View Full Version : Even the ARRL is tired of the wait
Guess NCTs aren't the only ones getting a bit frustrated at the delays.
Linky (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/10/03/102/?nc=1)
I thought the FCC was just going to drop Element 1? I heard nothing about them doing the ARRL's novice refarming.
NN4RH
10-04-2006, 12:35 AM
Quote[/b] ]"I believe it's grossly incompetent for a government agency to fail to act on something affecting the Amateur Radio Service," Harrison commented,
About a week ago I got my ARRL membership renewal reminder in the mail. This little tantrum by our ARRL President has helped me make up my mind not to renew.
AE6IP
10-04-2006, 01:43 AM
Silly ARRL. I can't think of a better way to get the FCC to drag their feet then to accuse them of gross incompetence.
KD6NIG
10-04-2006, 02:13 AM
Of course they want the FCC to act. If they don't act soon, they are going to lose too much membership, and they might just have to cut back on expenditures.
They need that HF NCT influx to save thier membership numbers for the year.
And if it doesn't happen, the marketing department can blame it all on the FCC for thier failure to maintain membership for the year.
Heck, maybe they think this announcement will drive some numbers already. "The ARRL is pushing the FCC! Time to buy that HF rig!"
Don't count on it.
kb9rqz
10-04-2006, 02:19 AM
the ARRL VEC group needs to what the rules are/will be in order to write a proper question pool
KC5SAS
10-04-2006, 02:39 AM
To heck with the ARRL and the decision on the Code. My and the YL are 4 weeks into a code class the local club is doing. By Cristmas we should have the Code out of the way and be studying for the General written test.
WA2ZDY
10-04-2006, 02:44 AM
ARRL says: Quote[/b] ]The FCC further agreed with the ARRL's proposal to extend privileges in the current General CW-only HF subbands to present Novice and Tech Plus licensees (or Technicians with Element 1 credit).
This is good. Last I checked, there are no "CW only" HF subbands except for Novice and Tech Plus. ( http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/Hambands_color.pdf )
Those guys at 225 Main Street have been into the ganja again, haven't they? Here are the hazards of using hams of a few months in "important" positions at ARRL. One day they'll learn where to find their own frequency chart.
I hope they keep the code at least until the XYL passes it, which should be very soon.
n7rjd
10-04-2006, 03:02 AM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 03 2006,10:57)]I thought the FCC was just going to drop Element 1? I heard nothing about them doing the ARRL's novice refarming.
The novice refarming is part of the "Omnibus" proposal that the FCC has stated would see action before the code dropping NPRM would be decided or at least before it would be announced.
kb9rqz said:
Quote[/b] ]the ARRL VEC group needs to what the rules are/will be in order to write a proper question pool
The ARRL/VEC doesn't write the question pool. The NVEC Question Pool Comittee does which would include at least one representative from the ARRL/VEC as well as representatives from a number of other VEC's.
KC5SAS said:
Quote[/b] ]To heck with the ARRL and the decision on the Code. My and the YL are 4 weeks into a code class the local club is doing. By Cristmas we should have the Code out of the way and be studying for the General written test.
Thumbs up to you and the YL sir. Your lack of napping and waiting for a handout is refreshing to see. Best of luck to the both of you and we will look for you on HF toward the end of the year. We'll know it's you when she keys the radio and we hear you begging in the background for your turn at the controls http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
w8cbc
10-04-2006, 03:32 AM
Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Oct. 03 2006,17:35)]Quote[/b] ]"I believe it's grossly incompetent for a government agency to fail to act on something affecting the Amateur Radio Service," Harrison commented,
About a week ago I got my ARRL membership renewal reminder in the mail. This little tantrum by our ARRL President has helped me make up my mind not to renew.
I got one this month too. I was wavering.
The article I just read certainly wasn't representative of my interests.
I may decide become another former ARRL member.
kc7jty
10-04-2006, 07:27 AM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 02 2006,19:43)]Silly ARRL. I can't think of a better way to get the FCC to drag their feet then to accuse them of gross incompetence.
We all know that is the ARRL's desired bottom line anyway.
kc7jty
10-04-2006, 07:31 AM
Quote[/b] (KC5SAS @ Oct. 02 2006,20:39)]To heck with the ARRL and the decision on the Code. #My and the YL are 4 weeks into a code class the local club is doing. #By Cristmas we should have the Code out of the way and be studying for the General written test.
*clunk*clunk* two more nickels in the bucket.
kc7jty
10-04-2006, 07:32 AM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 02 2006,20:50)]I hope they keep the code at least until the XYL passes it, which should be very soon.
*clunk*
ae4fa
10-04-2006, 11:23 AM
One thing that may be giving the FCC problems in resolving the issues of 04-140 is that they also have before them 05-235, which in some areas is highly contradictory to 04-140. This illustrates a lack of comprehensive consideration on the ARRL's part. Pathetic.
It sounds like the ARRL is blowing off some steam and lashing out at the FCC for not carrying out their requests. Bob's analysis is correct in that it seems that the ARRL is not keeping track of what they send up to the FCC and is delivering mixed signals to the commission. Of course the ARRL could be in shotgun mode as it concerns the FCC and are shooting wildly and hoping that some of the buckshot hits the target.
73
George
K3UD
Translation of what the ARRL is saying:
Quote[/b] (ae4fa @ Oct. 04 2006,04:23)]One thing that may be giving the FCC problems in resolving the issues of 04-140 is that they also have before them 05-235, which in some areas is highly contradictory to 04-140. #This illustrates a lack of comprehensive consideration on the ARRL's part. #Pathetic.
This characterization is absolutely not fair, and you would know this if you had done even the most rudimentary research.
The petitions that gave rise to 04-140 were filed as far back as 2001. ARRL's particular petition was filed in March 2002. The WRC-03 decision to eliminate the Morse proficiency requirement didn't happen until well after these petitions should have been decided.
To whatever extent ARRL's positions in the two proceedings differ--and I'm not sure they do to an appreciable extent--it is due to the FCC unnecessarily dragging out the first rulemaking to overlap with the second. If what became 04-140 had been disposed of in 2003--as ARRL was promised--this would not be an issue.
05-235 hasn't been out long enough to raise a stink about yet. The Commission's inaction on 04-140--a promised, routine maintenance proceeding to keep the regulations up to date--is inexcusable. ARRL is absolutely justified in calling the Commission on the carpet for this.
Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Oct. 03 2006,17:35)]About a week ago I got my ARRL membership renewal reminder in the mail. This little tantrum by our ARRL President has helped me make up my mind not to renew.
I have just renewed my Diamond Club membership for $250, in part to make up for your shortsightedness.
You really think it would be better for ARRL to let the FCC continue to ignore the routine maintenance of the Amateur Radio Service without calling them on this fact? If so, then you're getting precisely what you deserve from the FCC. I think most amateurs think they deserve better, and I think they're right.
ab9lz
10-04-2006, 02:44 PM
Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 04 2006,00:32)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 02 2006,20:50)]I hope they keep the code at least until the XYL passes it, which should be very soon.
*clunk*
Wouldn't that be the surprise of surprises if she actually liked it, and started to use it. Many find it (morse) to be quite addicting.
73 m.
Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Oct. 04 2006,07:21)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Oct. 03 2006,17:35)]About a week ago I got my ARRL membership renewal reminder in the mail. This little tantrum by our ARRL President has helped me make up my mind not to renew.
I have just renewed my Diamond Club membership for $250, in part to make up for your shortsightedness.
My renewal is up. Let's see, how many people would we have to get here to agree not to renew to offset this guy's $250?? I think about 4 people would do it. NN4RH could be one, I would be willing to make #2, any others? We need 2 more people to pledge to NOT renew their ARRL membership.
I mean, I would have renewed personally but since QX here is shortsighted enough to make it a game...
Quote[/b] (ab9lz @ Oct. 04 2006,09:44)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 04 2006,00:32)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 02 2006,20:50)]I hope they keep the code at least until the XYL passes it, which should be very soon.
*clunk*
Wouldn't that be the surprise of surprises if she actually liked it, and started to use it. Many find it (morse) to be quite addicting.
73 m.
She does already. Teaching her the code is a great "together" activity for us.
I used to view morse as the necessary evil to get a license. Then I started to learn it and lo and behold I discovered what a beautiful mode it was.
And that's one of the main reasons I will not support the removal (without concessions) of the morse requirement. Morse code is a big part of ham radio.
nm5tf
10-04-2006, 04:06 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 04 2006,02:26)]Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Oct. 04 2006,07:21)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Oct. 03 2006,17:35)]About a week ago I got my ARRL membership renewal reminder in the mail. This little tantrum by our ARRL President has helped me make up my mind not to renew.
I have just renewed my Diamond Club membership for $250, in part to make up for your shortsightedness.
My renewal is up. Let's see, how many people would we have to get here to agree not to renew to offset this guy's $250?? I think about 4 people would do it. NN4RH could be one, I would be willing to make #2, any others? We need 2 more people to pledge to NOT renew their ARRL membership.
I mean, I would have renewed personally but since QX here is shortsighted enough to make it a game...
according to QX's qrz listing, his QTH is Hartford, Conn....do ya suppose that he's connected to the ARRL per chance http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
nah...couldn't be....could it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 04 2006,08:26)]I mean, I would have renewed personally but since QX here is shortsighted enough to make it a game...
Not making it a game, Charlie. I'm just enabling ARRL to do its job.
Someone has to, because when they try to, folks like you and Ron quit.
Quote[/b] (wa6oml @ Oct. 04 2006,09:06)]according to QX's qrz listing, his QTH is Hartford, Conn....do ya suppose that he's connected to the ARRL per chance http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
nah...couldn't be....could it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I was employed there from 2000 to 2004. #I am now practicing law in Hartford, and I hold the appointment of Volunteer Counsel (as do scores of other ham attorneys across the country).
Any organization that's been around for 85 years is bound to have done something that will make most potential constituents mad. #That I can understand.
What I can't understand is the initially negative reaction on this board to what is essentially a pointed but still diplomatic letter calling the FCC to task for its refusal to engage in routine maintenance of our regulations. #This is precisely the type of advocacy ARRL should be doing, and some folks are saying they're going to quit because of it.
Sometimes I think if ARRL found a way to get every amateur in the country 1 MHz of new spectrum and $1000 to go buy a new radio for it, some folks here would still find a reason to complain about it.
ad4mg
10-04-2006, 04:23 PM
Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Oct. 04 2006,12:07)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 04 2006,08:26)]I mean, I would have renewed personally but since QX here is shortsighted enough to make it a game...
