View Full Version : Techs Take to the Airwaves
From the ARRL Letter:
Quote[/b] ]ARRL Regulatory Information Specialist Dan Henderson, N1ND, cautions that a license upgrade is *not* automatic for those holding valid CSCEs for element credit. "You must apply for the upgrade at a VEC test session, and you may not operate as /AG or /AE until you have upgraded and have been issued a CSCE marked for upgrade," he stresses. "A valid CSCE for element credit only does not confer any operating privileges."
Henderson also advises all radio amateurs to know and fully understand their operating privileges before taking to the airwaves. Some Technician licensees reportedly started showing up on 75 meters December 15 in the mistaken belief that they had gained phone privileges there.
This is surely getting the rule change off on a bad foot. Don't be a doofus. Learn your privleges and spread the word. Techs have phone privleges on HF ONLY on or after 2/23 and ONLY between 28.3 and 28.5 in the 10M band. If you have passed the General test you STILL have to go back to a VE session, pay a fee if required and get your credit marked for upgrade before you can operate /AG.
kd7msc
01-27-2007, 07:34 PM
This does not supprise me one bit. These are the people who screw things up for the rest of us. Hope to work you soon Charlie. 73, Sean http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
ai4ep
01-27-2007, 07:41 PM
..it just proves that the tests are way to easy and that folks do not pay any attention to things, unless...of course...it is what some one ELSE is doing.
Do fine the violators, take away any and all licenses, and put them in jail for no less than one year..............................or make them work for free at a local cb shop for that full year. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
KD7UNP
01-27-2007, 10:02 PM
At last weeks General test in my area, around 40 people took it. #I think they all passed.
There was only 1 code test taken (me). #The VE was very clear about not taking the code test would delay their ability to use hf. #This unfortunately was met with sideways glances and snickers by several in the room. #I'm hoping I'm wrong in my feeling this was a bad sign. #We have so few, easy to follow rules in this hobby, we should feel blessed that we are not over-regulated as is true in so many other endeavors in life.
I believe most (90%) of the new Generals including myself will follow the rules
KD7UNP/AG
Quote[/b] ]Topic: Techs Take to the Airwaves, Yep....too early.
Man 10m was really hopping the first day that the proposed R&O was posted on the ARRL website...... idiots, ya gotta love em. On the very first day, these diptards proved the reasoning behind the need for a 'poo' filter for getting onto the HF bands. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Folks just are not paying attention, and it's not just the Tech's.
Like the fellow who answered my CQ on 14.202 the other day who was telling me all about his recent upgrade to General.
Had no idea that he was out of band until I explained it and suggested we move to a frequency that was in band for him.
Now I ask you: Is it that hard to remember your allocations? Sure the new General was a nice fellow and all that, but he had no business answering my CQ on that particular frequency.
Note to the newbies: Please pay attention to the rules.. It will help us all in the long run and keep you out of trouble.
73 Gary
N4AUD
01-27-2007, 10:12 PM
I keep a copy of the band plan taped to the desk right in front of me, and I don't have to be THAT careful where I go...
KD7UNP
01-27-2007, 10:14 PM
Quote[/b] (ku4my @ Jan. 27 2007,15:07)]Quote[/b] ]Topic: Techs Take to the Airwaves, Yep....too early.
Man 10m was really hopping the first day that the proposed R&O was posted on the ARRL website...... idiots, ya gotta love em. On the very first day, these diptards proved the reasoning behind the need for a 'poo' filter for getting onto the HF bands. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I'm really sorry to hear this. Hopefully it will settle down.
KD7UNP/AG
ai4ep
01-28-2007, 12:40 AM
...transmitting " out of band " was hard to do on my ( old ) yeasu 897. If you went " out of band " it would not transmit, and I checked on the modifiecation for it, and it aint easy ( which was good , cause I didnt mess with it ) . But it is history now, and was a great rig. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I too keep a frerquency chart nearby to keep from transmitting " out of band " , testing out ANTENNA TUNERS, etc.
On the serious side...we all problably have transmitted " out of band " a time or two when we had a modified rig...but that IS NOT a good excuse for breaking the rules.
Maybe we should count our blessings that the FCC does not monitor the amateur frequencies like they COULD, but WONT. Being a low priority may a mixed blessing with the FCC....how would we feel if there were 8 - 12 FCC agents in each county courthouse, working 24 / 7 and passing out fines that would make the local cops look nice to help pay for their being there to catch all the rule breakers ?? !! Lots of us would be seling out in a couple of months , or learn where TO and NOT to key the mike !!
