Un-dumbing down...what if... [Archive]

W5HTW

11-17-2006, 09:56 PM

JEM is right. Ham radio is not the ham radio it was in the 40s and 50s, but more than that, it doesn't have to be. There's no reason for a technical test for a basic ham license. Really. The most advanced test should include only a few things on how to control the modulation on digital modes so you don't splatter, and how to avoid touching a hot antenna.

As an OT, I don't like admitting that. But he's right. No matter what level of license you have, it doesn't do a thing for you except possibly stroke your ego. Times have changed, and that's the bottom line.

Frankly, I'd like to see us have two classes of license. Beginner, and Standard. Why do we need anything else? The Beginner ticket would be a little similar to the Novice of long ago, but without the technical questions that were asked of a Novice in the 1950s and early 1960s. Just do you know that even AC line voltage can kill you, and do you realize you can't let your antenna hit a power line? And do you know how to use a call sign? About ten questions, and a Beginner is on the air.

The Standard would include a few questions on bandwidth, the illegality of transmitting music, the need to stay within the allocated ham bands (we would all have all privileges, so bandplans based on license class would be gone) and how to avoid electrocuting yourself or your friends and neighbors.

If you want to build electronics equipment that will be used on the air, you would obtain from the FCC an endorsement that allowed you to do such. If you wanted to put up a repeater, you would need a "repeater endorsement." If you wanted to operate CW, you would need a "Morse Telegraphy endorsement." But the Standard license would allow you to get on the air, at 1500 watts output, anywhere on any ham band, and talk to your heart's content. (Might be restrictions on 60 and 30 meters, of course, and that's OK.)

We may be headed there. And that's OK with me. Probably 90 percent (if not more) of our radios are commercially made, and repaired by professionals when something goes wrong. We are NOT a technical hobby. We are a TALK hobby. The licenses should reflect that.

There was a time, sure, when a ham license actually looked pretty good on a resume. That time passed in the early 1970s. By the 1980s listing a ham license on a resume was a negative, unless you were applying for a job in a ham radio store. You would be viewed as a maverick, someone who thought he knew more than he does, someone who won't follow the rules or work at a team player, and who is easily sidetracked to things he should not be doing on company time. All too often hams would think they had earned an electronics tech degree, simply by passing a very basic test, and could not understand why they weren't hired as professional technicians.

Amateur radio is a hobby. A lot try to make it a police force, or an extension of the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, the ER, or CSI, etc., but it is a hobby. Yeah, it's called a 'Service" by the FCC but so is CB radio. So is FRS (That's what the "S" is for - Service." )

Technology has put the ham in the trunk, not the back seat. Almost all of the things we "invent' today are really just commercial techology we adapt to ham radio.

I say let it be a hobby. Give us the two-license structure, make us all non-experts, and let us have fun. If we want to play cop we can join the police auxilliary, or we can be a volunteer fireman.

If a few of us still like the technical things. Sure, that's OK. But ham radio as a whole is a non-technical hobby. It is simply pushing the PTT button and talking.

Let 'er rip!

Ed

ai4ep

11-17-2006, 10:17 PM

.....why not a contest to see how many folks you can ELMER that acheive a certain class of license in one year ( technician / general / extra ).

As an example, some one who is a "extra light " that is bored can bet with his friends as to who can get the most folks to upgrade from ---
no license to NCT
NCT to general
NCT to extra
no license to extra
general to extra

etc.

you see what I mean. That is, if you are really all that bored with your life as it currently is...and 99% of us are willing TO elmer others with the knowledge we have.

Then comes the possibly complicated part... say you elmer 20 folks a year, how many are women, folks under 18, folks over 60, etc, ?

How about attempting to elmer folks that do not speak english, and you dont speak their language?

your ideas ??

Could YOU take the challenge of teaching 5 wpm morse code to some die hard " I cant be taught morse code " folks, like a couple who post here ? Are you up to THAT challenge ?

Your ideas ?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

N9FQ

11-17-2006, 10:59 PM

Quote[/b] ]Yes, you are completely alone.

Those of us who already passed a 20 WPM test and a "real" technical exam are not amused.

No offense meant. I just wondered if something like that interested anyone else.

I took the novice way back when as a kid, then took the general at 11 years old I think and passed the code but failed the theory. Then was out of radio for 20 plus years. Came back, took all the tests up to extra ( I could swear the extra was nothing compared the general I failed back when) and found myself saying "what next?". Wondered if anyone else felt the same. Maybe I am a test junky.

The point is well made, that a test proves nothing other than you can pass the test...and who said I DIDN'T have self esteem issues.

KC0NBW

11-18-2006, 01:37 AM

passing a ham test is like passing the driver's licence test ! you learn enough to pass the test, then you get out on the street and learn how to drive in the real world.

in the case of the ham tests, you learn to pass the test, then you get on the air and spend the rest of the time you are active in learning about radio http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

AE6IP

11-18-2006, 03:39 AM

Quote[/b] (N9FQ @ Nov. 17 2006,10:32)]Just seems like it would be kind of fun if all the people who have decried the dumbing down of radio, or who wanted to try a little harder, could take an un-dumbed down test.
take an intro class to electronics at a good technical university.

The midterm will be harder than any amateur radio test ever was.

The final will get you 3 credit hours towards an electronics degree.

AE6IP

11-18-2006, 03:40 AM

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 17 2006,10:51)]Yes, you are completely alone.

Those of us who already passed a 20 WPM test and a "real" technical exam are not amused.
Those of us who realize that the amateur exams have never been "real" technical tests, are though.

KM5FL

11-18-2006, 04:29 AM

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Nov. 17 2006,17:17)].....why not a contest to see how many folks you can ELMER that acheive a certain class of license in one year ( technician / general / extra ).

As an example, some one who is a "extra light " that is bored can bet with his friends as to who can get the most folks to upgrade from ---
no license to NCT
NCT to general
NCT to extra
no license to extra
general to extra
Well guys, I'm here to elmer you. Here's how it's done..

no license to NCT---- Here's the question pool. Memorize the answers.

NCT to general----- Here's some tapes. Go home and listen to 'em. Here's another question pool. Memorize the answers..

general to extra---- Here's the last question pool. Go home and memorize the answers...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

KM5FL

K0HWY

11-18-2006, 05:13 AM

N9FQ, your idea sounds appealing but as you said, hasn't a chance in the world of today. I too enjoy the challenge of testing, whether it be written or practical. I like the feeling of accomplishment when I've achieved something that allows me to be part of an elite group. Your idea won't work in ham radio today. The spirit of, "Challenge me" has been replaced with the spirit of, "Give me." To suggest that someone actually work to get their license, no matter how high the class, is viewed as ludicrous.

N2RJ

11-18-2006, 05:47 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Nov. 17 2006,15:54)]Some of you guys are just hung-up on tests. Maybe you want an additional certificate to hang on the wall. What difference does it make? You have to have a test dangled in front of you before you will do anything? If you want to build an amp, you can. If you want to increase your code proficiency, you can. If you want to work all DX countries, you can try.

What good does passing another test do or prove? This seems to be a self esteem problem with many hams today, they want something they can show to "prove" something to the other hams. This is a main reason why a lot of advanced licensees will not upgrade. They are showing the rest of us that they have passed a "real" test.

Most of us have a life beyond ham radio, obviously some don't.

Joe
Which would explain why you hunt down each and every license testing thread and dump on it.

K7JEM

11-18-2006, 06:40 AM

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Nov. 17 2006,22:47)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Nov. 17 2006,15:54)]Some of you guys are just hung-up on tests. Maybe you want an additional certificate to hang on the wall. What difference does it make? You have to have a test dangled in front of you before you will do anything? If you want to build an amp, you can. If you want to increase your code proficiency, you can. If you want to work all DX countries, you can try.

What good does passing another test do or prove? This seems to be a self esteem problem with many hams today, they want something they can show to "prove" something to the other hams. This is a main reason why a lot of advanced licensees will not upgrade. They are showing the rest of us that they have passed a "real" test.

Most of us have a life beyond ham radio, obviously some don't.

Joe
Which would explain why you hunt down each and every license testing thread and dump on it.
If I "dump" on them it's because they deserve it. Too many hams walk around with their chest in the air, proudly proclaiming "Look at me, I'm a ham". Most people don't care, they label us as geeks and nerds, and to a very large extent, that is true.

Some hams want to play a game of "one upmanship" to show that they are somehow better than the other hams, because they have taken X test. The test proves nothing, other than you were able to pass the test, on the given day that you took it.

The reason for the test is to comply with international law. The FCC has determined that they want to do this, hence the tests that we have.

Joe

KC0NBW

11-18-2006, 07:03 AM

anyone that is smart enough to "memorize" the several hundred questions in any given question pool should have no problem "memorizing" the 50 or so characters in morse code.

anyone smart enough to learn the regs and theory enough to be able to pass any given level of written test should have an even easier time to learn morse code

it all comes down to the fact that some want something for nothing.

K0HWY

11-18-2006, 07:05 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Nov. 17 2006,23:40)]Too many hams walk around with their chest in the air, proudly proclaiming "Look at me, I'm a ham". Most people don't care, they label us as geeks and nerds, and to a very large extent, that is true.
Not so many years ago, the hams had every reason in the world to have their chest in the air. Being a ham was something special and something of which to be proud. Perhaps they were seen as geeks or nerds but they were well respected geeks and nerds.

I will agree with you that most people (today) don't care. Why should they? We are in the process of reducing ourselves to nothing more than high tech CBers. We're not there yet but we're very close.