Not making it a game, Charlie. #I'm just enabling ARRL to do its job.
Someone has to, because when they try to, folks like you and Ron quit.
I quit the ARRL when they "vacated" the SM position of the man we elected to that position a few years ago. And their unholy alliance with winlink, along with their technically flawed, amateur hating bandwidth proposal, not to mention their heavy hand in handling emergency communications. Newington knows what's best for Richmond, Virginia? I think not. But hey, that's just me.
Count me in Charlie. I'll never renew my membership. Tried it once, didn't like it whatsoever. No voice, no vote. Why belong? Seems that 76% of all amateurs agree. I guess we're all quitters.
WB2WIK
10-04-2006, 04:25 PM
Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Oct. 04 2006,09:15)]Sometimes I think if ARRL foujnd a way to get every amateur in the country 1 MHz of new spectrum and $1000 to go buy a new radio for it, some folks here would still find a reason to complain about it.
Lots of folks on here would complain if hanged with a new rope. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I applaud the League for its pushiness. Only things that work in Washington are noise and money, and I don't see hams donating millions to our cause.
K7JBQ
10-04-2006, 04:37 PM
I would also mention that there's nothing much new about this. The league has been chiding the FCC since the ink was dry on the Communications Act of 1934.
73,
Bill
WB2WIK
10-04-2006, 05:13 PM
Quote[/b] (K7JBQ @ Oct. 04 2006,09:37)]I would also mention that there's nothing much new about this. The league has been chiding the FCC since the ink was dry on the Communications Act of 1934.
73,
Bill
You correctly point out that the ARRL existed many years before the FCC did.
Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Oct. 04 2006,09:07)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 04 2006,08:26)]I mean, I would have renewed personally but since QX here is shortsighted enough to make it a game...
Not making it a game, Charlie. I'm just enabling ARRL to do its job.
Someone has to, because when they try to, folks like you and Ron quit.
Your attitude in the original post was typical ARRL arrogance but you got my point. No, I will not cancel my membership because there are things the league does that are very worthwhile and I hold out hope for them.
The point that Bob and a few others were making was that the ARRL positions are not very well thought out as they relate to other ARRL actions. An example is the bandwidth proposal that would add wideband digital data in the voice segments with scores of new NCGs expected on the air soon. In other words, there will be less available voice spectrum by virtue of one ARRL action (bandwidth based bandplanning) just when you get a bump in use by virtue of another ARRL action (removing code test).
If you want to let the ARRL "do it's job", you might pull the words of Hiram Maxim out and look at them once in awhile. What you're trying to do now is not cutting it. I apologize for the direct nature of my response to you, but you seem to want to step in front of the bus on this with your eyes closed.
My differences with some ARRL policy and proposals to the FCC is public record on the QRZ.com forums. That being said, I did renew my membership back a few months ago and will continue do so into the foreseesble future because the positives of the ARRL still out weigh the negatives.
However, I do think that the ARRL is out of touch with its membership and takes it's membership base for granted. That the FCC either turns down the ARRL RMs or just ignores them should be a red flag that the ARRL has lost some of its stature at the Commission.
73
George
K3UD
My membership lapsed, by choice, in January of this year.
I will not renew until the smoking pile of !@#$ which is the ARRL bandwidth proposal is rejected by the FCC.
nm5tf
10-04-2006, 06:32 PM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Oct. 04 2006,04:59)]However, I do think that the ARRL is out of touch with its membership and takes it's membership base for granted. That the FCC either turns down the ARRL RMs or just ignores them should be a red flag that the ARRL has lost some of its stature at the Commission.
73
George
K3UD
<rant mode ON>
the very same thing could be said about the NRA...of which I am a Life Member...if I thot there was a chance-in-h**l of getting my $500 back, I would try http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
that is the main reason that I didn't join the ARRL when I got back into HR after being QRT for 35 years..and yes, I was a member back in the 1960's...when they were acting in their members' best interests...the League seems to have taken the same tack as the NRA...unfortunately http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
<rant mode OFF>
K0RGR
10-04-2006, 08:21 PM
This has nothing to do with either the bandwidth proposal or the no-code proposal.
FCC did, indeed, agree to adopt ARRL's proposals regarding the Novice Band Redeployment a million years ago. This should be good news for Novices and coded Techs, and it will expand some of the phone bands for everybody else. It should result in better utilization of our bands.
There are also a lot of little changes included, that really need to be cleaned up.
I haven't taken the time to compare this to the current bandwidth proposal, but the original bandwidth regulation proposal was compatible with the proposed refarmed bands here.
W5HTW
10-04-2006, 08:56 PM
I think, in regards to proposals before the FCC that have not been acted upon, there is a visible reason. The FCC does not, in my opinion, want to have to rewrite amateur radio every year. They would prefer to consolidate as much as possible, the various proposals into the next restructuring. That makes sense to me, although what they do specifically may not make sense.
The Restructuring of 1999 was primarily to make all code testing of the same speed, further simplifying the licensing procedure, and simplying as well, the FCC's database requirements for differentiating between Technician and Technician with Code. Had WRC-2003 already occurred in, say, 1998, instead of 2003, I think there is little doubt the FCC would have kept any code testing. In fact, they stated so categorically, when they said they were keeping the testing to be in compliance with international rules.
Novice refarming is linked to the removal of the code test, whether so stated or not. The removal of the code testing will allow dramatically more hams to suddenly have access to HF by advancing in the written testing to the General level. The refarming of the Novice bands, therefore, will not likely be done as a separate NPRM but as an NPRM which also includes the removing of code testing.
At the same time, the wideband proposal will likely also be addressed. Why? Because expanded voice bands will make it a more viable option for WINLINK and other protocols that will follow.
The FCC may even consider restricting CW to what are now known generally as the CW subbands, to keep CW out of the voice and WINLINK bands. If so, all of these things will likely come out in a single rewrite of the rules, to avoid having to issue a new NPRM every few months.
It is for this reason I believe the FCC held off on proposals in 2001 and 2002, preferring to wait and consolidate their thinking. Few people thought WRC2003 would NOT remove code testing requirements, and the FCC was not blind. Again, they chose to wait. Again, a wise move.
My own guess is there will be a rather comprehensive revamping of ham radio in the near future, that will address all of those various proposals. That can be done by dismissing the proposals before the FCC, and simply rewriting the rules. I would guess this is presently being done.
It would not surprise me, in fact, to learn that Novices will be given a specific time in which to upgrade to General or lose their licenses. With the removal of code testing, ALL Technicians may also be required to upgrade to General? Why? To eliminate the need to have a simulated Novice-Tech-plus subband mixed in with the General bands, and to eliminate the resultant enforcement requirements.
I suppose it could be said that all Advanced license holders may be at some point required to upgrade to Extra or be downgraded to General. Such a downgrade, though, would not cost them any privileges, as Generals would have all frequencies not specifically reserved for Extras. Operationally, the Advanced and General would be identical.
Why all this? Simplification. The FCC does not want to complicate ham radio. They want to ignore it and let it self-destruct, and that is best done by making it as simple as they can imagine. If wide band data and internet email modes take over the voice bands, for example, a lot of hams would move to CW.
Frankly, I do not expect a ruling on any of the standing proposals individually. Instead, I think a revamping of the rules will address - and eliminate - almost all of them.
Ed
w8cbc
10-04-2006, 09:05 PM
Quote[/b] ]...wide band data and internet email modes...
The ARRL's push on these is one of the reasons I may not renew.
KL1ZB
10-04-2006, 09:10 PM
What will all you people complain about after they drop the code requirement? Sure you will continue for a year or two after they do, but then what?
Some of you have made such a spectacle about saying it will never happen its going to be a real embasement when it does.
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Oct. 04 2006,15:56)]I suppose it could be said that all Advanced license holders may be at some point required to upgrade to Extra or be downgraded to General. #Such a downgrade, though, would not cost them any privileges, as Generals would have all frequencies not specifically reserved for Extras. #Operationally, the Advanced and General would be identical. #
I would imagine a lot of advanced licensees would be pissed, since their now no longer issued "I'm a real Advanced ham" license would be end of lifed pretty soon.
So they either upgrade to extra (lite) or get downgraded to general.
n7rjd
10-04-2006, 11:24 PM
Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Oct. 04 2006,03:07)]Someone has to, because when they try to, folks like you and Ron quit.
For personal reasons I wish you would have used a more unique identifier such as his callsign. Don't want anybody to get the wrong idea and think it is another Ron, afterall, my membership is paid up. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
kc7jty
10-05-2006, 02:48 AM
Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Oct. 03 2006,15:10)]What will all you people complain about after they drop the code requirement? Sure you will continue for a year or two after they do, but then what?
The code has branded us all for the rest of our natural lives. It will ALWAYS be an issue for those obsessed with how much one knows, knew, or tested at.
The current strata, or caste system will be of foremost importance for many for decades.
kc7jty
10-05-2006, 02:57 AM
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Oct. 03 2006,14:56)]I think, in regards to proposals before the FCC that have not been acted upon, there is a visible reason. #The FCC does not, in my opinion, want to have to rewrite amateur radio every year. #They would prefer to consolidate as much as possible, the various proposals into the next restructuring. #That makes sense to me, although what they do specifically may not make sense.
The Restructuring of 1999 was primarily to make all code testing of the same speed, further simplifying the licensing procedure, and simplying as well, the FCC's database requirements #for differentiating between Technician and Technician with Code. # Had WRC-2003 already occurred in, say, 1998, instead of 2003, I think there is little doubt the FCC would have kept any code testing. # #In fact, they stated so categorically, when they said they were keeping the testing to be in compliance with international rules.
Novice refarming is linked to the removal of the code test, whether so stated or not. #The removal of the code testing will allow dramatically more hams to suddenly have access to HF by advancing in the written testing to the General level. #The refarming of the Novice bands, therefore, will not likely be done as a separate NPRM but as an NPRM which also includes the removing of code testing. #
At the same time, the wideband proposal will likely also be addressed. #Why? #Because expanded voice bands will make it a more viable option for WINLINK and other protocols that will follow.
The FCC may even consider restricting CW to what are now known generally as the CW subbands, to keep CW out of the voice and WINLINK bands. # If so, all of these things will likely come out in a single rewrite of the rules, to avoid having to issue a new NPRM every few months.
