". So what is your
point? Most modern equipment uses surface mount technology, which
requires 20 year old eyes and special equipment to solder/de-solder. How
many people can fix their own TVs/DVDs/VCRs? For that matter, can you
fix your own modern car? Why not? You have the privelege of having a
driver's license. Heck, to follow -your- logic, you should -build- your
own car.

and they don't understand how their antennas systems work

Again, so what? Some hams are indeed engineers but plenty are mail
delivery persons or plumbers or any number of non-engineering
occupations that enjoy radio as a hobby. I happen to believe that is one
of the strengths of ham radio.

so the country can't depend on them when the chips are down.

Well, there seemed to be a lot of good press and good buzz about the ham
radio performance during Katrina. Maybe you should do just a little
research before you tar -everyone- with the same brush.

Sorry, but you come across like a ham wannabee that couldn't cut the
mustard...(and just use a bag full of excuses as to why you never became
a ham).

Or, due to the thoughtlessness and foolishness of your statements, maybe
you are just trolling. :-(

73,
Carter
K8VT

Nuclear Bomb Almost Accidently Detonates In Texas. www.rense.com

If that is true,those people over there at Pantex better watch out,they
could have almost ''wiped out Detroit''
A few weeks ago,I saw an eyeballing the Pantex plant at
www.cryptome.org/index.html
cuhulin

Carter-k8vt wrote:
Telamon wrote:

Hams used to build at least some of their equipment.

...and many still do. Looked at any of the construction articles in QST
lately? (like for the last 15 or 20 years)

I think it should be a requirement that you built your own
transmitter that passes FCC specifications to transmit.

Why? And do you have *any* clue as to how complex modern transceivers
are? The test equipment to verify that it "passes FCC specifications to
transmit"? (Priced any spectrum analyzers lately?) Furthermore, why
build just the transmitter? Why wouldn't you require them to build their
receiver too?

Most Hams can't fix their own equipment

You say "Most hams can't fix their own equipment". So what is your
point? Most modern equipment uses surface mount technology, which
requires 20 year old eyes and special equipment to solder/de-solder. How
many people can fix their own TVs/DVDs/VCRs? For that matter, can you
fix your own modern car? Why not? You have the privelege of having a
driver's license. Heck, to follow -your- logic, you should -build- your
own car.

and they don't understand how their antennas systems work

Again, so what? Some hams are indeed engineers but plenty are mail
delivery persons or plumbers or any number of non-engineering
occupations that enjoy radio as a hobby. I happen to believe that is one
of the strengths of ham radio.

so the country can't depend on them when the chips are down.

Well, there seemed to be a lot of good press and good buzz about the ham
radio performance during Katrina. Maybe you should do just a little
research before you tar -everyone- with the same brush.

Sorry, but you come across like a ham wannabee that couldn't cut the
mustard...(and just use a bag full of excuses as to why you never became
a ham).

Or, due to the thoughtlessness and foolishness of your statements, maybe
you are just trolling. :-(

73,
Carter
K8VT


Well, I dunno...

I'm not a ham, I'm a pirate.
'We don't need no frikken license, capiche?'


But I do use aged ham equipment, and I do fix my own... and often have
to learn something new each time I do it.

The new surface-mount stuff, I couldn't have repaired even when I DID
have twenty-year old eyes because my hands were never that steady.

'Plug and play' would be nice, but I suppose one wouldn't learn much
that way, other than how to prepare equipment to be shipped to the
repair shop, or how to shop for replacement eqpt, should that painful
necessity arise...

But preferring to operate in AM mode with plate modulation, more modern
equipment just can't be had at a reasonable price, so its Johnson for
me, along with its periodic failures and necessary self-service.

For the reason that the amateur service generates necessary equipment
of direct benefit to pirate broadcasters, I would want to see the
amateur service continue to survive and even flourish... but for those
of us who prefer AM to sideband, us musical afficionados, well, there
hasn't been much efficient ham equipment manufactured suitable for that
purpose in 30-40 years.

Just my own inane ramblings, as I don't really have a dog in this hunt
at the present.

'Fifteen men on the dead man's chest
Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of rum!'

The Poet aka John Poet aka domestic terrorist aka patriot

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:15:57 -0600, Brian Hill Has Frothed:


"Meat Plow" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 09:39:20 -0600, Brian Hill Has Frothed:


"helmsman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:32:01 -0500, He'sDoneItAgain
wrote:

Looks like "no-code" is finally here...

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-269012A1.pdf

All the CBer's should be happy.


The ham bands sound like LIDville nowadays. Have you not been listening
and
the most dysfunctional newsgroups on Usenet are amateur topic groups. I
feel
sorry for the good hams that have to put up with the ****. They should
make
the test to where anyone with a IQ of less than 120 can not apply. I
remember listening to some pretty sharp guys on the ham bands when I
was
a
kid. Learned a lot about propagation and antennas etc.. just listening
to
them. Now days you gotta dig for a good QSO. They should set a part of
the
hf bands for just CW operators and you can't operate unless you have a
CW
license and they should have a test to see if your a retarded LID and
if
so
you get the jackoff spectrum. I mean why not?

BH

You ever listen to some of the licensed imbeciles on the phone portion
of
80 meters? I swear to ****ing god it's like listening to a CB.
--
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004

COOSN-266-06-25794

Oh yea! Plow what the heck are you doing over here? I didn't know you
were a
radio buff.

BH

Been a licensed ham for 17 years.

--
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004

COOSN-266-06-25794

Well you old ham!

BH