Your claims that people who wish to maintain the dignity of amateur radio have no life outside the hobby is absurd. I'm sure you know that and are just trying to get a rise out of us. But still... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

K0HWY

11-18-2006, 07:07 AM

Quote[/b] (KC0NBW @ Nov. 18 2006,00:03)]it all comes down to the fact that some want something for nothing.
BINGO

KC2PFV

11-18-2006, 07:07 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Nov. 17 2006,23:40)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Nov. 17 2006,22:47)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Nov. 17 2006,15:54)]Some of you guys are just hung-up on tests. Maybe you want an additional certificate to hang on the wall. What difference does it make? You have to have a test dangled in front of you before you will do anything? If you want to build an amp, you can. If you want to increase your code proficiency, you can. If you want to work all DX countries, you can try.

What good does passing another test do or prove? This seems to be a self esteem problem with many hams today, they want something they can show to "prove" something to the other hams. This is a main reason why a lot of advanced licensees will not upgrade. They are showing the rest of us that they have passed a "real" test.

Most of us have a life beyond ham radio, obviously some don't.

Joe
Which would explain why you hunt down each and every license testing thread and dump on it.
If I "dump" on them it's because they deserve it. Too many hams walk around with their chest in the air, proudly proclaiming "Look at me, I'm a ham". Most people don't care, they label us as geeks and nerds, and to a very large extent, that is true.

Some hams want to play a game of "one upmanship" to show that they are somehow better than the other hams, because they have taken X test. The test proves nothing, other than you were able to pass the test, on the given day that you took it.

The reason for the test is to comply with international law. The FCC has determined that they want to do this, hence the tests that we have.

Joe
True. But I'm proud to be a geek.
Who else is proud?

I'm also a recently minted 5WPM General...
Does that make me better? Hell no.
But I'm having fun when many others aren't because they won't subject themselves to two weeks of code training.

-KC2PFV

K7JEM

11-18-2006, 07:17 AM

Quote[/b] (KC2PFV @ Nov. 18 2006,00:07)]I'm also a recently minted 5WPM General...
Does that make me better? Hell no.
But I'm having fun when many others aren't because they won't subject themselves to two weeks of code training.

-KC2PFV
Then you have a reward, and they don't. Thats a personal choice that you make, and they make. When the code is dropped, it won't be an issue.

Many hams will look at your 5wpm general as a "dumbed down" license. Do you feel dumb? Will you look down on new generals who pass no code test, and think they are dumb? Or will you just figure they are doing ham radio at their enjoyment level, which may be different than yours.

Joe

K7JEM

11-18-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote[/b] (kb4tow @ Nov. 18 2006,00:05)]Your claims that people who wish to maintain the dignity of amateur radio have no life outside the hobby is absurd. I'm sure you know that and are just trying to get a rise out of us. But still... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Of course I am trying to get a rise out of you. Why post something that doesn't?

I have said nothing about the dignity of amateur radio. I don't believe that people seeking additional tests or levels are looking for dignity. They are looking for some way of increasing their "importance" with other hams. This is truly not dignified.

If you want various degrees, join the Masons.

Joe

K0HWY

11-18-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Nov. 18 2006,00:24)]If you want various degrees, join the Masons.
If you don't like various degrees, become a CBer. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

AA0CX

11-18-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 17 2006,11:51)]Yes, you are completely alone.

Those of us who already passed a 20 WPM test and a "real" technical exam are not amused.
Yes, those of us who passed a 20WPM test and a "real" technical exam are not amused.

As a matter of fact, I'm for retention of a CW exam to obtain an Amateur Extra Class license.

God, I remember sweating bullets over tha 20WPM CW test. #And when I passed, and then passed the Extra written, and had that piece of paper in my hand...it MEANT SOMETHING.

Anyone with adequate time can sit down and memorize the question pool and the correct answers. #

The CW exam, however, separates the men from the boys...those with committment from those who just "wannabee." #It separatres those who are serious enough to develop an art (yes, CW is an art) from those who would rather guzzle beer and sit and bitch and whine about how "tough" CW is and why doesn't the FCC get off it's can and Drop The Code. #

5 WPM is a walk in the park, on a sunny day, without muggers. #

Come to think of it, if I had my druthers (I don't) I'd keep the 20WPM requirement for Extra. #

See you on 40 meters some nite. #

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

w9nyx

11-18-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote[/b] ]If you want various degrees, join the Masons

Actually, there are only 3 degrees in Masonry, Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Master. #Scottish Rite has 33 degrees, but not all Masons are members of Scottish Rite. A 33'rd degree Scottish Rite Mason is no higher than a newly raised Master Mason.

73

Jeff http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

WS2L

11-18-2006, 01:36 PM

Instead of adding additional classes they should have left most of the old class structure alone.

w5alt

11-18-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Nov. 18 2006,02:40)]... Most people don't care, they label us as geeks and nerds, and to a very large extent, that is true.
And, can you believe it? Some people think that's a bad thing to be labeled. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

W4HAY

11-18-2006, 04:11 PM

I'd favor reinstating the old Extra requirements and the old Extra priviledges -- updated to cover the state-of-the-art modes, of course. And dammit, this time require a CW sending test!

kc7jty

11-18-2006, 04:48 PM

How about a return to incentive licensing with the only requirement being Morse? An infinite number of classes based solely on code speed. The top end would look like: extra20, extra30, extra40, extra50, extra60, ad infinitum.
And each higher class will be able to look down his nose at all the underlings.

ai4ep

11-18-2006, 04:54 PM

jty --- that might be fine, but we all know that certain folks will never be at the top.

kc7jty

11-18-2006, 06:10 PM

honey, if the top is the position you hold I can understand why the masses aren't falling all over themselves to get there.

kc7jty

11-18-2006, 06:11 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

WA2ZDY

11-18-2006, 06:39 PM

If most hams advanced just so they could feel all puffy or something, does that mean the only hams with their heads still screwed on straight are Novices?

FQ, you need a GROL with a radar endorsement. The GROL will be a challenge (no, I never had a commercial phone license) but that radar endorsement is for real (yes I had that on my now-lapsed commercial telegraph license.) Unless you work on aviation or shipboard stuff, the GROL is meaningless too, but it'll give you the challenge you seek.

Ed, I'm with you, make it the hobby it is.

kd4mxe

11-18-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote[/b] (kb4tow @ Nov. 18 2006,00:07)]Quote[/b] (KC0NBW @ Nov. 18 2006,00:03)]it all comes down to the fact that some want something for nothing.
BINGO
and dont for get some people are just plain nosie they worry about what other people do more than they worry about themself,s and these same people dont have any problem,s so they spend all there time looking and whineing about what someone else dose or has done or is going to do ,and how is it that some people can see other people s problem,s" and cant see their own , you know there is 2 sides to ever coin , ok you stuff knowers you guys tell me your problem,s you alReady know mine 73 Bill kd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ab8ro

11-18-2006, 08:52 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 16 2006,21:39)]Quote[/b] (N9FQ @ Nov. 17 2006,10:32)]Just seems like it would be kind of fun if all the people who have decried the dumbing down of radio, or who wanted to try a little harder, could take an un-dumbed down test.
take an intro class to electronics at a good technical university.

The midterm will be harder than any amateur radio test ever was.

The final will get you 3 credit hours towards an electronics degree.
Exactly. So many go on and on about how hard the tests used to be as if nobody has ever had to draw an oscillator schematic on anything but an amateur radio exam.

Seriously, there are plenty of opportunities to validate your ego available at your local university. In fact, I hate to break it to you, but your local community college has classes with exams more difficult than any amateur radio exam, past or present.

VA3GRV

11-18-2006, 10:54 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Nov. 17 2006,12:13)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Nov. 17 2006,11:57)]I would like that if someone could demonstrate proficiency of building an amplifier that they'd be allowed to use 2500w PEP.

Canadians already get to use 2250W.
Yeah! #Let's (the three of us) move to Canada and double the Ham population!!
HIHI LOLOL funny guy!!! I know for a fact there is at least 7 up here!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I have to agree with the wattage issue I can't understand
why you guys are not allowed the same. Who knows the way things are changing, maybe it is just around the corner.I think that would be great. I'm happy for you guys
about the band plan changes, It's About Time!! More contacts and more room for everyone. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ab8ro

11-19-2006, 02:19 AM

Quote[/b] (AA0CX @ Nov. 17 2006,05:59)]The CW exam, however, separates the men from the boys...those with committment from those who just "wannabee."

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
It separates those who know code from those who don't, nothing more. There is a question on the extra exam which asks if you #know the purpose of the morse exam.

Any extra class holder today who thinks that the purpose of the code test is to check the applicant's commitment is not as qualified as those who know the correct answer.

Quote[/b] ]
It separatres those who are serious enough to develop an art (yes, CW is an art) from those who would rather guzzle beer and sit and bitch and whine about how "tough" CW is and why doesn't the FCC get off it's can and Drop The Code. #

This is fallacy. Just because someone doesn't want to spend the time to learn CW doesn't mean that they would rather guzzle beer. Perhaps they'd rather spend that time with their family, or studying to improve their professional life. Perhaps they'd rather spend that time learning to play an instrument, or becoming physically fit.

I think quite a few hams might benefit from spending less time on the morse key and a little more time on the stairmaster.

VE7NOT

11-19-2006, 02:24 AM

Most hams in bc are NOT happy about the band changes (I don't care) They fear more usa hams on lower 80m where we used to have a simple 'freeband'. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

They don't realize that we run enough power to drive them off.

AA0CX

11-19-2006, 02:37 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Nov. 18 2006,19:19)]I think quite a few hams might benefit from spending less time on the morse key and a little more time on the stairmaster.
This portion of your post I CAN agree with! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

w5alt

11-19-2006, 02:43 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Nov. 18 2006,22:19)]This is fallacy. Just because someone doesn't want to spend the time to learn CW doesn't mean that they would rather guzzle beer. Perhaps they'd rather spend that time with their family, or studying to improve their professional life. Perhaps they'd rather spend that time learning to play an instrument, or becoming physically fit.
That's very true. I enjoy guzzling beer, but learned CW anyway.