It is for this reason I believe the FCC held off on proposals in 2001 and 2002, preferring to wait and consolidate their thinking. #Few people thought WRC2003 would NOT remove code testing requirements, and the FCC was not blind. #Again, they chose to wait. #Again, a wise move. #
My own guess is there will be a rather comprehensive revamping of ham radio in the near future, that will address all of those various proposals. #That can be done by dismissing the proposals before the FCC, and simply rewriting the rules. #I would guess this is presently being done.
It would not surprise me, in fact, to learn that Novices will be given a specific time in which to upgrade to General or lose their licenses. #With the removal of code testing, ALL Technicians may also be required to upgrade to General? Why? #To eliminate the need to have a simulated Novice-Tech-plus subband mixed in with the General bands, and to eliminate the resultant enforcement requirements. #
I suppose it could be said that all Advanced license holders may be at some point required to upgrade to Extra or be downgraded to General. #Such a downgrade, though, would not cost them any privileges, as Generals would have all frequencies not specifically reserved for Extras. #Operationally, the Advanced and General would be identical. #
Why all this? #Simplification. The FCC does not want to complicate ham radio. #They want to ignore it and let it self-destruct, and that is best done by making it as simple as they can imagine. #If wide band data and internet email #modes take over the voice bands, for example, a lot of hams would move to CW. #
Frankly, I do not expect a ruling on any of the standing proposals individually. #Instead, I think a revamping of the rules will address - and eliminate - almost all of them.
Ed
In other words a complete dismantling of incentive licensing.
NN4RH
10-05-2006, 09:23 AM
Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Oct. 04 2006,10:21)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Oct. 03 2006,17:35)]About a week ago I got my ARRL membership renewal reminder in the mail. This little tantrum by our ARRL President has helped me make up my mind not to renew.
I have just renewed my Diamond Club membership for $250, in part to make up for your shortsightedness.
You really think it would be better for ARRL to let the FCC continue to ignore the routine maintenance of the Amateur Radio Service without calling them on this fact? If so, then you're getting precisely what you deserve from the FCC. I think most amateurs think they deserve better, and I think they're right.
So throwing any amount of money at the ARRL somehow makes up for loss of even one member? Now THAT is short-sighted.
It is not about the FCC's schedule. Amatuer Radio will do just fine until the omnibus package is released. Amateur radio is not in any danger because the FCC isn't in a hurry to do this particular change.
It is about the President of the ARRL making unsubstantiated charges of "gross incompetence". I expect more dignified and tactful behavior from a President of an organization I belong to, than childish name-calling. If they want to publically whine about the FCC, then send out lower-level attack dogs like Imlay to do that sort of unsophisticated behavior.
For the President of a major organization that purports to represent the interests of amateur radio to simply throw an tantrum seriously damages the ARRL's credibility. Nobody respects an organization who's officers hop around and whine like little 2 year olds. "Wanna have my candy NOWWWW".
Certainly, nobody seriously expects the FCC to now suddenly rush the new rules out as a result of this. The FCC will simply ignore it. It is completely unimportant to them whether or not Joel Harrison wants his candy this instant.
This tantrum and the highlighted public exposure given to it was done merely to stir up activism and 'nudge' those of you out there who throw money at the ARRL. Look at the timing of it, too and you'll see what it is really about. It's transparent and shallow besides being unproductive.
All it does for me, is clearly send the message that the ARRL has no respect for its membership.
So, throw more money at it if you want - but it is not about money.
ae4fa
10-05-2006, 10:47 AM
Quote[/b] ]The refarming of the Novice bands, therefore, will not likely be done as a separate NPRM but as an NPRM which also includes the removing of code testing
Actually, 04-140 and 05-235 are NPRMs. #That being said, I think the premise of that post is sound. #In fact, I suggested going that route in my comments to the FCC.
WA2ZDY
10-05-2006, 12:55 PM
I think Ed hit the nail pretty close to dead-on, as usual.
My problem with ARRL and why I let my membership lapse? ARRL is no longer interested in "Joe Ham." No, ARRL only cares about the accounts receivable fund. Everything they've done in recent memory has been aimed at whatever will most likely bring in the bucks. Membership dues, advertising revenue, whatever. And of course the best way to do that is to have MORE HAMS. (I won't get into my definitions of "hams" versus "licensees." Anyone familiar with my writings already knows.)
How do we get more "hams?" We lower standards, and we change what ham radio is. Even if they don't become members, more "hams" mean more rigs sold (or so ARRL thought until the NCT classes started cranking out licensees who never got on the air) which means more advertising revenue for QST.
How do we get folks interested in "ham" radio? We turn it into a fabulous new wireless internet. To do that of course we need to have wideband digital that will be totally incompatible with the more common "legacy" modes. (But who cares, those legacy users are already hams. We want NEW ones.) And to make the wideband digital even better, lets get FCC to drop some technical requirements that could hinder it - like automatic power control. Again, it needs to get over those old hams nobody in Newington cares about anymore.
Where else can we improve this wireless internet idea? Oh yes, let's for better email for the rich cheapskates who don't want to pay for the commercial email they SHOULD be using. Let's petition FCC to allow encryption to tighten up that privacy, just in case any of those old hams get nosey and willing to pay for a Winlink modem. We sure don't want Joe Sailor and Bob RVer to think his email isn't private. Afterall, they might not be hams anymore if they knew anyone could eavesdrop.
To say ARRL doesn't care about ham radio would be a mistake. But they only care about the aspects of ham radio that add substantially to the bottom line. And I down on 40 CW am not a concern to them. If anything, I stand in the way of the NEW HAM who hasn't bought is rig - yet.
And don't kid yourselves, internet email via amateur frequencies is only getting bigger. It's here to stay. Those boaters and RVers aren't going to pay for the real thing if they don't have to. Rich men don't stay that way by spending it. ARRL is on the right path - for themselves. Ham radio be damned.
ad4mg
10-05-2006, 01:23 PM
Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Oct. 05 2006,08:55)]I #think Ed hit the nail pretty close to dead-on, as usual.
My problem with ARRL and why I let my membership lapse? # ARRL is no longer interested in "Joe Ham." #No, ARRL only cares about the accounts receivable fund. #Everything they've done in recent memory has been aimed at whatever will most likely bring in the bucks. #Membership dues, advertising revenue, whatever. # And of course the best way to do that is to have MORE HAMS. #(I won't get into my definitions of "hams" versus "licensees." #Anyone familiar with my writings already knows.)
How do we get more "hams?" #We lower standards, and we change what ham radio is. #Even if they don't become members, more "hams" mean more rigs sold (or so ARRL thought until the NCT classes started cranking out licensees who never got on the air) which means more advertising revenue for QST. #
How do we get folks interested in "ham" radio? #We turn it into a fabulous new wireless internet. #To do that of course we need to have wideband digital that will be totally incompatible with the more common "legacy" modes. #(But who cares, those legacy users are already hams. #We want NEW ones.) #And to make the wideband digital even better, lets get FCC to drop some technical requirements that could hinder it - like automatic power control. #Again, it needs to get over those old hams nobody in Newington cares about anymore.
Where else can we improve this wireless internet idea? #Oh yes, let's for better email for the rich cheapskates who don't want to pay for the commercial email they SHOULD be using. #Let's petition FCC to allow encryption to tighten up that privacy, just in case any of those old hams get nosey and willing to pay for a Winlink modem. #We sure don't want Joe Sailor and Bob RVer to think his email isn't private. #Afterall, they might not be hams anymore if they knew anyone could eavesdrop.
To say ARRL doesn't care about ham radio would be a mistake. #But they only care about the aspects of ham radio that add substantially to the bottom line. #And I down on 40 CW am not a concern to them. #If anything, I stand in the way of the NEW HAM who hasn't bought is rig - yet.
And don't kid yourselves, internet email via amateur frequencies is only getting bigger. #It's here to stay. #Those boaters and RVers aren't going to pay for the real thing if they don't have to. #Rich men don't stay that way by spending it. # ARRL is on the right path - for themselves. #Ham radio be damned.
Absolutely dead on target. Amazing that so many cannot see the truth right in front of them.
The hinternet junkies, being the arrogant morons that they are, have no problem at all having things their way at the expense of all others.
The ARRL claims to represent amateur radio. They do not, in any way, shape, fashion, or form represent this amateur radio operator.
k0cmh
10-05-2006, 02:07 PM
4QX: You hit the nail dead on the head.
It seems there is more negative on this board than positive.
Unfortunately, it seems that way with other boards, involving other subjects, that I frequent.
Maybe it is just the nature of a board to attracts complainers.
I have tried to put "positive" posts here, and they flop. But the one or two that I post that are negative take off like a rocket.
But to stay on this thread, unfortunately I do not agree with a lot of what ARRL is doing these days, but maintain my membership because of the national presence they have in the emergency communications area. Kind of like belonging to a political party. One joins because of just a few beliefs, but has to accept a whole bunch of other positions they don't like or care about.
W5HTW
10-05-2006, 02:28 PM
Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 04 2006,19:57)]Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Oct. 03 2006,14:56)]I think, in regards to proposals before the FCC that have not been acted upon, there is a visible reason. The FCC does not, in my opinion, want to have to rewrite amateur radio every year. They would prefer to consolidate as much as possible, the various proposals into the next restructuring. That makes sense to me, although what they do specifically may not make sense.
The Restructuring of 1999 was primarily to make all code testing of the same speed, further simplifying the licensing procedure, and simplying as well, the FCC's database requirements for differentiating between Technician and Technician with Code. Had WRC-2003 already occurred in, say, 1998, instead of 2003, I think there is little doubt the FCC would have kept any code testing. In fact, they stated so categorically, when they said they were keeping the testing to be in compliance with international rules.
Novice refarming is linked to the removal of the code test, whether so stated or not. The removal of the code testing will allow dramatically more hams to suddenly have access to HF by advancing in the written testing to the General level. The refarming of the Novice bands, therefore, will not likely be done as a separate NPRM but as an NPRM which also includes the removing of code testing.
At the same time, the wideband proposal will likely also be addressed. Why? Because expanded voice bands will make it a more viable option for WINLINK and other protocols that will follow.
The FCC may even consider restricting CW to what are now known generally as the CW subbands, to keep CW out of the voice and WINLINK bands. If so, all of these things will likely come out in a single rewrite of the rules, to avoid having to issue a new NPRM every few months.
It is for this reason I believe the FCC held off on proposals in 2001 and 2002, preferring to wait and consolidate their thinking. Few people thought WRC2003 would NOT remove code testing requirements, and the FCC was not blind. Again, they chose to wait. Again, a wise move.