K6UEY

11-19-2006, 03:51 AM

W5HTW,
ED, I like your idea but I would suggest turn it about 90 Degrees. That is since the new majority does not want to be bothered by learning and earning their license,why not convert all the QSO ONLY hams who use nothing but phone and Pay -N- PLay gear to citizen band,after all they 99 % qualify already. We all know the CB band could use a few qualified in anything people to clean it up.
Those who still are willing to keep the tradition alive and learn and earn their way can Qualify and accept their labels and stick their chest out and be proud of their accomplishments with out embarassing those who could not or would not qualify for some thing technical.
We have had two distinct services it is just many who should be in one service have erroneously moved into the wrong area for what they expect .
The separate services would allow each to do what they are best qualified to do . http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
After all we are already there,just the name is different !!

#http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

K7JEM

11-19-2006, 04:03 AM

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Nov. 18 2006,20:51)]W5HTW,
ED, I like your idea but I would suggest turn it about 90 Degrees. That is since the new majority does not want to be bothered by learning and earning their license,why not convert all the QSO ONLY hams who use nothing but phone and Pay -N- PLay gear to citizen band,after all they 99 % qualify already. We all know the CB band could use a few qualified in anything people to clean it up.
Those who still are willing to keep the tradition alive and learn and earn their way can Qualify and accept their labels and stick their chest out and be proud of their accomplishments with out embarassing those who could not or would not qualify for some thing technical.
We have had two distinct services it is just many who should be in one service have erroneously moved into the wrong area for what they expect .
The separate services would allow each to do what they are best qualified to do . http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
After all we are already there,just the name is different !!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Well maybe we could take all those hams who use code exclusively, or nearly so, and relegate them to the wireline telegraph.

These code ops could practice their technical prowess with mechanical sounders, just like their predecessors did, and have all the fun they wanted by stringing wires between their houses.

That is the true tradition of code and telegraphy. Iron wire on wooden poles with glass insulators. That's some high tech stuff.

Joe

ab8ro

11-19-2006, 04:18 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Nov. 17 2006,22:03)]Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Nov. 18 2006,20:51)]W5HTW,
ED, I like your idea but I would suggest turn it about 90 Degrees. That is since the new majority does not want to be bothered by learning and earning their license,why not convert all the QSO ONLY hams who use nothing but phone and Pay -N- PLay gear to citizen band,after all they 99 % qualify already. We all know the CB band could use a few qualified in anything people to clean it up.
Those who still are willing to keep the tradition alive and learn and earn their way can Qualify and accept their labels and stick their chest out and be proud of their accomplishments with out embarassing those who could not or would not qualify for some thing technical.
We have had two distinct services it is just many who should be in one service have erroneously moved into the wrong area for what they expect .
The separate services would allow each to do what they are best qualified to do . http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
After all we are already there,just the name is different !!

#http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Well maybe we could take all those hams who use code exclusively, or nearly so, and relegate them to the wireline telegraph.

These code ops could practice their technical prowess with mechanical sounders, just like their predecessors did, and have all the fun they wanted by stringing wires between their houses.

That is the true tradition of code and telegraphy. Iron wire on wooden poles with glass insulators. That's some high tech stuff.

Joe
This is a great idea. But I don't think we should give them any wire or wood. Just an old axe, maybe a little dull as it builds character, and set them loose in a forest. They should be able to build their telegraphs from the raw material taken with their bare hands directly from the earth.

K7JEM

11-19-2006, 04:25 AM

You're right. These guys don't want anything "easy". An axe is too much. They can find a stone, and shape it into an axe. Then they can use the axe to cut trees for poles. They can use some of the trees for fuel to smelt the iron ore for the wire, and melt the sand for the glass insulators.

Then they'll have something to be proud of.

Joe

ky5u

11-19-2006, 06:16 AM

ROFL! You're no code brain just blew a fuse! No matter which way you look at it:

K7JEM

11-19-2006, 06:24 AM

My brain blew a fuse? You're the one posting self portraits all the time. If you spent half the time learning the code, as you did posting the pictures, you'd know the code by now. How can you have your license, if you don't know the code? How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?

kd4mxe

11-19-2006, 06:29 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Nov. 18 2006,21:18)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Nov. 17 2006,22:03)]Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Nov. 18 2006,20:51)]W5HTW,
ED, I like your idea but I would suggest turn it about 90 Degrees. That is since the new majority does not want to be bothered by learning and earning their license,why not convert all the QSO ONLY hams who use nothing but phone and Pay -N- PLay gear to citizen band,after all they 99 % qualify already. We all know the CB band could use a few qualified in anything people to clean it up.
Those who still are willing to keep the tradition alive and learn and earn their way can Qualify and accept their labels and stick their chest out and be proud of their accomplishments with out embarassing those who could not or would not qualify for some thing technical.
We have had two distinct services it is just many who should be in one service have erroneously moved into the wrong area for what they expect .
The separate services would allow each to do what they are best qualified to do . http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
After all we are already there,just the name is different !!

#http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Well maybe we could take all those hams who use code exclusively, or nearly so, and relegate them to the wireline telegraph.

These code ops could practice their technical prowess with mechanical sounders, just like their predecessors did, and have all the fun they wanted by stringing wires between their houses.

That is the true tradition of code and telegraphy. Iron wire on wooden poles with glass insulators. That's some high tech stuff.

Joe
ab8ro-This is a great idea. But I don't think we should give them any wire or wood. Just an old axe, maybe a little dull as it builds character, and set them loose in a forest. They should be able to build their telegraphs from the raw material taken with their bare hands directly from the earth.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------well this would Be to much work to do ,all they want to do is complain about what some one else dose, they think you got to do it like they did , and like what they like ,and if you dont like what they like well you ant no good some of these people there is only one side of life and thats there side they think they know every thing ,and you dont know nothing ,Bill kd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

K0HWY

11-19-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Nov. 18 2006,19:24)]They don't realize that we run enough power to drive them off.
Crank up them "leenyers" there good buddy... duh hut duh hut duh hut... awwwwwwwdiooooooo...awwwwwwwwwwdiooooo.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

k4kyv

11-21-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Nov. 17 2006,20:14)]I thought the Extra class made you super-powerful anyway, 10 feet tall and bullet proof with x-ray vision. How much more power does a super-ham need?
But that was when the licence carried no extra operating privileges other than a commercial-looking certificate to hang on the wall, when the code requirement was 20 WPM, there was a two-year tenure requirement as a licensed ham before one was eligible to submit the application, and one had to appear before the grumpy FCC examiner in the echoey examination room to take the test.

wa9cwx

11-21-2006, 07:04 PM

I simply think the original post presented a perfectly logical sentiment.

How many people, bored or unfulfilled by the ease of modern life, choose to "rough it", move to the woods, or whatever, and, in one manner or another re-create some of the challenges earlier people faced.

Even tending your own Vegtable Garden, or hunting with a Bow and Arrow, or making your own wine, or sewing your own clothes...These are all valid examples of trying to stretch your creativity, challenge yourself and feel whatever rewards are present from putting in that extra effort.

I would enjoy the challenge, and YES, I take some measure of personal pride in my accomplishments.
They are meant to be a part of the personal story of MY life.
They reflect the private picture of how I handled my time on earth.
Some things, by their very nature, are partly public, even as your marriage, divorce, child-rearing and work record are, to SOME extent, a public record of your life, and how you faced challenges, and how you lived.

In that same vein, having a challenging hobby, that had some objectified requirement of testing to demonstrate skill and knowlege, is a a different statement in your life than say, having a hobby where you collect different colors of carpet samples and keep them in a cardboard box.

On one level, there IS no "right or wrong" or value difference between the two, on another level, there most certainly IS a difference.

I enjoy challenges, the chance to fail makes them real, valuable to me, and a source of personal satisfaction.

For those that enjoy being unchallenged, that is fine, but don't you guys feel just the least bit foolish attacking those that ENJOY a challenge ?

Then again, I can understand that you probably don't.

Frank

wa9cwx

11-21-2006, 07:31 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
As for privileges for the "new and improved" Extra....
I would simply like to see the removal of the lids from the current "Extra" portions, and the addition of a few 'slices' for lower power (maybe up to 50 watts) CW operation.

I would like these carved out of the vastness of the SW spectrum, NOT out of existing ham bands.

There would likely be little or no commercial gear made for these new slices, home brew would be the norm, at least for transmitters, they would be on a secondary basis with whoever was 'primary'.

Operation would be simply limited to Extra class hams who enjoyed CW, maybe OTHER slices for narrow bandwidth digi, and others for experimental digi, and even some for conventional SSB,.....I know, on and on.....
BUT, the whole saving grace would be the limited use of these narrow slices of frequency, due to the technical,. and difficult nature of the license.

NO pre-written test question/answer pools. CW test 25 WPM text, straight 1 min copy, no "7 out of ten" multi guess crap.
Actual design and theory questions, with similar, 'nearly correct' type answers....And, taking the test naked in a cold, dark room on a cement bench after 36 hours sleep deprevation, would give you added power limits, etc.
No, strike that last part....

Anyway, WHAT do I mean by 'slices' ?
Just that, since virtually everyone is moving to Sat comms, and using HF as backup...I would not think that 10 Khz, in between whoever, or whatever, would bring the world of telecomunications to a screeching halt.

Perhapse one 'slice' every 1 megahertz?

Maybe just remove 10 percent of the fanatical religious broadcasters who just know we are all damned ANYWAY, and we could have HUGE chunks of RF available...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

K0RGR

11-21-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Nov. 17 2006,20:40)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 17 2006,10:51)]Yes, you are completely alone.

Those of us who already passed a 20 WPM test and a "real" technical exam are not amused.
Those of us who realize that the amateur exams have never been "real" technical tests, are though.
That's why "real" was in quotes.

From the standpoint of an math-oriented engineer, they were not technical.

From the standpoint of a technician, they were. The J.C. electronics courses went much deeper into D.C. and A.C. theory, basic circuit analysis and solid state electronics.
But virtually nada on radio theory. And, it was my radio experience that got me my first 3 jobs in this industry - I got those jobs before I took any college electronics training. By that time, I had spent a few years working on avionics systems, space-qualified microwave components, and phase-locked loop subsystems used in high speed tape drives.

All I knew about phase-locked-loops was what I learned at a seminar at the West Coast VHF Convention when it was held near San Jose. It was enough.

k4kyv

11-24-2006, 07:39 PM

I don't think the FCC is the least bit interested in creating a new, largely honorific, super-extra class of licence.

From the looks of the new R&O scheduled it go into effect on 15DE06, it looks like their intent is to make the present-day Extra the standard amateur licence class with full privileges. The General class becomes a "learner's" class with restricted privileges, while the Technician class becomes the "communicator" class, sort of a glorified CB ticket for use on UHF/VHF.

The longstanding names attached to the licence classes no longer apply to the reality of these tickets. There is no longer anything "technical" about Technician privileges. There is nothing "Extra" about the the Extra class, now that the licence is required for access to a substantial portion of the bands, the code test has been reduced to the equivalent to the old Novice class, and there is no longer a tenure requirement.

It would be more meaningful to simply re-name the three classes of licence to "First Class," "Second Class," and "Third Class" Amateur licences. The orphaned Advanced and Novice class tickets could keep their old names for the benefit of those who wish to retain these tickets.

I would even say grandfather the Advanced to what is now Extra, and Novice to what is now General. The examination for the Advanced class when it was first reintroduced was more challenging than the Extra class is today. The difficulty of the old Novice exam with its 5 wpm code speed and no published question pools was about on par with today's General ticket.

ai4ep

11-24-2006, 10:25 PM

I see no valid reason to " grand father " the ANVANCED into becoming EXTRA class licensee s... they have NOT passed the 50 questions test required to become an Extra.

They DO however still have the opportunity to take the EXTRA class test and become legally licensed EXTRA class operators...so where IS the problem ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

ab8ro

11-25-2006, 08:57 PM

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Nov. 23 2006,16:25)]I see no valid reason to " grand father " the ANVANCED into becoming EXTRA class licensee s... they have NOT passed the 50 questions test required to become an Extra.

They DO however still have the opportunity to take the EXTRA class test and become legally licensed EXTRA class operators...so where IS the problem ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
There isn't one. The advanced class will most likely continue to look more and more like the general class in terms of privileges. The FCC has stated that they don't feel that it's too much to ask of existing advanced holders to take the new extra test if they want to upgrade. I agree.

ai4ep

11-25-2006, 09:55 PM

8ro---if they want to become an EXTRA, they should take the test to get it done.

simple & to the point.

Just like any one who wishes to transmit legally on amateur HF frequencies...learn morse code and pass the tests.

simple & to the point. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

n1dvj

11-27-2006, 04:52 PM

Back on the original question...

I seem to recall there used to be an organization that gave out 'high speed' CW certificates. Stuff up at 35wpm. Are they still around?

You know, with all the moaning about the reduction in CW speed requirements, I'm surprised that one of the groups like 'F.I.S.T.' doesn't promote and offer some kind of certificate.

Mike

WA7KKP

12-01-2006, 10:01 PM

Your idea has been done twice --

Pre-WWII hams were Class A, B, C. A was what became the Advanced class, and allowed phone operation on the HF bands. B was the General, CW operation only. C was the mail order "conditional" licence.

In the early 50's the FCC added the Novice and Technician licences, with relaxed requirements, to encourage growth. Novices did help -- the Technicians (once they got 2 meter priveleges) and the Heathkit "benton harbor lunch boxes" sat and rarely upgraded. You could get an Extra, but for the extra effort and exam, got nothing else in priveleges over the General Class

On November 22, 1968 the FCC again adopted a tiered licence scheme. The existing hams were slighted as their HF phone spectrum was cut in half. Many just quit.

The FCC, seeing a reversal of the growth trend of the 50's and 60's, finally realized that incremental priveleges was not the answer to a good growth rate, and finally caved in to the biggest beef -- NO CODE -- and gave us the Tech Light, and all but abolished the Novice ticket as the entry "learner's permit".

Now the NCT's are apathetic, just like their brethren in the 60's -- all huddled around their 2 meter HT's and whomever's local repeater. Only thing left is the two steps on HF -- General and Extra. But what else is there for incentive? 25 kHz at the bottom end of the CW bands isn't it -- nor the exclusive phone bands.

The real incentive is in the mind of the beholder. Those who wish to learn and expand their knowlege of radio, and how electronics works, will upgrade. Those who don't want to learn, remain NCT's or simply drop off the radar screen, bored with what they're doing.

After 38 years, I'm not bored at all.

Gary WA7KKP

ab8ro

12-02-2006, 02:25 PM

Quote[/b] (WA7KKP @ Nov. 30 2006,16:01)]Your idea has been done twice --

Pre-WWII hams were Class A, B, C. #A was what became the Advanced class, and allowed phone operation on the HF bands. #B was the General, CW operation only. #C was the mail order "conditional" licence.

In the early 50's the FCC added the Novice and Technician licences, with relaxed requirements, to encourage growth. #Novices did help -- the Technicians (once they got 2 meter priveleges) and the Heathkit "benton harbor lunch boxes" sat and rarely upgraded. #You could get an Extra, but for the extra effort and exam, got nothing else in priveleges over the General Class

On November 22, 1968 the FCC again adopted a tiered licence scheme. #The existing hams were slighted as their HF phone spectrum was cut in half. #Many just quit.

The FCC, seeing a reversal of the growth trend of the 50's and 60's, finally realized that incremental priveleges was not the answer to a good growth rate, and finally caved in to the biggest beef -- NO CODE -- and gave us the Tech Light, and all but abolished the Novice ticket as the entry "learner's permit".

Now the NCT's are apathetic, just like their brethren in the 60's -- all huddled around their 2 meter HT's and whomever's local repeater. #Only thing left is the two steps on HF -- General and Extra. #But what else is there for incentive? #25 kHz at the bottom end of the CW bands isn't it -- nor the exclusive phone bands. #

The real incentive is in the mind of the beholder. #Those who wish to learn and expand their knowlege of radio, and how electronics works, will upgrade. Those who don't want to learn, remain NCT's or simply drop off the radar screen, bored with what they're doing.

After 38 years, I'm not bored at all.

Gary WA7KKP
I never quite understand what the old guard thinks about incentive licensing. On the one hand it was the worst thing the FCC ever did, yet, on the other hand most seem to feel new licensees should have to "earn" their privileges.

I read endless complaints about incentive licensing and in the same breath endless defense of tiered exams that separate the men from the boys.

So which is it? Is incentive licensing the right approach or isn't it?

Personally I think we only need two licenses.

1) All modes, All frequencies, 10 watts. Simple written exam.
2) All modes, All frequencies, Legal Limit. More complete written exam.

The power restriction is for the safety of others and to minimize interference. It does not exist, in principal, to provide incentive to upgrade. I think that the current tech exam serves (1) and the extra serves (3). Take the questions from the general and split them between the two exams about 30/70.

K7JEM

12-02-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 02 2006,07:25)]Quote[/b] (WA7KKP @ Nov. 30 2006,16:01)]Your idea has been done twice --

Pre-WWII hams were Class A, B, C. A was what became the Advanced class, and allowed phone operation on the HF bands. B was the General, CW operation only. C was the mail order "conditional" licence.

In the early 50's the FCC added the Novice and Technician licences, with relaxed requirements, to encourage growth. Novices did help -- the Technicians (once they got 2 meter priveleges) and the Heathkit "benton harbor lunch boxes" sat and rarely upgraded. You could get an Extra, but for the extra effort and exam, got nothing else in priveleges over the General Class

On November 22, 1968 the FCC again adopted a tiered licence scheme. The existing hams were slighted as their HF phone spectrum was cut in half. Many just quit.

The FCC, seeing a reversal of the growth trend of the 50's and 60's, finally realized that incremental priveleges was not the answer to a good growth rate, and finally caved in to the biggest beef -- NO CODE -- and gave us the Tech Light, and all but abolished the Novice ticket as the entry "learner's permit".

Now the NCT's are apathetic, just like their brethren in the 60's -- all huddled around their 2 meter HT's and whomever's local repeater. Only thing left is the two steps on HF -- General and Extra. But what else is there for incentive? 25 kHz at the bottom end of the CW bands isn't it -- nor the exclusive phone bands.

The real incentive is in the mind of the beholder. Those who wish to learn and expand their knowlege of radio, and how electronics works, will upgrade. Those who don't want to learn, remain NCT's or simply drop off the radar screen, bored with what they're doing.

After 38 years, I'm not bored at all.

Gary WA7KKP
I never quite understand what the old guard thinks about incentive licensing. On the one hand it was the worst thing the FCC ever did, yet, on the other hand most seem to feel new licensees should have to "earn" their privileges.

I read endless complaints about incentive licensing and in the same breath endless defense of tiered exams that separate the men from the boys.

So which is it? Is incentive licensing the right approach or isn't it?

Personally I think we only need two licenses.

1) All modes, All frequencies, 10 watts. Simple written exam.
2) All modes, All frequencies, Legal Limit. More complete written exam.

The power restriction is for the safety of others and to minimize interference. It does not exist, in principal, to provide incentive to upgrade. I think that the current tech exam serves (1) and the extra serves (3). Take the questions from the general and split them between the two exams about 30/70.
Thats a good idea, but it won't happen. Too many hams think their ox is being gored by allowing someone some privilege without doing exactly the same thing they did to get the privilege.

The way this could work would be to "grandfather" everyone at the privileges they have now, then create two totally new classes. Have a two or three year overlap. where the old tests are given for those that want an "old" license, as well as giving the new tests. Call the new licenses "standard" and "premier" or some such thing that has never been used.