My own guess is there will be a rather comprehensive revamping of ham radio in the near future, that will address all of those various proposals. That can be done by dismissing the proposals before the FCC, and simply rewriting the rules. I would guess this is presently being done.
It would not surprise me, in fact, to learn that Novices will be given a specific time in which to upgrade to General or lose their licenses. With the removal of code testing, ALL Technicians may also be required to upgrade to General? Why? To eliminate the need to have a simulated Novice-Tech-plus subband mixed in with the General bands, and to eliminate the resultant enforcement requirements.
I suppose it could be said that all Advanced license holders may be at some point required to upgrade to Extra or be downgraded to General. Such a downgrade, though, would not cost them any privileges, as Generals would have all frequencies not specifically reserved for Extras. Operationally, the Advanced and General would be identical.
Why all this? Simplification. The FCC does not want to complicate ham radio. They want to ignore it and let it self-destruct, and that is best done by making it as simple as they can imagine. If wide band data and internet email modes take over the voice bands, for example, a lot of hams would move to CW.
Frankly, I do not expect a ruling on any of the standing proposals individually. Instead, I think a revamping of the rules will address - and eliminate - almost all of them.
Ed
In other words a complete dismantling of incentive licensing.
Correct. And I would guess Incentive Licensing WILL be dismantled. In what ham radio has become, a non-technical hobby, incentive licensing serves zero purpose. .. Ed
KD6NIG
10-05-2006, 03:12 PM
http://www.kd6nig.net/ms/beatingadeadhorse.gif
Once this horse is pummled, mutilated, and has returned to the soil, another will be found to beat on.
Course, if nothing else is found, at least we still have politics!
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Oct. 05 2006,06:23)]Absolutely dead on target. Amazing that so many cannot see the truth right in front of them.
The hinternet junkies, being the arrogant morons that they are, have no problem at all having things their way at the expense of all others.
The ARRL claims to represent amateur radio. They do not, in any way, shape, fashion, or form represent this amateur radio operator.
Don't forget the no code know-it-alls!!
kd4mxe
10-05-2006, 04:34 PM
Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Oct. 05 2006,08:12)]http://www.kd6nig.net/ms/beatingadeadhorse.gif
.
Course, if nothing else is found, at least we still have politics!
kd6ing -Once this horse is pummled, mutilated, and has returned to the soil, another will be found to beat on----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------(sir do you know what the name of this dude thats Beating this dead horse is and call letters , He looks like someone I have seen posting here Before,its Been a while But I cant see his face clearly , 73 Bill http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
kb9rqz
10-05-2006, 04:40 PM
Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Oct. 03 2006,10:15)]Quote[/b] (wa6oml @ Oct. 04 2006,09:06)]according to QX's qrz listing, his QTH is Hartford, Conn....do ya suppose that he's connected to the ARRL per chance http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
nah...couldn't be....could it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I was employed there from 2000 to 2004. #I am now practicing law in Hartford, and I hold the appointment of Volunteer Counsel (as do scores of other ham attorneys across the country).
Any organization that's been around for 85 years is bound to have done something that will make most potential constituents mad. #That I can understand.
What I can't understand is the initially negative reaction on this board to what is essentially a pointed but still diplomatic letter calling the FCC to task for its refusal to engage in routine maintenance of our regulations. #This is precisely the type of advocacy ARRL should be doing, and some folks are saying they're going to quit because of it.
Sometimes I think if ARRL found a way to get every amateur in the country 1 MHz of new spectrum and $1000 to go buy a new radio for it, some folks here would still find a reason to complain about it.
what you fail to see is that Procoders bitching about the delay are afraid the ARRL will mange to produce action on the issue and they don't want action on the issue since they (and I know the result : victory for the NoCoders
they are critizing the tactics used by the ARRL and From their PoV they are right to do so, where as I give a monir bit of clapping for the ARRL finaly doing something but frankly suspect their motives are to be able to say they were for No Code all along which would be a lie
Quote[/b] (kb9rqz @ Oct. 05 2006,09:40)]what you fail to see is that Procoders bitching about the delay are afraid the ARRL will mange to produce action on the issue and they don't want action on the issue since they (and I know the result : victory for the NoCoders
they are critizing the tactics used by the ARRL and From their PoV they are right to do so, where as I give a monir bit of clapping for the ARRL finaly doing something but frankly suspect their motives are to be able to say they were for No Code all along which would be a lie
Call: KB9RQZ Class: Technician
Not as clear as your motive...
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 05 2006,12:45)]Quote[/b] (kb9rqz @ Oct. 05 2006,09:40)]what you fail to see is that Procoders bitching about the delay are afraid the ARRL will mange to produce action on the issue and they don't want action on the issue since they (and I know the result #: victory for the NoCoders
they are critizing the tactics used by the ARRL and From their PoV they are right to do so, where as I give a monir bit of clapping for the ARRL finaly doing something but frankly suspect their motives are to be able to say they were for No Code all along which would be a lie
Call: KB9RQZ Class: Technician
Not as clear as your motive...
The other thing you have to consider is that the NCT's who are not active on HF because they view it as the "turf" of "pro-coders" (which is silly, because I'm an Extra and I still operate on VHF/UHF, repeaters too) don't have a clue as to the chaos that some of the completely misguided ARRL proposals will do.
They have never had their QSOs rudely interrupted by WinLink/Pactor, nor have they had experience with anything else in the ham world outside of VHF/UHF, or even remotely similar except perhaps pirating/freebanding on 11 meters, or on CB, or the ARRL's grand field day show where the world of ham radio stops to show what a good job the league is doing.
NN4RH
10-05-2006, 07:54 PM
By rqz - Quote[/b] ]what you fail to see is that Procoders bitching about the delay are afraid the ARRL will mange to produce action on the issue and they don't want action on the issue since they (and I know the result : victory for the NoCoders
they are critizing the tactics used by the ARRL and From their PoV they are right to do so, where as I give a monir bit of clapping for the ARRL finaly doing something but frankly suspect their motives are to be able to say they were for No Code all along which would be a lie
This is an excellent example of the kind of member the ARRL seems to want to attract these days. Someone who clearly did not even read the news item at issue so doesn't even know what the issue is, doesn't think for himself, but gets all excited about it.
WA2ZDY
10-05-2006, 08:34 PM
9Y4RAJ - on some post in the past I suggested that some of the anti-code sentiment on the part of many NCTs is due to them having absolutely no clue what upgrading can mean.
How often do we see questions from NCTs that make it clear they've hardly been exposed to HF. And that being the case, all they know about HF is what they've heard second hand.
Or they've read repeatedly how freeband is unlike CB and more like ham radio (perish the thought but it's been put forth here before.) Maybe some of those NCTs became hams to get away from that very freeband. And now they're reading that HF is akin to a return to that? If that's the case, I can understand their unwillingness to learn the code.
It's difficult to be motivated to put forth effort to obtain the absolutely unknown or something you THINK you know you won't like (the freeband story.) I think this applies to at least some NCTs.
I understand what you mean, Chris. I also believe that many of them think that the technician test is good enough to grant full privileges.
Maybe it's because for some of them it seemed hard, whereas for us who have been in it for years or have some sort of electronics or radio communications background or even science and physics, we know very well that the tech test is a joke.
Some others think that the pro-code movement is "keeping them down." Nonsense. No one but themselves are keeping them down. How you can be a NCT for 15 years and wanting HF privileges but not wanting to learn the code despite it having been dumbed down to 5WPM (with lots of space in between) is beyond me.
We live in a society of endless reward for little achievement. I don't know who did it - whether it's the psychologists or the businessmen who decided that in order to make everyone happy we have to lower the bar.
WB2WIK
10-05-2006, 09:45 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,13:44)]I understand what you mean, Chris. I also believe that many of them think that the technician test is good enough to grant full privileges.
That's the crux of it, and this is bad enough.
Frankly, half the Extras I hear on the bands shouldn't have "full privileges," because they have no idea what they're doing.
It takes knowledge and experience to be deserving of full privileges in anything in life. I shudder when I see the driving test here, and in every state I've seen it...people pass with flying colors and then don't know how to turn a corner if they're going faster than 10 mph. My XYL can't parallel park to save her life; hopefully, she'll never have to save anybody's life by parallel parking, or they're all doomed.
So, she has a drivers license. Should she have "full privileges" (which I guess would mean being allowed to drive a motorcycle, a 3-axle RV, a 53' trailer)? Hell, I sure hope not -- she can barely handle a small car.
WB2WIK/6
Well in many states, a regular driver license allows you to drive any vehicle up to 26,000lbs for personal use. Isn't that a scary thought.
WB2WIK
10-05-2006, 09:56 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,14:52)]Well in many states, a regular driver license allows you to drive any vehicle up to 26,000lbs for personal use. Isn't that a scary thought.
That's just nuts.
But then the "age of consent" is 14 in some states, too.
Also just nuts.
kb9rqz
10-05-2006, 10:27 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 04 2006,11:45)]Quote[/b] (kb9rqz @ Oct. 05 2006,09:40)]what you fail to see is that Procoders bitching about the delay are afraid the ARRL will mange to produce action on the issue and they don't want action on the issue since they (and I know the result #: victory for the NoCoders
they are critizing the tactics used by the ARRL and From their PoV they are right to do so, where as I give a monir bit of clapping for the ARRL finaly doing something but frankly suspect their motives are to be able to say they were for No Code all along which would be a lie
Call: KB9RQZ Class: Technician
Not as clear as your motive...
you have a problem with my agreeing that ProCoder insterests are served by the ARRL remaining silent on psushing to code test matter to it is final conclusion (form a regulatory stand put)
may goodness you are bitter I agree with you and you can't even be mannered
to repaet the ProCoder are pissed and PROPERLY so by the ARRL proding the FCC to act on the various NPRM and RM periotn etc becuase they know the result deafeat I agree you are right if you support continued code testing you should be ticked at the ARRL for it leter of oct 3
kb9rqz
10-05-2006, 10:30 PM
Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Oct. 04 2006,13:54)]This is an excellent example of the kind of member the ARRL seems to want to attract these days. Someone who clearly did not even read the news item at issue so doesn't even know what the issue is, doesn't think for himself, but gets all excited about it.
Hmm I read the matter I know form it and other materail that the FCC has made it they will act on on the ARS matters basical at once thus Code testing of Noivce reframing a few other things will all be acted on together
I agree the proocoder want the FCC quiet since any action that includes action on the code test provision will be to enact no code which I support and plainly you don't
how is that not thinking for myself
kb9rqz
10-05-2006, 10:35 PM
Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Oct. 04 2006,15:45)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,13:44)]I understand what you mean, Chris. #I also believe that many of them think that the technician test is good enough to grant full privileges.