I'm not sure the lower test would need to be any harder than the tech test today. The upper test could basically be a combination of the general and extra pools, with about 75 questions or so. Or maybe just the general and extra test, that way nothing would have to be changed.

There is no reason to have both the general and the extra, since there is virtually no difference, except in small band allocations.

Joe

ky5u

12-04-2006, 05:01 AM

Pages of smoke screen to obscure the issue that a few people want to change the rules so they can qualify.

K7JEM

12-04-2006, 05:18 AM

I'm already qualified, and I want to change the rule.

Lots of the "no-code" crowd are already "qualified", and they want to change the rule.

There are people that are not "qualified" that want the rule to remain.

So, it must be some other reason.

Joe

AE6IP

12-04-2006, 05:27 AM

Don't mind Charley, Joe.

He knows that the real reason for removing element 1 is that it no longer serves a useful regulatory purpose and the FCC is bound by law to remove such things as don't.

He's just stirring the pot.

af2cw

12-04-2006, 06:52 AM

The FCC is bound by law to remove element 1? What law? I thought the current ruling is that the code requirement has been removed, as a minimum requirement to obtain HF privileges. Thus creating an even lower requirement to gain HF access. However it is up to the individual governing bodies to decide if said requirement be kept or removed. If it were law, then all entities/countries would have to remove the code requirement from their licensing structure as well.

K7JEM

12-04-2006, 07:15 AM

Quote[/b] (af2cw @ Dec. 03 2006,23:52)]The FCC is bound by law to remove element 1? What law? I thought the current ruling is that the code requirement has been removed, as a minimum requirement to obtain HF privileges. Thus creating an even lower requirement to gain HF access. However it is up to the individual governing bodies to decide if said requirement be kept or removed. If it were law, then all entities/countries would have to remove the code requirement from their licensing structure as well.
The argument goes like this:

The FCC is required to have a regulatory purpose to every rule that they establish, IOW, the rule has to have a real reason for existence. They can't make you eat raw liver before a test, or require you to know how to type. If they had a rule, or tried to establish such a rule, then it would be easy legal action to have the rule revoked.

The FCC has also indicated that the only reason the code test exists is to comply with international law. They stated this many times in the 90's and later. They state no other reason for having the code test, and explicitly indicate that it is their intent to comply with the minimum requirement imposed by the treaty. They determined this to be 5wpm, and in 2000, realigned all licenses to reflect that decision.

In 2003, the treaty was changed, and the code proficiency requirement was dropped. Now, there exists no reason for the FCC to retain any code test, since the minimum is now no code test at all.

For further info, read the NPRM for some background into their thought process.

Joe

ab8ro

12-04-2006, 07:18 AM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 01 2006,11:26)]Thats a good idea, but it won't happen. Too many hams think their ox is being gored by allowing someone some privilege without doing exactly the same thing they did to get the privilege.
I don't disagree. I was trying to highlight the point that I don't think incentive is necessary. The purpose of the classes should reflect what is necessary, that is, beginners cause less harm to the shared resource.

Quote[/b] ]
The way this could work would be to "grandfather" everyone at the privileges they have now, then create two totally new classes. Have a two or three year overlap. where the old tests are given for those that want an "old" license, as well as giving the new tests. Call the new licenses "standard" and "premier" or some such thing that has never been used.

I like 'restricted' and 'standard'. It emphasizes that the purpose of the former is simply to restrict the potential for harm. It also de-emphasizes any notion of elitism within the classes and that the purpose of different classes is regulatory in nature only.

Quote[/b] ]
I'm not sure the lower test would need to be any harder than the tech test today.

Nor I, but I think that it's probably prudent to put, for example, the band edge questions from the general exam on the entry level exam.

Quote[/b] ]
There is no reason to have both the general and the extra, since there is virtually no difference, except in small band allocations.

Exactly, it serves no real purpose. In fact, it's only purpose was for incentive licensing. Which brings us back to the question I was asking above. How can some hams criticise the switch to incentive licensing but then criticize the current attempts to streamline license classes?

af2cw

12-04-2006, 07:23 AM

I understand that Joe. Marty stated Quote[/b] ]...and the FCC is bound by law to remove such things as don't.
I merely asked what law. International law stated it is to be removed, which sets the minimum requirements. It did not state that every entity/country must remove the code testing requirement. So again, what law states the FCC must remove the code testing requirement?

af2cw

12-04-2006, 07:29 AM

If a law exists, then the FCC would have to comply with it, as would other entities/countries. This of course is not happening, so the FCC is not bound by any law to remove the code test as a device to grant applicants access to the HF spectrum.

ab8ro

12-04-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote[/b] (af2cw @ Dec. 03 2006,01:29)]If a law exists, then the FCC would have to comply with it, as would other entities/countries. This of course is not happening, so the FCC is not bound by any law to remove the code test as a device to grant applicants access to the HF spectrum.
Rich,

Joe told you where to find the information. Ranting here doesn't change the FACT that there is a law and the FCC must abide by it. Here's the text including a reference from the restructuring report and order 99-412

Quote[/b] ]
See 47 U.S.C. § 161 which provides that (a) in every even-numbered year (beginning with 1998), the Commission (1)
shall review all regulations issued under this Act in effect at the time of the review that apply to the operations or
activities of any provider of telecommunications service; and (2) shall determine whether any such regulation is no
longer in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers of such service, and
(b) the Commission shall repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest.

This is from the NPRM 05-143.

Quote[/b] ]
In the Restructure Report and Order, the Commission concluded that the public interest would be served best by reducing the telegraphy examination requirement for an amateur radio operator license to the minimum standard that would satisfy the Radio Regulations, namely, the requirement that a control operator of a station prove that he or she can ensure the proper operation of that station.1 Consequently, the Commission eliminated as licensing requirements the thirteen wpm and twenty wpm telegraphy examinations, and retained only the minimum telegraphy requirement of five wpm.2

This CLEARLY indicates two things.

1) The FCC is bound by law to act in the public interest and review their own regulations every two years to ensure that they meet that standard.

2) The FCC believes that aligning the U.S. amateur regulations with the minimum requirements imposed by international treaty meets that standard.

Hence, in order for them to keep the morse code they are going to have to show that keeping it is in the public interest. This implies all of the public, not just hams. As I have said all along, this will require a regulatory motivation. Good luck finding one.

af2cw

12-04-2006, 08:06 AM

And again Daryl, there is nothing stating the FCC MUST remove the code requirement. The treaty doesn't state all countries/entities MUST remove the code requirement. All you are stating is the FCC must review all regulations.

The treaty does not state everyone must go with the minimum requirements. They are simply setting a guideline. If a country wishes to keep the code requirement and set it for 20wpm, that is fine. I understand your view point Daryl, not that I agree with it, and I'll leave it at that. I'm simply stating there is no law that says the code requirement must be dropped. As for ranting, you assume too much Daryl and really should check yourself before making ignorant statements like that.

ab8ro

12-04-2006, 08:30 AM

Quote[/b] (af2cw @ Dec. 03 2006,02:06)]And again Daryl, there is nothing stating the FCC MUST remove the code requirement. The treaty doesn't state all countries/entities MUST remove the code requirement. All you are stating is the FCC must review all regulations.

The treaty does not state everyone must go with the minimum requirements. They are simply setting a guideline. If a country wishes to keep the code requirement and set it for 20wpm, that is fine. I understand your view point Daryl, not that I agree with it, and I'll leave it at that. I'm simply stating there is no law that says the code requirement must be dropped. As for ranting, you assume too much Daryl and really should check yourself before making ignorant statements like that.
Rich, you don't get it at all. What the treaty states has nothing to do with the law. What the FCC has ruled previously does. The FCC has stated that they believe that it is in the public interest to align the U.S. regulations for amateur service with the MINIMUM requirement imposed by international treaty. Again, if you had read the above and analyzed it honestly it would be clear to you.

The FCC IS required to act in the public interest and in the past they stated that they believed that they were doing so by aligning U.S. requirements with the minimum standard. So at this point they have two choices.

1) Align U.S. regulations with the new minimum standards set by international treaty. This requires no argument as it cannot be any less burdensome on the public to use the minimal regulations.

2) Claim that it is in the publics interest to require more testing than is required by international treaty. This will require argument, specifically, in what way is keeping the morse requirement in the publics interest.

Quote[/b] ]
I'm simply stating there is no law that says the code requirement must be dropped

And neither did marty, you are trying too hard to make a case here. He said,

Quote[/b] ]
He knows that the real reason for removing element 1 is that it no longer serves a useful regulatory purpose and the FCC is bound by law to remove such things as don't.

That law is 47 CFR U.S.C 161. If there is no regulatory purpose then it is necessary to argue that it's in the public interest. Marty was simply paraphrasing to keep it short. The FCC clearly understands this as evidenced by my previous post. They feel that international treaty which is a regulatory purpose is sufficient to meet the public interest standard. And frankly, if this were going your way I'm quite sure you'd agree with that.

Without a regulatory purpose it is necessary to meet the public interest standard, and as I said, good luck with that.

AE6IP

12-04-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote[/b] (af2cw @ Dec. 03 2006,22:52)]The FCC is bound by law to remove element 1? What law? I thought the current ruling is that the code requirement has been removed, as a minimum requirement to obtain HF privileges. Thus creating an even lower requirement to gain HF access. However it is up to the individual governing bodies to decide if said requirement be kept or removed. If it were law, then all entities/countries would have to remove the code requirement from their licensing structure as well.
The legal situation is one of how the US government operates, not one of international law.

There are a number of "streamlining" legislations on the book that require federal agencies to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden.

In the case of element 1, if the FCC were to determine that the test served no regulatory purpose, and if the FCC were no longer compelled by international treaty to test for Morse code, then the FCC would be found by federal law to drop element 1.

The FCC had found that element 1 served no regulatory purpose back during the last restructuring. At that point, US law compelled them to obey the treaty, but to drop element 1 when the treaty no longer required it.