That's the crux of it, and this is bad enough.
Frankly, half the Extras I hear on the bands shouldn't have "full privileges," because they have no idea what they're doing.
and they have em and I don't I have never stated staed that the tech test should grant full prevledges and no Tech I have ever heard of has another of these red herring you guys likes to throw out OTOH the extra test and general class has plenty of prefect inane stuff to one it
Indeed the general pool in some section seemed beter to granting tech fequency prev than anything to do with HF and certain the Novice tech test I took for mine was better suited to granting HF preveldges in many section than frequencies it grants (Iunderstand how this came about OTOH I am vaguer on just why changing this state of affairs is such an ordeal, but that is fodder for a different thread)
Quote[/b] (kb9rqz @ Oct. 05 2006,17:27)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 04 2006,11:45)]Quote[/b] (kb9rqz @ Oct. 05 2006,09:40)]what you fail to see is that Procoders bitching about the delay are afraid the ARRL will mange to produce action on the issue and they don't want action on the issue since they (and I know the result : victory for the NoCoders
they are critizing the tactics used by the ARRL and From their PoV they are right to do so, where as I give a monir bit of clapping for the ARRL finaly doing something but frankly suspect their motives are to be able to say they were for No Code all along which would be a lie
Call: KB9RQZ Class: Technician
Not as clear as your motive...
you have a problem with my agreeing that ProCoder insterests are served by the ARRL remaining silent on psushing to code test matter to it is final conclusion (form a regulatory stand put)
may goodness you are bitter I agree with you and you can't even be mannered
to repaet the ProCoder are pissed and PROPERLY so by the ARRL proding the FCC to act on the various NPRM and RM periotn etc becuase they know the result deafeat I agree you are right if you support continued code testing you should be ticked at the ARRL for it leter of oct 3
Need I remind you, that this thread is about WT Docket 04-140.
That really has nothing to do with code/no code. It has everything to do with refarming the novice bands.
Also, you don't operate HF. What puts you in any position to have a valid opinion on how they should be used? Do you see uneducated, inexperienced people with learner permits designing roadways, bridges and tunnels? Of course not. That stuff is done by civil engineers who busted their humps in college and on the job learning civil engineering.
Quote[/b] (kb9rqz @ Oct. 05 2006,17:35)]Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Oct. 04 2006,15:45)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,13:44)]I understand what you mean, Chris. I also believe that many of them think that the technician test is good enough to grant full privileges.
That's the crux of it, and this is bad enough.
Frankly, half the Extras I hear on the bands shouldn't have "full privileges," because they have no idea what they're doing.
and they have em and I don't I have never stated staed that the tech test should grant full prevledges and no Tech I have ever heard of has another of these red herring you guys likes to throw out OTOH the extra test and general class has plenty of prefect inane stuff to one it
Indeed the general pool in some section seemed beter to granting tech fequency prev than anything to do with HF and certain the Novice tech test I took for mine was better suited to granting HF preveldges in many section than frequencies it grants (Iunderstand how this came about OTOH I am vaguer on just why changing this state of affairs is such an ordeal, but that is fodder for a different thread)
Gawd... You might just very well have the last of word by virtue that virtually NO ONE in this thread has a CLUE as to what you're saying.
It's hurting my brain trying to decipher your posts.
W5HTW
10-05-2006, 11:56 PM
Another product of our "pass 'em anyway" school system? Or is English a 2nd or 3rd or perhaps 8th or 10th language?
w8cbc
10-06-2006, 12:29 AM
When I see that sort of garble I tend to assume that it is due to laziness.
Some get it wrong but try. Others cannot be bothered to even try.
Perhaps there ought to be a minimal grammatical standard for the internet, with those who fall short relegated to instant-messaging.
Deferments could be given those with relevant and provable medical conditions.
---edit to get rid of superfluous wording---
NN4RH
10-06-2006, 12:32 AM
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Oct. 05 2006,19:56)]Another product of our "pass 'em anyway" school system? Or is English a 2nd or 3rd or perhaps 8th or 10th language?
I'm still trying to figure out what he means by "basical at once thus Code testing of Noivce reframing" means.
Nowadays it is hard to know whether guys who write in this garbled style are truly only marginally literate, or whether they do it intentionally because it is trendy amoung certain internet subcultures.
Well, of course if you can't think for yourself, it's a lot easier to be trendy than to be understood.
WA2ZDY
10-06-2006, 12:59 AM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,17:52)]Well in many states, a regular driver license allows you to drive any vehicle up to 26,000lbs for personal use. #Isn't that a scary thought.
I was pretty surprised when the tax collectors' office (yes, really, things are strange here in the Sunshine State) lady handed me my Florida DL and exactly that was printed on it. I was tempted to go buy myself a "cab-over Pete with a reefer on." (With apologies to CW McCall.) I always wanted to drive a big rig.
By the way, know what the test for the Florida DL was? There was none. I gave them my NJ license and the nice lady gave me one that says Florida on it.
As for the age of consent, I don't know what it is here in Florida but the age to drive is 15. Yes, that IS scary. The adults drive like nuts; 15 year olds????
Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Oct. 05 2006,19:59)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,17:52)]Well in many states, a regular driver license allows you to drive any vehicle up to 26,000lbs for personal use. Isn't that a scary thought.
I was pretty surprised when the tax collectors' office (yes, really, things are strange here in the Sunshine State) lady handed me my Florida DL and exactly that was printed on it. I was tempted to go buy myself a "cab-over Pete with a reefer on." (With apologies to CW McCall.) I always wanted to drive a big rig.
Yep, I know all about the tax collector's office (mom lives in Volusia county).
In some states you're limited to 18,000lbs GVWR, some of them are 26,000lbs GVWR. Only limitation is that you can't tow a trailer more than 10,000 lbs. In fact you can't do that unless you have a class A license (that's what the big rig 18 wheeler guys have). But a regular driver license is all you need for everything else.
So you could probably drive the tractor, but not the trailer... Well you could just get a Navistar (international) CXT anyway.
Quote[/b] ]
By the way, know what the test for the Florida DL was? There was none. I gave them my NJ license and the nice lady gave me one that says Florida on it.
That's not a big deal. When I wanted a license in NJ all I had to do was present proof that I was legally in the country plus proof of my SSN and also proof of address along with my NY license. That is fine.
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Oct. 05 2006,18:56)]Another product of our "pass 'em anyway" school system? Or is English a 2nd or 3rd or perhaps 8th or 10th language?
Or it might just very well be the product of one too many beers.
w8cbc
10-06-2006, 03:04 AM
'ZDY/4: Quote[/b] ]By the way, know what the test for the Florida DL was? There was none. I gave them my NJ license and the nice lady gave me one that says Florida on it.
That's normal practise as far as I know. As long as you have a valid licence from a recognised jurisdiction, you just exchange it. I did that when moving from New York to Ontario.
My Ontario was expired more than six months when I got my Ohio licence so I had to re-test. I wouldn't have had to otherwise.
By the way, I passed. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Yeah pretty much any license from any state can be traded for a license from that state. Works even with Canadian licenses. Some states will even trade foreign licenses (other than Canadian) as well.
Only thing you need to pass is the vision test in some states, as well as checking your ID, social security and immigration status in some states. Also if you hold a CDL with hazmat, some states will make you re-take the test for that to get back the hazmat endorsement.
kc7jty
10-06-2006, 04:10 AM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 04 2006,13:35)]don't have a clue as to the chaos that some of the completely misguided ARRL proposals will do.
They have never had their QSOs rudely interrupted by WinLink/Pactor, nor have they had experience with anything else in the ham world outside of VHF/UHF
that's absolutely right. It is not an issue for us because HF is off limits.
kc7jty
10-06-2006, 04:14 AM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 04 2006,14:44)]the code despite it having been dumbed down to 5WPM (with lots of space in between)
so is it 5 wpm or 5 wpm with lots of space in between? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
WA2ZDY
10-06-2006, 12:14 PM
Having never moved my legal domicile out of NJ before, I was unaware that most places allow licenses to be traded so easily. I figured there'd at least be a written exam of some sort to be sure one knows the traffic laws of the new home state. They can't ALL be the same, can they?
Oh well, I don't drive anyway. I have a chauffer for that. I didn't want to not get the license though. As long as they were willing to give it to me, why not?
Thanks for the info.
Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 05 2006,23:14)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 04 2006,14:44)]the code despite it having been dumbed down to 5WPM (with lots of space in between)
so is it 5 wpm or 5 wpm with lots of space in between? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
It is 5WPM spacing with 13wpm characters.
That is in fact much easier than straight 5wpm since you have lots of time to think.
Have you even attempted the code test?
I'm thinking a lot of people vehemently opposed to it wouldn't be so opposed to it if they actually tried it. They might actually *gasp* like it!
Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Oct. 06 2006,07:14)]Having never moved my legal domicile out of NJ before, I was unaware that most places allow licenses to be traded so easily. #I figured there'd at least be a written exam of some sort to be sure one knows the traffic laws of the new home state. #They can't ALL be the same, can they?
Oh well, I don't drive anyway. #I have a chauffer for that. #I didn't want to not get the license though. # As long as they were willing to give it to me, why not?
Thanks for the info.
Well I don't think any state requires you to take a written test once you've had a license in another state for x amount of time. I think NY will not exchange any license less than 1 year old. Not sure about others but I am sure some states have at least some restrictions.
Requiring any test again would not really make much of a difference because you can drive in any state or Canadian province with any license issued in the US or Canada anyway.
CDLs are different because they are regulated by interstate commerce and I think the law says you have to take the hazmat endorsement test in the state in which your license is issued. I don't think it can just transfer over.
Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 05 2006,23:10)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 04 2006,13:35)]don't have a clue as to the chaos that some of the completely misguided ARRL proposals will do.
They have never had their QSOs rudely interrupted by WinLink/Pactor, nor have they had experience with anything else in the ham world outside of VHF/UHF
that's absolutely right. It is not an issue for us because HF is off limits.
So why are you guys pushing and campaigning for changes that affect bands that you don't and can't use?
Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 06 2006,00:14)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 04 2006,14:44)]the code despite it having been dumbed down to 5WPM (with lots of space in between)
so is it 5 wpm or 5 wpm with lots of space in between? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Wait a minute. I thought you weren't going to "touch the monkey". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
So why should it matter? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,09:22)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 05 2006,23:10)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 04 2006,13:35)]don't have a clue as to the chaos that some of the completely misguided ARRL proposals will do.