When the treaty obligation was dropped, the FCC acted, reviewed its previous findings and all of its new input, and again concluded that element 1 served no regulatory purpose. Thus, the NPRM proposes dropping it.

There was a massive response to the NPRM, and the FCC is obligated to review the response, but the reality is that it raised no new argument.

At this point, dropping element 1 is pretty much mandatory, unless a) a new argument appears or b) congress compells the FCC by statute to maintain element 1

We're just waiting for the R&O to wind its way through the process at this point.

ab8ro

12-04-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 03 2006,02:58)]There was a massive response to the NPRM, and the FCC is obligated to review the response, but the reality is that it raised no new argument.
This is the key point. None of the responses to the NPRM identified a regulatory purpose for keeping the code.

w5alt

12-04-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 04 2006,05:36)]This is the key point. None of the responses to the NPRM identified a regulatory purpose for keeping the code.
So what's the regulatory purpose for keeping questions on, say, EME and RTTY as part of the testing? Or Ohm's Law?

73,
Walt, W5ALT

K7JEM

12-04-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 04 2006,07:57)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 04 2006,05:36)]This is the key point. None of the responses to the NPRM identified a regulatory purpose for keeping the code.
So what's the regulatory purpose for keeping questions on, say, EME and RTTY as part of the testing? Or Ohm's Law?

73,
Walt, W5ALT
Again, nothing other than international treaty. The treaty states that applicants must demonstrate a knowledge of radio and regulations. Every country can set their own standards on what that means. In our case, we have a layered testing that progressively tests for these things.

The FCC has never indicated that the only reason for the written test is to comply with international law. Therefore, even if the treaty were changed to eliminate the written testing requirement, it wouldn't necessarily follow that the FCC would drop the written tests.

Joe

w5alt

12-04-2006, 03:24 PM

So, might one conclude that regulatory purpose is the only reason to retain all testing items?

ab8ro

12-04-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 03 2006,08:57)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 04 2006,05:36)]This is the key point. None of the responses to the NPRM identified a regulatory purpose for keeping the code.
So what's the regulatory purpose for keeping questions on, say, EME and RTTY as part of the testing? Or Ohm's Law?

73,
Walt, W5ALT
The NPRM indicates that the FCCs position is that the written tests meet the international requirement for ensuring licensees are qualified. The international treaty is ONE reason that the test is required. The nature of the questions on the exam are no longer controlled by the FCC. So if you don't believe that those questions are necessary then petition the NCVEC to remove them.

Never mind that you've seen the NPRM, are familiar with the rules, and know the answer to the question, but I'll post the info for you anyway.

So here we go, from the NPRM.

Quote[/b] ]
the purpose of the written examinations, under our rules, is not to determine whether a person has achieved a particular level of skill, but rather to determine whether an individual can properly operate an amateur station.

Here's some commentary about how the FCC feels about who should control the questions.

Quote[/b] ]
We also deny the requests that we more closely regulate the content of written examinations. #In this regard, we note that determining what questions should be included in the question pools is a function that has been performed by the VECs,1 thereby allowing those who prepare license examinations to revise examination questions in a much more timely fashion then if the Commission prepared questions for inclusion on the examinations. #We also note that in the Restructure Report and Order, the Commission eliminated from its rules the requirement that each examination element be composed of specific topics and a specific number of questions on each topic, thereby allowing VEs to prepare more relevant written examinations.2 #The petitions have not shown any changed circumstances meriting reconsideration of these decisions, or that examinations are not being prepared that meaningfully test the knowledge an examinee needs to properly operate an amateur station

But here's the pertinent point in black and white for you, from the FCC themselves

Quote[/b] ]
Specifically, Article 25.6 requires that administrations verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station.1 #We believe that Article 25.6 is satisfied by requiring applicants for an amateur radio operator license to pass written examinations covering relevant subject matter.

That's your regulatory purpose right there. Perhaps there are others, I don't know, but that particular regulatory purpose isn't going away anytime soon.

They go on to say

Quote[/b] ]
Because the Radio Regulations no longer mandate a telegraphy requirement,1 each country’s administration must decide whether to require telegraphy proficiency for an amateur radio license. #

So this is where U.S. law kicks in. Other countries may or may not be bound by the same kinds of laws that require the FCC to act in the public interest, but the FCC must do so.

K7JEM

12-04-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 04 2006,08:24)]So, might one conclude that regulatory purpose is the only reason to retain all testing items?
Regulatory purpose and "best public interest" are probably the main two reasons for any rule by any federal agency.

If it's not required by some law, and it's not in the public interest, then there are odds that the regulation will be examined. If either of these two are shown, then the regulation would probably stand.

The code test met both of these criteria 50 years ago, but since then, the "best public interest" part of that equation has been going away. About 20 years ago, it was pretty much gone, hence the FCC decision in 1990 to end code testing for techs. This is something they could do and still comply with international treaty.

Now, both reasons are gone, so the FCC has decided to drop the code tests. We will see what the final implementation is, but no-one is betting that the FCC will reinstate the old 13 and 20 wpm tests. That is not the direction.

Joe

ab8ro

12-04-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 03 2006,09:13)]Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 04 2006,07:57)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 04 2006,05:36)]This is the key point. None of the responses to the NPRM identified a regulatory purpose for keeping the code.
So what's the regulatory purpose for keeping questions on, say, EME and RTTY as part of the testing? Or Ohm's Law?

73,
Walt, W5ALT
Again, nothing other than international treaty.
I think that public interest could still be cited here. I don't think it's unreasonable to state that basic safety and operational rules should be tested before allowing someone to transmit with legal limit. There are safety issues with RF at amateur levels and I think that even without international treaty the FCC could make the case that it is in the publics interest to give a written test to licensees.

That said, I doubt, for much the same reason, that basic testing will be eliminated as a treaty requirement.

K7JEM

12-04-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 04 2006,08:48)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 03 2006,09:13)]Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 04 2006,07:57)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 04 2006,05:36)]This is the key point. None of the responses to the NPRM identified a regulatory purpose for keeping the code.
So what's the regulatory purpose for keeping questions on, say, EME and RTTY as part of the testing? Or Ohm's Law?

73,
Walt, W5ALT
Again, nothing other than international treaty.
I think that public interest could still be cited here. I don't think it's unreasonable to state that basic safety and operational rules should be tested before allowing someone to transmit with legal limit. There are safety issues with RF at amateur levels and I think that even without international treaty the FCC could make the case that it is in the publics interest to give a written test to licensees.

That said, I doubt, for much the same reason, that basic testing will be eliminated as a treaty requirement.
Correct. I misspoke on that "only international treaty" part. Later in the same post I seem to contradict myself by saying, "The FCC has never indicated that the only reason for the written test is to comply with international law." I think my answer was in response to the "regulatory purpose" part of Walt's question, as I don't think there is any other "regulatory purpose" other than the treaty. The "public interest" is technically another category.

Obviously the treaty exists, and obviously the FCC thinks there is some "public interest" served by the test. As long as either of these two things remain, the FCC will keep the test.

Both of these are gone for the code test. per FCC.

Joe

K0HWY

12-04-2006, 04:33 PM

True testing has already been eliminated from amateur radio.Element 2 is merely a symbolic rite of passage. The General exam is somewhat more than that but you still have the option of memorizing the answers from a published question pool. No, you don't have to do it that way, but it is an option. Same with the Extra class only many of the questions, in my opinion would be a bit harder to memorize although I'm sure someone with a good memory could pull it off.

Eliminating the code requirement is like changing one tire when all four are flat. But then, who cares? It's only amateur radio.

ab8ro

12-04-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote[/b] (K0HWY @ Dec. 03 2006,10:33)]True testing has already been eliminated from amateur radio
While I won't disagree that the current tests are relatively easy, I'm not convinced that even the older tests were that significant. Others who have taken them have asserted such. The only old test I took was the novice and I can assure you that it was no more difficult than the current element 2.

Quote[/b] ]
But then, who cares? It's only amateur radio.

Well, exactly. The tests don't need to be difficult to suit the purpose.

ky5u

12-04-2006, 06:21 PM

There are two basic kinds of "Regulatory Purpose", one that comes from outside the US where the US is a signatory, and those which come from within the US in the form of FCC rules not based on International Laws or Treaties. The outside regulatory purpose concerning code testing required by ITU rule has gone away. Within the US, all the various FCC "PART"s are filled with rules that regulate the use of the airwaves not tied to International Law and Treaties.

In truth, regulatory purpose can also be tied to the regulation of the Amateur Radio airwaves by definition. The argument that international agreement is the only reason any test or rule may be mandated is specious. Likewise the argument that the FCC cannot maintain a telegraphy test for any license class if it wants to do so is wrong. While the FCC has stated that they see no regulatory purpose to continue the test, there is nothing preventing them from seeing one today, tomorrow, next week, etc...

The "regulatory purpose" argument is another no code strawman. It attempts to deflect the truth that the rules are being changed to accomodate people who are too lazy to learn code and pass the test whether acting on their own or hiding behind existing amateurs who see themselves as "Mr. No Code Captain of Tomorrow!"

K0HWY

12-04-2006, 06:36 PM

I think I'm beginning to understand some of the mentalities behind both sides of the testing argument(s).

I was thinking back to the thread about professions and one things stands out. We have many amateur radio operators with higher education. Many of you are not only college graduates but are employed in fields that demand you use that knowledge on a daily basis. To individuals employed in those fields, the Extra Class exam was probably not much of a challenge. Getting to the highest level in amateur radio was not a big deal to you.

On the other hand, there are individuals like myself who have no college education (I mean beyond vocational). Although I worked as a service tech in consumer electronics for several years, the theory involved on the Extra exam goes well beyond that which is needed to repair a 1980s television receiver. To pass the Extra exam, I had to actually sit down and not only refresh myself with the old, but learn the new as well. So, for me, it was a big deal and I did find the test to be moderately difficult. And, it was an accomplishment. Perhaps it wasn't as big an accomplishment as it would have been before the tests started getting watered down. But, it wasn't exactly a walk in the park either. I actually had to put forth some effort to pass the test.

I suppose if it comes easy to you, you're going to tend to have the attitude that it's nothing special and no big deal. If you have to work for it, you tend to see things from a different perspective.

K7JEM

12-04-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 04 2006,11:21)]There are two basic kinds of "Regulatory Purpose", one that comes from outside the US where the US is a signatory, and those which come from within the US in the form of FCC rules not based on International Laws or Treaties. #The outside regulatory purpose concerning code testing required by ITU rule has gone away. Within the US, all the various FCC "PART"s are filled with rules that regulate the use of the airwaves not tied to International Law and Treaties.

In truth, regulatory purpose can also be tied to the regulation of the Amateur Radio airwaves by definition. The argument that international agreement is the only reason any test or rule may be mandated is specious. #Likewise the argument that the FCC cannot maintain a telegraphy test for any license class if it wants to do so is wrong. While the FCC has stated that they see no regulatory purpose to continue the test, there is nothing preventing them from seeing one today, tomorrow, next week, etc...

The "regulatory purpose" argument is another no code strawman. #It attempts to deflect the truth that the rules are being changed to accomodate people who are too lazy to learn code and pass the test whether acting on their own or hiding behind existing amateurs who see themselves as "Mr. No Code Captain of Tomorrow!" #
Well you were pretty good right up to that third paragraph, then you just went bizarro.

You have admitted that the FCC see no regulatory purpose, and this is correct. You also state that they could come up with a regulatory purpose tomorrow, that is also correct.

But there would have to be some reason behind it, to make a change of that magnitude, since they have already declared that no regulatory purpose exists to have a code test.

I would ask this question. What would possibly be a regulatory issue that the FCC could come up with, for requiring a code test? I can think of nothing. Years ago, you could have argued that it was necessary to have qualified code ops for military purposes. Or that if all hams knew code, the military could easily order them off the air. There might have been another reason or two, dealing with maritime or other services that used to use code.

But none of this exists any more. The only thing code is good for is to communicate with other hams that know code, thats it. That reason doesn't form the basis for any sort of regulation, at least in the testing area.

Joe

KE5FRF

12-04-2006, 07:30 PM

Oh joy. I Didn't know thread. this had turned into another tennis match debate.

I'll reiterate my intellectually honest opinion on this subject. I have in the past conceded and still do that there is no logical, legitimate regulatory reason to maintain element one testing. It is just the way it is, and there really can be no arguement made otherwise. I hate to admit that, but I have pondered on this subject and find myself coming to the same conclusion every time. The arguement to keep things the way they are or even beef the testing back up is largely an emotional one based on a desire to keep amateur radio a respected and relatively technical hobby, instead of an end-user avocation (appliance operator like CB).

While legally speaking, the "no-code" arguement has the most compelling basis in regulatory considerations, I can't help but feel it all but signals the end of amateur radio as we know it, and that makes me terribly sad. Many think it is already a very watered down version of its former self, long before I was licensed, and the "no-code" result will surely further that end.

I have really done some thinking, and while I definately don't think that learning code by definition makes you a smarter ham, and conversely, not knowing it doesn't make you dumber...It does often serve as a demonstration of your ambition and dedication, which has some merit.

SO, In the interest of maintaining the TRADITION of Morse code as an integral part of amateur radio, which is MY motivation, I have a question, which deserves consideration

The Federal government has the authority, when it can be demonstrated that something has historical significance, to legally protect something as a historic "landmark". This can be anything as grand as a famous historical road, battlefield, forest, or other piece of land...or it can be something as simple as a small building or house. Even TREES have been granted historical protection by the government.

I am sitting here, trying to think of something less tangible than land or buildings, something non-material, that has been granted such protection.

Perhaps we have an opportunity before us to set a precidence? Perhaps the amateur radio community could be the first to be granted federal protection for a "tradition"?....If this could be done, then the regulatory loopholes would be a moot point.

My idea may or may not sound absurd, and it may or may not even be possible. It kind of depends on convincing Congress of the historical significance of amateur radio, as well as the historical significance of Morse Code. Even tying in the land-wire telegraph history into the arguement might help. And I suppose it would be difficult to demonstrate how maintaining a testing requirement ensures that the historic ART of telegraphy becomes perpetuated...but likewise it would be hard to make a case that REMOVING the code would do anything to protect it either.

I dunno. I'm probably really grasping for straws here. Can anyone think of how a non-material thing, such as an art or a skill, has been so protected by federal law?

ky5u

12-04-2006, 07:32 PM

Watch out below!

KE5FRF

12-04-2006, 07:37 PM

Charlie, where do you come up with these things? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ky5u

12-04-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 04 2006,11:43)]You have admitted that the FCC see no regulatory purpose, and this is correct. You also state that they could come up with a regulatory purpose tomorrow, that is also correct.

But there would have to be some reason behind it, to make a change of that magnitude, since they have already declared that no regulatory purpose exists to have a code test.
We somewhat agree. What we disagree on is what it would take for the FCC to change their minds on any part of the R&O. You can't say they ABSOLUTELY won't change their minds about some part nor can I. Therefore the "regulatory reason" argument you guys are putting forward is a strawman. Regulatory reason is what they ultimately decide.

w5alt

12-04-2006, 08:26 PM

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 04 2006,14:43)]I would ask this question. What would possibly be a regulatory issue that the FCC could come up with, for requiring a code test? I can think of nothing. Years ago, you could have argued that it was necessary to have qualified code ops for military purposes. Or that if all hams knew code, the military could easily order them off the air. There might have been another reason or two, dealing with maritime or other services that used to use code.

But none of this exists any more. The only thing code is good for is to communicate with other hams that know code, thats it. That reason doesn't form the basis for any sort of regulation, at least in the testing area.
So, following that reasoning, how many non-amateurs do we need to communicate with using EME or RTTY? They still have those questions on the tests. What many seem to overlook is that usage outside of amateur radio and regulatory purpose are not the only reasons to have things on the exams.

But if you're really looking for a regulatory purpose, look no further than the IARP treaty and various reciprocal licensing agreements. The US still has agreements that specify reciprocal licensing privileges depend on having proven CW proficiency.

And if you need an example of how they could change their mind, just recall the ITU wording to the effect that each administration must ensure that their licensees are capable of controlling their amateur stations. It says nothing about being able to communicate with other services. How can one control a mode they can't understand?

These arguments, on both sides, have already been made many times. As I've said before, the only thing we can do is wait and see what the FCC ultimately decides. I won't be crying either way. My only regret is that I didn't make an effort to pass the CW test 10 years earlier than I did.

73,
Walt, W5ALT

ai4ep

12-04-2006, 08:47 PM

...why should the majority give in to the minority ?

who gains any thing ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

KA4DPO

12-04-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Dec. 04 2006,13:47)]...why should the majority give in to the minority ?

who gains any thing ? # # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
The minority think they gain something, but they don't really. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

KI4ITV

12-04-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Dec. 04 2006,07:30)]The Federal government has the authority, when it can be demonstrated that something has historical significance, to legally protect something as a historic "landmark". This can be anything as grand as a famous historical road, battlefield, forest, or other piece of land...or it can be something as simple as a small building or house. Even TREES have been granted historical protection by the government.
Hold that thought, Heath.
That is a great question and should be looked into.

Not necesarily for the retention of the code requirement, but for protection of the frequencies after the code is dropped and the respectless start screaming for more room in the phone portions of the bands.
This should be taken seriously as a avenue of preservation.

It may just come down to that.

ab8ro

12-05-2006, 01:51 AM

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 03 2006,14:26)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 04 2006,14:43)]I would ask this question. What would possibly be a regulatory issue that the FCC could come up with, for requiring a code test? I can think of nothing. Years ago, you could have argued that it was necessary to have qualified code ops for military purposes. Or that if all hams knew code, the military could easily order them off the air. There might have been another reason or two, dealing with maritime or other services that used to use code.

But none of this exists any more. The only thing code is good for is to communicate with other hams that know code, thats it. That reason doesn't form the basis for any sort of regulation, at least in the testing area.
So, following that reasoning, how many non-amateurs do we need to communicate with using EME or RTTY? They still have those questions on the tests. What many seem to overlook is that usage outside of amateur radio and regulatory purpose are not the only reasons to have things on the exams.
Tests? The written exam HAS a regulatory purpose, it's spelled out above and in various documentation from the FCC. It's content is not dictated by the FCC. Hence the reason that any particular questions are on that exam have nothing to do with eliminating the morse exam. So your point is moot.

Quote[/b] ]
But if you're really looking for a regulatory purpose, look no further than the IARP treaty and various reciprocal licensing agreements. The US still has agreements that specify reciprocal licensing privileges depend on having proven CW proficiency.

Here's the language of the IARP in regards to morse:
Quote[/b] ]
Class 1. Use of all frequency bands allocated to the amateur service and amateur-satellite service and specified by the country where the amateur station is to be operated. It will be open only to those amateurs who have proved their competence with Morse code to their own Administration in accordance with the requirements of the ITU Radio Regulations.
Class 2. This class permits utilization of all frequency bands allocated to the amateur service and amateur-satellite service above 30 MHz and specified by the country where the amateur station is to be operated.

There's no regulatory dependence at all. Simply, no morse means that you're a tech in other IARP countries. That may be inconvenient for people, but it's hardly a regulatory requirement and it's hardly in the publics best interest to cater to a small special interest group. Note also that the language is related to the ITU requirements which indicates that the language of this treaty is out of date. I suspect it will be amended at some point in the future. Note, that it as already been amended at least once so there exists a process to amend the treaty.

Quote[/b] ]
And if you need an example of how they could change their mind, just recall the ITU wording to the effect that each administration must ensure that their licensees are capable of controlling their amateur stations. It says nothing about being able to communicate with other services. How can one control a mode they can't understand?