They have never had their QSOs rudely interrupted by WinLink/Pactor, nor have they had experience with anything else in the ham world outside of VHF/UHF
that's absolutely right. It is not an issue for us because HF is off limits.
So why are you guys pushing and campaigning for changes that affect bands that you don't and can't use?
Because they *want* to use them. They just don't want to do code.
Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Oct. 06 2006,08:35)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,09:22)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 05 2006,23:10)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 04 2006,13:35)]don't have a clue as to the chaos that some of the completely misguided ARRL proposals will do.
They have never had their QSOs rudely interrupted by WinLink/Pactor, nor have they had experience with anything else in the ham world outside of VHF/UHF
that's absolutely right. It is not an issue for us because HF is off limits.
So why are you guys pushing and campaigning for changes that affect bands that you don't and can't use?
Because they *want* to use them. They just don't want to do code.
Hey, I want to fly a commercial airliner. I just don't want to do all of the pesky FAA requirements. As a non-pilot, I think they are keeping us down from those high paying pilot jobs in the airline industry. They should lower the requirements to a simple written test and I should be able to fly anything I want.
After all, flying for me is just a hobby.
K7JEM
10-06-2006, 02:42 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,06:55)]Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Oct. 06 2006,08:35)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,09:22)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 05 2006,23:10)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 04 2006,13:35)]don't have a clue as to the chaos that some of the completely misguided ARRL proposals will do.
They have never had their QSOs rudely interrupted by WinLink/Pactor, nor have they had experience with anything else in the ham world outside of VHF/UHF
that's absolutely right. It is not an issue for us because HF is off limits.
So why are you guys pushing and campaigning for changes that affect bands that you don't and can't use?
Because they *want* to use them. They just don't want to do code.
Hey, I want to fly a commercial airliner. I just don't want to do all of the pesky FAA requirements. As a non-pilot, I think they are keeping us down from those high paying pilot jobs in the airline industry. They should lower the requirements to a simple written test and I should be able to fly anything I want.
After all, flying for me is just a hobby.
But being a pilot has safety issues involved. If not for that, there wouldn't be so many FAA regulations.
There are no safety issues in ham radio that are corrected or addressed by having a proficiency in morse code.
This is an old arguement that has no merit.
Joe
WB2WIK
10-06-2006, 03:22 PM
Quote[/b] (w8cbc @ Oct. 05 2006,20:04)]'ZDY/4: Quote[/b] ]By the way, know what the test for the Florida DL was? There was none. I gave them my NJ license and the nice lady gave me one that says Florida on it.
That's normal practise as far as I know. As long as you have a valid licence from a recognised jurisdiction, you just exchange it. I did that when moving from New York to Ontario.
California requires all drivers license applicants to pass the CA DMV written examination at minimum and reserves the right to administer a behind-the-wheel test to any applicant regardless of age, experience or previous licensure. They also require a new photograph and thumbprint, since those are laminated as part of each license. You can hand them all the out-of-state licenses you want, but that won't get you one here.
Driving age is 16 for a permit (not a full license), which one must have for six months, along with a certificate of graduation from a certified driving school, to apply for a regular license. If the license is granted at 16-1/2, which is possible, the new driver cannot transport minors unless an adult is also in the vehicle. The state is considering bumping the driving age up to 18, which frankly would make me very happy.
Our Class C license is for 2-axle vehicles only, although I must admit some RVs like motor homes have two axles and may well weigh 10,000 lbs+.
The regs are all too loose, even here.
Eight out of ten accidents here involve teen drivers or illegal alien drivers; neither are successfully prosecuted often because the kids are judged as kids and the illegal aliens usually don't even have a drivers license, so there's nothing to revoke.
WB2WIK/6
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,09:42)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,06:55)]Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Oct. 06 2006,08:35)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,09:22)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 05 2006,23:10)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 04 2006,13:35)]don't have a clue as to the chaos that some of the completely misguided ARRL proposals will do.
They have never had their QSOs rudely interrupted by WinLink/Pactor, nor have they had experience with anything else in the ham world outside of VHF/UHF
that's absolutely right. It is not an issue for us because HF is off limits.
So why are you guys pushing and campaigning for changes that affect bands that you don't and can't use?
Because they *want* to use them. They just don't want to do code.
Hey, I want to fly a commercial airliner. I just don't want to do all of the pesky FAA requirements. As a non-pilot, I think they are keeping us down from those high paying pilot jobs in the airline industry. They should lower the requirements to a simple written test and I should be able to fly anything I want.
After all, flying for me is just a hobby.
But being a pilot has safety issues involved. If not for that, there wouldn't be so many FAA regulations.
There are no safety issues in ham radio that are corrected or addressed by having a proficiency in morse code.
The anti-code movement has been slinging around the "but there are no safety issues..." for years to distract from the real issue.
The issue isn't safety. It's interference.
We have anti-coders like kc7jty talking about squeezing out CW out from the bands as if it is some sort of demon that needs to be banished from the airwaves, permanently, and talking about using voice modes to occupy the frequencies and force CW operators off the air.
Here are the facts -
A large portion of the ham community still uses CW. CW is still a HUGE part of ham radio.
CW is allowed anywhere on the bands. I can have a CW QSO on 14.275 as a matter of fact, and there isn't anything anyone can do if I was there first.
Other data modes are allowed in the CW section on many bands.
How are we to ensure that operators recognize that the CW signals are there? Computers cannot reliably decode CW, especially hand sent CW with a straight key.
The only way to ensure that CW operators are not interfered with is to ensure that operators licensed to operate in those sub-bands have at the least a bare minimum of knowledge to know what CW is.
It is not sufficient to know what a CW signal sounds like either. Lots of other things can sound like CW - birdies, people loading up their transmitters/amplifiers etc. You should know how to properly identify a QSO in progress.
Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Oct. 06 2006,10:22)]California requires all drivers license applicants to pass the CA DMV written examination at minimum and reserves the right to administer a behind-the-wheel test to any applicant regardless of age, experience or previous licensure. They also require a new photograph and thumbprint, since those are laminated as part of each license. You can hand them all the out-of-state licenses you want, but that won't get you one here.
New photo and thumbprint makes sense. Most state driver licenses I've seen do not have a thumbprint. NJ up until recently also had non-photo driver licenses as an option. Re-administering a written test is no big deal. NJ has the option to do that too, and the driving test but they don't do it most of the time. I guess the only time they'll do that is if your license is expired.
Quote[/b] ]Driving age is 16 for a permit (not a full license), which one must have for six months, along with a certificate of graduation from a certified driving school, to apply for a regular license. If the license is granted at 16-1/2, which is possible, the new driver cannot transport minors unless an adult is also in the vehicle. The state is considering bumping the driving age up to 18, which frankly would make me very happy.
We have similar regs around here too. Many states are now enacting graduated driving laws, which is a great thing.
Quote[/b] ]Our Class C license is for 2-axle vehicles only, although I must admit some RVs like motor homes have two axles and may well weigh 10,000 lbs+.
I think you require an RV endorsement if you drive a large RV. CA DMV website says anything over 40ft and less than 45ft. NY requires a "R" endorsement. In fact you need an R endorsement in NY even if you have a CDL.
K7JEM
10-06-2006, 04:06 PM
Boy, thats a stretch. Code is allowed on 2M and 440, 6M, microwave bands, etc. All of these places have techs who don't know the code, yet I don't here of a lot of interference issues because people can't copy it.
By your logic, if someone was speaking Russian on 20M ssb, an English speaking operator would interfere with it because he can't understand whats being sent. Or RTTY or SSTV, or PSK, etc.
No, you don't have to be proficient with CW (or any other mode) to hear that something is going on, and avoid interference. Most people even vaguely familiar with MC knows what it sounds like, and can tune to another spot on the dial.
Joe
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,11:06)]Boy, thats a stretch. Code is allowed on 2M and 440, 6M, microwave bands, etc. All of these places have techs who don't know the code, yet I don't here of a lot of interference issues because people can't copy it.
Well for the most part they're on repeaters, so they don't harm anyone.
In 9Y land they took away the code for years, and there are no enforced band plans. In fact the telecomm authority probably doesn't even know what the ham bands are. (You should see the hoops I had to jump through just to get authorization to import my equipment for my dxpedition come november). 9Z4 prefixes are no code, all privileges.
What did we notice happening? Some hams began to operate fone and digital modes on all sections of the band, even in the CW subbands. There is one case of a guy operating a FM repeater in the satellite and weak signal/cw portion of 70cm.
Other hams who knew better told him that what he was doing was wrong. But he was "wrong and strong." Up to now there is still interference going on.
Had this guy known that this portion of the band was for CW and satellites, he would have not set up his repeater there.
And this is precisely the mindset that many NCTs have. They passed a barely minimal test, don't really know what's going on in which section of the band because they don't really care about CW or other modes.
kc7jty
10-06-2006, 05:08 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,07:14)]Have you even attempted the code test?
Nope...I never attempted the code test. The look on the VE's face back in 95 when I told him I wasn't going to attempt the code test after aceing the novice and technician exams was worth a million bucks.
I did study the code later and was surprised that I was able to quite accurately send at 8 wpm but I was counting the dits & dahs. My favorite sounding character though was/is F.
Copying was something that just wasn't going to happen for me unless I became quite proficient at using code on a daily basis. (This was back when the 13 & 20 were still the law of the land).
Some of us just aren't cut out for it. It's a shame so many feel we are all the derogatory remarks one can think of because we aren't of the code cloth.
I enjoy music as much as or more than the average person. Back in my late teens a friend got me interested in FM broadcast listening which back then wasn't very popular due to AM radio. We would listen to our favorite music on the new FM stations that would play 10 selections in a row without commercials.
He had this amazing ability (to me anyway) to name the selection/song by listening to it for about 1 second or less when it first started. It usually took me 3-5 seconds to figure it out and this was music I listened to every day.
He couldn't believe it took me so long.
kc7jty
10-06-2006, 05:15 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,07:22)]So why are you guys pushing and campaigning for changes that affect bands that you don't and can't use?
Actually for me Morse is the only issue. I'd just like to see the FCC make a call on it. I've already stated in my comment to them I'd like to see Morse dropped completely or keep things exactly the way they are now.
Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 06 2006,12:08)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,07:14)]Have you even attempted the code test?
Nope...I never attempted the code test. The look on the VE's face back in 95 when I told him I wasn't going to attempt the code test after aceing the novice and technician exams was worth a million bucks.
I did study the code later and was surprised that I was able to quite accurately send at 8 wpm but I was counting the dits & dahs. My favorite sounding character though was/is F.
Copying was something that just wasn't going to happen for me unless I became quite proficient at using code on a daily basis. (This was back when the 13 & 20 were still the law of the land).
Some of us just aren't cut out for it. It's a shame so many feel we are all the derogatory remarks one can think of because we aren't of the code cloth.
I enjoy music as much as or more than the average person. Back in my late teens a friend got me interested in FM broadcast listening which back then wasn't very popular due to AM radio. We would listen to our favorite music on the new FM stations that would play 10 selections in a row without commercials.
He had this amazing ability (to me anyway) to name the selection/song by listening to it for about 1 second or less when it first started. It usually took me 3-5 seconds to figure it out and this was music I listened to every day.
He couldn't believe it took me so long.
I refuse to believe that some of us aren't "cut out of the code cloth."
That is utter nonsense, unless you have a serious learning disability, in which case it is a wonder that you even passed the written elements.
Even so, people with real disabilities can overcome their afflictions and pass what they need to pass, if they really want it.
I used to think that I wasn't cut out for math, but with enough practice I not only learned calculus through to linear algebra, probability etc but I was able to teach others. It took a bit of effort and motivation on my part, but in the end I earned a skill which will stick with me for a lifetime.
Believe it or not, I hear the same argument about math among engineering students that I hear about the code in the ARS.
I heard a lot of my classmates say, "but we don't use math on the job daily, why do we have to learn it? We have computers to do math for us!" They ended up failing math classes because they put that block up and deemed it not necessary, and therefore not worthy of learning. As a result they just failed and failed. Some dropped out, and some buckled down and passed their math classes. Now they've moved on to bigger and better things, some in nice engineering jobs and others in grad school etc.
The moral of the story - even if it's something you deem "unneccessary" if you have the will to do it you will pass it.
w8cbc
10-06-2006, 05:59 PM
'MH - Quote[/b] ]You should know how to properly identify a QSO in progress.
Which is why I'm against allowing PACTOR robots on the bands. I think I know what they sound like now. Something wide and digital and bloody damn strong wiped out a SSB group in 80 metres I was in not long ago.
I considered LaPlace transforms un-necessary. I had a hell of a time getting my head around the damned things. I stuck with it though as the class was required in my electronics engineering programme.
Morse code is a requirement for HF transmitting privileges and is a hell of a lot easier than what I was struggling with 11 years ago in college.
'jty has a point in wanting the FCC to make a call on it either way. I don't agree - I would just keep on trying to learn it instead of waiting for someone else to do something (hey, I did at that) - but I accept the point.
Those demanding that it be removed because they cannot be bothered to even try are another matter.
I see the ARRL's no-code and regulation-by-bandwidth and 'phone-band-expansion pushing more clearly now. It's all stuff that would benefit the Winlink interests.
I don't support any of those three items.
K7JEM
10-06-2006, 06:04 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,09:19)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,11:06)]Boy, thats a stretch. Code is allowed on 2M and 440, 6M, microwave bands, etc. All of these places have techs who don't know the code, yet I don't here of a lot of interference issues because people can't copy it.
Well for the most part they're on repeaters, so they don't harm anyone.
In 9Y land they took away the code for years, and there are no enforced band plans. In fact the telecomm authority probably doesn't even know what the ham bands are. #(You should see the hoops I had to jump through just to get authorization to import my equipment for my dxpedition come november). #9Z4 prefixes are no code, all privileges. #
What did we notice happening? #Some hams began to operate fone and digital modes on all sections of the band, even in the CW subbands. #There is one case of a guy operating a FM repeater in the satellite and weak signal/cw portion of 70cm. #
Other hams who knew better told him that what he was doing was wrong. #But he was "wrong and strong." #Up to now there is still interference going on. #
Had this guy known that this portion of the band was for CW and satellites, he would have not set up his repeater there.
And this is precisely the mindset that many NCTs have. #They passed a barely minimal test, don't really know what's going on in which section of the band because they don't really care about CW or other modes.
But this is a totally different arguement. The fact that someone would set up a repeater in a CW section speaks volumes about that person. That is not a reason to require a code test. The code test will not determine if a person chooses to do something contrary to the rules, or the spirit of ham radio.
You are going on about NCT's. The NPRM will give no new priviledges to NCT's, they gain nothing. It is only a bogeyman tactic. Many hams place NCT's just a step above CB'ers; both classes are something to disparage, and berate.
Any new hams that gain HF priviledges will be general and above, just no code test. The lack of a code test in no way changes any of the person's other technical or ethical qualities.
Joe
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,13:04)]But this is a totally different arguement. The fact that someone would set up a repeater in a CW section speaks volumes about that person. That is not a reason to require a code test. The code test will not determine if a person chooses to do something contrary to the rules, or the spirit of ham radio.
Read my post again. There are no enforced band plans in that country. Anyone can operate where they want, legally.
The CW subbands are for the most part a gentleman's agreement.
People operate in the CW subbands because they have a general disdain and scorn for morse code, even though the requirement was removed years ago (since 1996).
Quote[/b] ]You are going on about NCT's. The NPRM will give no new priviledges to NCT's, they gain nothing. It is only a bogeyman tactic. Many hams place NCT's just a step above CB'ers; both classes are something to disparage, and berate.
An NCT with a element 3 CSCE will be a general. Open question pools and no code == recipe for disaster.
Quote[/b] ] The lack of a code test in no way changes any of the person's other technical or ethical qualities.
The lack of a code test encourages disdain and scorn for morse code. First it will be the code test, then it will be crying for the CW subbands and CW allowed anywhere to be removed, so that (as NCI puts it so nicely) "no one mode will be offered priority over another."
As for growth in the ARS, it grew for a bit since 1996 then got stagnant again.
Most new licensees were people who had passed the written test but had either given up on code or didn't want to do it.
K7JEM
10-06-2006, 06:38 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,11:12)]The lack of a code test encourages disdain and scorn for morse code. #First it will be the code test, then it will be crying for the CW subbands and CW allowed anywhere to be removed, so that (as NCI puts it so nicely) "no one mode will be offered priority over another."
So you think that some mode should have priority over another? CW is somehow "superior" to any other mode?
Wouldn't this be showing disdain for any mode that is not CW?
There are very few CW only subbands any more, I think the only ones that exist are on 6M and 2M. NCT's have access to this spectrum already.
Why does CW need to be allowed everywhere? We have heard over and over about the spectrum advantages of CW vs phone. 10 CW QSO's should fit into the space of a single SSB transmission, isn't this correct? If so, 25KHz of CW spectrum should equate to 250KHz of SSB spectrum. Maybe CW should be allowed anywhere, but so should SSB. It would seem that SSB should be allocated more space, not necessarily that CW should be allocated less. This works OK in Canada, and other countries.
Joe
Get back to work Joe, you don't have time for this.
73 de Ken
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,13:38)]So you think that some mode should have priority over another? CW is somehow "superior" to any other mode?
I believe that modes used in weak signal work should be given priority. This includes CW.
I do believe that anyone who is authorized to operate in the CW subbands should know CW, even if they are using digital modes. That way they don't QRM CW QSOs.
The VHF/UHF bands shouldn't have been exempted from this either.
Quote[/b] ]
Wouldn't this be showing disdain for any mode that is not CW?
Why would it? SSB signal vs QRP CW signal QRMing each other, who wins? Better yet, FM or DSB AM signal vs CW. Who wins?
Every mode is not created equal. Some must be given priority because that is the only way some hams will be able to use them.
Voice and other data modes would have the advantage and the CW guy would be forced off the frequency. The subbands are there to give the CW ops a bit of room to operate without interference from other modes.
We are already previewing the chaos that happens on contest weekends where europe and Canada go well below 7.150MHz.
Quote[/b] ]There are very few CW only subbands any more, I think the only ones that exist are on 6M and 2M. NCT's have access to this spectrum already.
Very little DX communication happens there so that is a moot point. FWIW, I did not agree with giving NCT's access to the full spectrum of VHF/UHF including CW only subbands.
Quote[/b] ]Why does CW need to be allowed everywhere?
Because when the bands are marginal for SSB they are still good for CW.
Quote[/b] ] We have heard over and over about the spectrum advantages of CW vs phone. 10 CW QSO's should fit into the space of a single SSB transmission, isn't this correct? If so, 25KHz of CW spectrum should equate to 250KHz of SSB spectrum.
Maybe CW should be allowed anywhere, but so should SSB. It would seem that SSB should be allocated more space, not necessarily that CW should be allocated less. This works OK in Canada, and other countries.
No no no. Allowing SSB everywhere would spell disaster.
Do you like 40m fone at night, where the big broadcasters make your precious fone spectrum almost useless?
Regarding canada and other countries, it only works there because their bands are aligned with other countries that way.
K7JEM
10-06-2006, 07:03 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,11:57)]Regarding canada and other countries, it only works there because their bands are aligned with other countries that way.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
What does that mean? Who has more common border with Canada than the USA? Or are they aligned with some other country?
Not following this.
Joe
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,14:03)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,11:57)]Regarding canada and other countries, it only works there because their bands are aligned with other countries that way.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
What does that mean? Who has more common border with Canada than the USA? Or are they aligned with some other country?
Not following this.
Joe
The only reason that SSB and fone aren't clashing into each other on a regular basis is because the band plans, voluntary or not, are observed.
The USA makes up most of the hams on planet earth. True or not?
It stands to reason that most hams who operate the HF bands at least once in their life have QSOed with an American. In fact judging from my QSLs I received as a 9Y4, I often wondered how much else there was in terms of ham radio outside of the USA.
It also stands to reason that the CW subbands in the USA will be respected to some degree, because we aren't allowed to use them for fone at all.
Other countries such as the UK, teach in their licensing classes that adhering to the band plans is the courteous thing to do because the band plans are not mandatory in the UK but are mandatory in some other countries such as the USA. I know this because I took the British exam to obtain my first license (city and guilds of London R.A.E.)
During fone contests the CW portion of 40 gets clobbered by Europeans (and Canadians). They don't have to adhere to the band plan in many countries.
w8cbc
10-06-2006, 07:25 PM
Quote[/b] ]The USA makes up most of the hams on planet earth. True or not?
I read someplace that Japan has many more hams than the U.S.
It may be true. I've heard HK3AK working a JA pileup. It was busy.
Is band plan mandatory or "recommended" in Canada? I rather thought it was the former but I'm not sure considering some of what I've heard in 80 metres.