Again, read above, the FCC has already stated that they feel that this requirement is met by the written exam. Certainly they could change their mind, but it's wishful thinking to believe that they will do so and they would have to provide some basis for that change.

Quote[/b] ]
These arguments, on both sides, have already been made many times.

Of course, both sides are not equal, one side uses the FACTS, the other uses FUD.

Quote[/b] ]
As I've said before, the only thing we can do is wait and see what the FCC ultimately decides.

No, we can also speculate and pontificate to our hearts content. After all, this is a free country and we have to right to voice our opinions. I see you enjoy that right, so spare us the FUD.

w5alt

12-05-2006, 02:36 AM

Actually Joe asked for an example and I gave him a hypothetical one. As I said, we'll see what the FCC actually decides whenever they decide to let us know. You might want to quote all the previous posts to aid my belabored attention span.

But since you brought up the matter of FACTS, when was the last time you actually asked another country, like CP, what they would do if your US license did not prove your CW proficiency?

I have no idea what FUD means. I presume it's meant for entertainment? Perhaps you're confused with the other thread on Elmering?

73,
Walt, W5ALT

ab8ro

12-05-2006, 02:57 AM

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 03 2006,20:36)]Actually Joe asked for an example and I gave him a hypothetical one.
Of course, and I'm merely pointing out that your example isn't really an example of regulatory purpose at all.

K7JEM

12-05-2006, 03:05 AM

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Dec. 04 2006,13:47)]...why should the majority give in to the minority ?

who gains any thing ? # # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Who is the majority? What are you talking about? There has never been any indication either way of what a majority of hams think.

From the replies and general concensus, it appears the vast majority just doesn't care either way.

Joe

ai4ep

12-05-2006, 03:16 AM

...cause after a couple of decades of hearing the whiney kids gripe, it DOES get old.:(

w5alt

12-05-2006, 03:20 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 04 2006,22:57)]Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 03 2006,20:36)]Actually Joe asked for an example and I gave him a hypothetical one.
Of course, and I'm merely pointing out that your example isn't really an example of regulatory purpose at all.
Hmmm, in my experience most countries, the US included, do include licensing in the regulatory process and do consider licensing to have a regulatory purpose.

I don't believe that including licensing in the regulatory process is a new or fresh idea, so I don't think I misunderstood due to not having new/fresh ideas. Of course it's quite possible that my attention span was lapsing during part of my legal class?

And, by the way, you were probably in a hurry and forgot to mention when you last checked with other countries concerning the validity of a reciprocal license in case a US license doesn't prove CW proficiency.

Also, please explain FUD. I'm interested in learning about your new and fresh ideas.

73,
Walt, W5ALT

AE6IP

12-05-2006, 03:31 AM

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 04 2006,06:57)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 04 2006,05:36)]This is the key point. None of the responses to the NPRM identified a regulatory purpose for keeping the code.
So what's the regulatory purpose for keeping questions on, say, EME and RTTY as part of the testing? Or Ohm's Law?

73,
Walt, W5ALT
AFAICT, there isn't one.

But no one has asked the FCC to rule on those specific questions, and the FCC has left the makeup of the question pool to the question committee.

There is still a treaty requirement for testing for proficiency but the standard defined in the treaty is so vague as to be meaningless.

When you compare amateur radio to other forms of personal exploration of electronics which are not licensed, it becomes very difficult to make a case for any technical testing as part of license requirements.

It's still possible to make a case for knowledge of regulations as a testing requirement, of course.

K7JEM

12-05-2006, 03:32 AM

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 04 2006,13:26)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 04 2006,14:43)]I would ask this question. What would possibly be a regulatory issue that the FCC could come up with, for requiring a code test? I can think of nothing. Years ago, you could have argued that it was necessary to have qualified code ops for military purposes. Or that if all hams knew code, the military could easily order them off the air. There might have been another reason or two, dealing with maritime or other services that used to use code.

But none of this exists any more. The only thing code is good for is to communicate with other hams that know code, thats it. That reason doesn't form the basis for any sort of regulation, at least in the testing area.
So, following that reasoning, how many non-amateurs do we need to communicate with using EME or RTTY? They still have those questions on the tests. What many seem to overlook is that usage outside of amateur radio and regulatory purpose are not the only reasons to have things on the exams.
The exam questions are not determined by the FCC, you know that.There is no regulation from the FCC regarding the content of the written. Any question relating to ham radio could be there. Questions about SSB, digital, eme, and CW are on the written test. The VEC's could eliminate or change any of the questions without FCC intervention. Not so with code. It is special, but shouldn't be. It has a whole element all to itself, unlike any other mode, or questions on rules, operation, electronic theory, VE exams, or any other aspect of ham radio. Should there be questions on the test about code? Sure, just like the questions for every other mode or ham application. Just not a complete test.

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 04 2006,13:26)]
But if you're really looking for a regulatory purpose, look no further than the IARP treaty and various reciprocal licensing agreements. The US still has agreements that specify reciprocal licensing privileges depend on having proven CW proficiency.
The FCC has no regulatory jurisdiction outside the USA. Our treaties are what we are concerned with. I guarantee that if there are changes made in our licensing structure, other countries will find a way to accept what we have.

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 04 2006,13:26)]
And if you need an example of how they could change their mind, just recall the ITU wording to the effect that each administration must ensure that their licensees are capable of controlling their amateur stations. It says nothing about being able to communicate with other services. How can one control a mode they can't understand?
You're not really asking this, are you? I can't understand PSK or RTTY, but if there was a station on my freq, I would know that it was there. If I want to TX code, I can do so without knowing a lick by using a code program for my computer. It will send code fine, may not be able to decode so well, but that really doesn't matter. The FCC is only concerned with my transmissions, and that they are legal, and properly identified. I can control all of these modes just fine and not know what they sound like on the air, or be able to decode them with my brain.

Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 04 2006,13:26)]
These arguments, on both sides, have already been made many times. As I've said before, the only thing we can do is wait and see what the FCC ultimately decides. I won't be crying either way. My only regret is that I didn't make an effort to pass the CW test 10 years earlier than I did.

73,
Walt, W5ALT
Your regrets are really no concern of the FCC's. This is the problem, it has become an emotional issue with too many people, and they can't see clearly because of it. You don't want people to have the same regret you do, but if the code test is not there, people won't have to wait 10 years not passing the code test. It's interesting that your regret is not making an effort to pass the test, not a regret of not learning the code. A person can learn the code without having to pass a test. The carrot is not needed.

Joe

AE6IP

12-05-2006, 03:35 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Dec. 04 2006,07:48)]Again, nothing other than international treaty.
I think that public interest could still be cited here. I don't think it's unreasonable to state that basic safety and operational rules should be tested before allowing someone to transmit with legal limit. There are safety issues with RF at amateur levels and I think that even without international treaty the FCC could make the case that it is in the publics interest to give a written test to licensees.

That said, I doubt, for much the same reason, that basic testing will be eliminated as a treaty requirement.[/QUOTE]
When you compare the risks of amateur radio to those of other electronics hobbies that don't require licensing, it becomes difficult to justify testing for safety reasons.

It's very difficult to imagine a reason for testing anything than knowledge of the regulations, when you compare amateur radio to other hobbies.

AE6IP

12-05-2006, 03:40 AM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Dec. 04 2006,11:30)]The Federal government has the authority, when it can be demonstrated that something has historical significance, to legally protect something as a historic "landmark". This can be anything as grand as a famous historical road, battlefield, forest, or other piece of land...or it can be something as simple as a small building or house. Even TREES have been granted historical protection by the government.

I am sitting here, trying to think of something less tangible than land or buildings, something non-material, that has been granted such protection.

Perhaps we have an opportunity before us to set a precidence? Perhaps the amateur radio community could be the first to be granted federal protection for a "tradition"?....If this could be done, then the regulatory loopholes would be a moot point.
You won't find anything intangible and you will find one or more court rulings that such things can't be protected under the various protection of antiquities acts.

AE6IP

12-05-2006, 03:46 AM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 04 2006,11:43)]What we disagree on is what it would take for the FCC to change their minds on any part of the R&O. You can't say they ABSOLUTELY won't change their minds about some part nor can I. Therefore the "regulatory reason" argument you guys are putting forward is a strawman. Regulatory reason is what they ultimately decide.
"They absolutely won't change their mind."

See, it was easy to say. ;)

Pulling my tongue from my cheek, no, regulatory reason isn't "what they ultimately decide", if by that you mean that they have full leeway to decide.

They have already decided that there is no regulatory reason. They wrote that decision down.

They can reverse that decision. But to be able to do so legally they must have a legal compelling reason. "A bunch of amateurs whined on web sites" doesn't count as a legal compelling reason.

The FCC has clearly enumerated the test for regulatory requirement for element 1, and they have clearly found that it fails that test. In order to legally reverse that decision, a new argument would have to be made that met the test.

Then, and only then, could they legally reverse themselves.

And while they got several thousand responses to the NPRM, none of them raised such an argument.

K7JEM

12-05-2006, 03:47 AM

FUD is "fear, uncertainty, and doubt", a common ploy used by salesmen and others to sell the status quo, or some other well known idea or product.

"No-one ever got fired for buying Motorola. You really don't know much about this Jap stuff, do you? Doesn't Kenwood make car stereos? I hear they are having som QC issues, the parts have been falling off the boards. They probably won't be around too much longer, Motorola has been here since WWII, don't know where you're going to get support a couple of years from now."

This application:

"We don't know what will happen when the code is dropped. CBers will invade the bands, shouting for "skipland" and cranking their leenyars to 15KW. The only think keeping the lids off now is the code test, lose it and we lose, lid city. Our licenses won't be worth a thing when these slackers get here, might as well sell your equipment now while you can still get a good price. These no-coders are just trying to get something for nothing" #[pretty picture posts here]

Joe