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,15:13)]The USA makes up most of the hams on planet earth. #True or not?
Might be true now, might not. Japan used to have over 1 million hams when the count in the U.S.A. was still under 500,000.
Of course this was about 10 years ago ( I think).
WB2WIK
10-06-2006, 08:14 PM
Quote[/b] (n3jja @ Oct. 06 2006,12:57)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,15:13)]The USA makes up most of the hams on planet earth. True or not?
Might be true now, might not. Japan used to have over 1 million hams when the count in the U.S.A. was still under 500,000.
Of course this was about 10 years ago ( I think).
According to the most recent data, American hams represent 22.7% of the global ham population:
http://www.iaru.org/statsum00.html
The FCC will do what the FCC wants to do in it's own good time.
I really don't understand the NCT angst.
There must be a raft of General class theory CSCE's getting ready to expire.
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Oct. 06 2006,15:27)]The FCC will do what the FCC wants to do in it's own good time.
I really don't understand the NCT angst.
There must be a raft of General class theory CSCE's getting ready to expire.
I know the code is going away inevitably, but I bet a lot of NCTs who held Element 3 and 4 CSCEs in anticipation, only to have them not be worth the paper they're printed on must be really kicking themselves for wasting their $14.
And I'm sure the VECs are laughing all the way to the bank.
WB2WIK
10-06-2006, 09:18 PM
Interesting discussion, involving code and amateur populations and stuff.
Point to ponder?
Japan leads the world with more amateur radio operators than any other country, including the U.S. They were the first country to introduce a code-free license, with restrictions.
Let's see how they do it today:
Japan has four classes of ham radio license: 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th (appropriately named!)
The 1st class license has all amateur privileges, full power. The license has a code test requirement, which they call the "Art of Telecommuniations" test. Cute name, I like it.
The 2nd class license has most amateur privileges, all bands but with a power restriction to 200W maximum. This license also has a code test requirement, the same one as the 1st class.
The 3rd class license has restricted privileges: 50W maximum power, with transmitting privileges above 18 MHz and below 8 MHz. No privileges on 20m or 30m at all. No code requirement for license.
The 4th class license has more restricted privileges: 20W maximum power above 30 MHz, and 10W maximum power between 21 and 30 MHz, and below 8 MHz. No privileges on 17m, 20m or 30m at all. No code requirement for this license.
Interestingly, to obtain the privilege of operating on the 160m band (1.8 MHz), no matter what license you have the only allowed mode is CW (in Japan).
So, here we have a very modern culture who was first in the world to offer a "code free license," even when that upset the ITU and was in contrast with the rest of the world; but to have real privileges there, you still need to pass a code test -- and to operate 160m, which is a premier wintertime DX band, you must know CW because it's the only mode allowed.
WB2WIK/6
Steve, do you know if the JA code speed is still 25WPM?
WB2WIK
10-06-2006, 10:34 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,14:44)]Steve, do you know if the JA code speed is still 25WPM?
As far as I know, it's been reduced to 5 wpm; but the test requires two minutes of "solid copy" (50 characters in a row, no errors).
WB2WIK/6
kc7jty
10-06-2006, 11:06 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,14:33)]And I'm sure the VECs are laughing all the way to the bank.
Volunteer bank deposit? I couldn't find GIMME $14 anywhere under volunteer in the dictionary.
w8cbc
10-06-2006, 11:23 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Oct. 06 2006,13:27)]The FCC will do what the FCC wants to do in it's own good time.
I really don't understand the NCT angst.
There must be a raft of General class theory CSCE's getting ready to expire.
What he said. ^^
Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Oct. 06 2006,18:06)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 05 2006,14:33)]And I'm sure the VECs are laughing all the way to the bank.
Volunteer bank deposit? I couldn't find GIMME $14 anywhere under volunteer in the dictionary.
If you think Fred Maia and even the ARRL are not in the business of making money, you are fooling yourself.
ai4ep
10-07-2006, 01:03 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Ok folks, go give the ARRL $14 more dollars of your money...just by taking the written test for general class amateur test...again.
Do not wait ---do it today.
Be among the first in YOUR own neighborhood to get this important test passed.
or
learn morse code and get a real package deal by passing the written and the CW test, all for the same $14. 00.
Get a batter bargain for your dollars.
or
Pass those 2 tests
and
pass the EXTRA test and get an even better deal...all for the same $14.00...make your money go further. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Robert, I don't know why this is so hard to understand for so many people.
I only spent $10 on my US license, ONCE.
At the very least they should WAIT until the FCC makes the NPRM into law before going to the VE session, or at least try the code test.
But no, they wanted to be the first "no code general" or "no code extra" as if it's a badge of honor or something.
Well anyway, it's not my $14, or my $28.
K7JEM
10-07-2006, 01:21 AM
If $14 or $28 is going to make any difference to a person, they don't need to be a ham. They ought to raise the fee to $500 or so, that would weed out the riff-raff, only people that really wanted the license would try for it.
Joe
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,20:21)]If $14 or $28 is going to make any difference to a person, they don't need to be a ham. They ought to raise the fee to $500 or so, that would weed out the riff-raff, only people that really wanted the license would try for it.
Joe
I paid approx $100 just to write the R.A.E. exam for my other ham radio (9Y) license.
In fact I saved up that amount from my allowance. I was still in high school at that time.
$14 for a ham license is no big deal. You are 100% correct about that.
But it's still money and time wasted, both of the VE's and of the candidate, especially if they didn't even attempt the code test. That is truly foolish.
K7JEM
10-07-2006, 01:34 AM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,18:30)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,20:21)]If $14 or $28 is going to make any difference to a person, they don't need to be a ham. They ought to raise the fee to $500 or so, that would weed out the riff-raff, only people that really wanted the license would try for it.
Joe
I paid approx $100 just to write the R.A.E. exam for my other ham radio (9Y) license.
In fact I saved up that amount from my allowance. I was still in high school at that time.
$14 for a ham license is no big deal. You are 100% correct about that.
But it's still money and time wasted, both of the VE's and of the candidate, especially if they didn't even attempt the code test. That is truly foolish.
I didn't pay that much, but I have donated tens of thousands of dollars in time, equipment, and money to ham radio efforts that benefitted many people besides myself.
Joe
ai4ep
10-07-2006, 01:43 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif You mean there ARE folks who will put a
flashing light sign in their front yard with the words
" no code extra inside " on both sides...?
--- http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,20:34)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Oct. 06 2006,18:30)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,20:21)]If $14 or $28 is going to make any difference to a person, they don't need to be a ham. They ought to raise the fee to $500 or so, that would weed out the riff-raff, only people that really wanted the license would try for it.
Joe
I paid approx $100 just to write the R.A.E. exam for my other ham radio (9Y) license.
In fact I saved up that amount from my allowance. I was still in high school at that time.
$14 for a ham license is no big deal. You are 100% correct about that.
But it's still money and time wasted, both of the VE's and of the candidate, especially if they didn't even attempt the code test. That is truly foolish.
I didn't pay that much, but I have donated tens of thousands of dollars in time, equipment, and money to ham radio efforts that benefitted many people besides myself.
Joe
Which is exactly why a $500 fee will be counterproductive and kill the hobby pretty quickly.
Well I'm not rich, but I've donated my time for VE sessions, public service and teaching licensing classes as well as privately tutoring people, gratis - in both countries. Been doing this since my last year in high school.
Part of that time I was unemployed. Part of that time I've been in college, and paying the bills, and going through my own challenges in my life, such as my divorce and other things. I still did a lot of public service. I don't think I should have to pay $500 per year for that.
Regarding the $14 for element 3, it's money wasted for nothing, other than trying to make a political statement. It's still money wasted.
K7JEM
10-07-2006, 02:03 AM
Not per year. One time fee at testing.
ai4ep
10-07-2006, 02:14 AM
JEM --- that MIGHT be part of the problem ( how cheap it IS to become and stay an amateur radio operator ).
Maybe we should pay a fee per year to the FCC ( to keep for enforcement purposes ) , and it " might " help curtail some of the trouble makers to eventually leave and go elsewhere for their " fun ". But it would be time consuming to get this kind of idea started, and some folks would get upset at not getting INSTANT results ( even 2 - 5 years later )...so ...who knows ? I do not.
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 06 2006,21:03)]Not per year. One time fee at testing.
I have no problem with that.
Did it once, saved up my allowance money and will do it again.
If I had it my way, I will give a credit for anyone who is enrolled in school up to undergrad.
w8cbc
10-07-2006, 04:54 AM
If it matters to anyone, I did it in three stages (NCT, 5WPM General, Extra) and I think the $42 was a bargain. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
kc7jty
10-07-2006, 06:34 AM
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Oct. 05 2006,19:21)]If $14 or $28 is going to make any difference to a person, they don't need to be a ham. They ought to raise the fee to $500 or so, that would weed out the riff-raff, only people that really wanted the license would try for it.
Joe
good one http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
kb9rqz
10-07-2006, 06:11 PM
Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Oct. 05 2006,20:14)]JEM --- that MIGHT be part of the problem ( how cheap it IS to become and stay an amateur radio operator ).
Maybe we should pay a fee per year to the FCC ( to keep for enforcement purposes ) , and it " might " help curtail some of the trouble makers to eventually leave and go elsewhere for their " fun ". #But it would be time consuming to get this kind of idea started, and some folks would get upset at not getting INSTANT results ( even 2 - 5 years later )...so ...who knows ? # I do not.
you are not the first to suggest
w8cbc
10-07-2006, 07:31 PM
If the money the FCC collects actually stayed within the FCC, I might support such an idea. Doesn't it all go to general revenue though?
---edit---
As to $500 for the licence, no. That's still a fair chunk of change for many who could otherwise contribute positively. If it had been the equivalent ($50?) in the 1960s, how many of those young kids who learned and built on their own would have bothered to try?
cbc, don't you get it? JEM is trying to compare the $500 fee to the morse test.
This is silly at best, because a financial barrier is completely different to one of learning. Furthermore, the spirit of the hobby isn't in line with only the rich being able to get on the air, in fact far from it.
He is trying to put yet another bogus argument forth to justify his position.
ai4ep
10-07-2006, 09:20 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Unless I am wrong ( and I am sure some one will let all of us know IF I am wrong )...the FCC gets its yearly money from CONGRESS who appropiates a certain amount to them to cover all expenses, etc during the coming fiscal year ( Oct 1 - Sept 30 of the next year ). Money recieved from fines does NOT go directly to the FCC, for any reason but I ain