W5HTW
01-28-2007, 12:51 AM
Quote[/b] (KD7UNP @ Jan. 27 2007,15:02)]At last weeks General test in my area, around 40 people took it. I think they all passed.
There was only 1 code test taken (me). The VE was very clear about not taking the code test would delay their ability to use hf. This unfortunately was met with sideways glances and snickers by several in the room. I'm hoping I'm wrong in my feeling this was a bad sign. We have so few, easy to follow rules in this hobby, we should feel blessed that we are not over-regulated as is true in so many other endeavors in life.
I believe most (90%) of the new Generals including myself will follow the rules
KD7UNP/AG
The moment you say something like that, and someone like me responds, we get the "crabby OF" syndrome. But there is one fact that shines very clearly in amateur radio of today. Most of the operators, and would-be operators were groomed on 27 mhz where there ARE no rules. What do we expect? Without the apprentice amateur license (the Novice) we have no training license. The Technician was the entry level, which was in itself sad, but very soon even that won't be true. All it will take is one additional evening of study and the non-ham goes direct to General, with zero experience (except on 27 mhz, of course) and no concept of what amateur radio is.
Those who were not groomed on CB were groomed on Instant Messaging, where there are even less rules (below zero) than CB.
Are our wounds mortal? Or can we actually make hams out of these "yeah, right" snickering newbies? We have no choice but to try.
Ed
kn4ds
01-28-2007, 01:21 AM
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Jan. 27 2007,19:51)]Those who were not groomed on CB were groomed on Instant Messaging, where there are even less rules (below zero) than CB.
Are our wounds mortal? Or can we actually make hams out of these "yeah, right" snickering newbies? We have no choice but to try.
Ed
I think you're mostly correct, and I'm glad to be the exception to both of those rules.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've even keyed a CB, and I've never owned one.
I learned about ham operations from some long, LONG time hams, myself, in 1995, when there was no such thing as Instant Messaging and even public access to the Internet was in its infancy.
I don't like "slang" on the air myself... can't stand that CB garbage when I hear it, because to me, it basically sounds stupid.
I can't stand the silly abbreviations that have crept into use due to lazy typists, and now, cell phone "texting." I do not "text," either.
As the countdown clock continues toward the elimination of the code requirement, I'm spending time listening to nets, making note of differences in the operation of those nets as compared to the 2m nets I'm familiar with.
I *hope* to be an example of what no-code operators can be. I look at it the same way I look at messaging (regardless of form, method, protocol or the like) on the Internet... here, the only way one can know me is by the way I write. On the air, the only impression I'll ever make on everyone else is how I operate.
I'll make mistakes, no doubt about it. I've made mistakes in the past, and I've no reason to think I'll ever be perfect.
ad4mg
01-28-2007, 01:30 AM
Dave,
I seriously respect your attitude. I hope it's catching!
Look forward to meeting you on the air!
Best 73,
Luke
Look for the next edition of enforcement letters on the ARRL website. Should be interesting.
I bet OO's are busy too!
w7lpn
01-28-2007, 02:11 AM
Quote[/b] (kd7msc @ Jan. 27 2007,12:34)]This does not supprise me one bit. These are the people who screw things up for the rest of us. Hope to work you soon Charlie. 73, Sean http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Duh! It's been plastered everywhere. You'd have to be a Retard to not know to double check all your assumptions. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
w7lpn
01-28-2007, 02:15 AM
I wonder if they're gonna get ticketed and not get their General on time, or get their Tech suspended. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
KC0OFZ
01-28-2007, 02:19 AM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 27 2007,11:49)]From the ARRL Letter:
Quote[/b] ]ARRL Regulatory Information Specialist Dan Henderson, N1ND, cautions that a license upgrade is *not* automatic for those holding valid CSCEs for element credit. "You must apply for the upgrade at a VEC test session, and you may not operate as /AG or /AE until you have upgraded and have been issued a CSCE marked for upgrade," he stresses. "A valid CSCE for element credit only does not confer any operating privileges."
Henderson also advises all radio amateurs to know and fully understand their operating privileges before taking to the airwaves. Some Technician licensees reportedly started showing up on 75 meters December 15 in the mistaken belief that they had gained phone privileges there.
This is surely getting the rule change off on a bad foot. Don't be a doofus. #Learn your privleges and spread the word. #Techs have phone privleges on HF ONLY on or after 2/23 and ONLY between 28.3 and 28.5 in the 10M band. #If you have passed the General test you STILL have to go back to a VE session, pay a fee if required and get your credit marked for upgrade before you can operate /AG.
I sure hope this is not a picture of what we can expect now. We were told our salvation was here now that that damn code test is gone, is this it?
It's only going to get worse.
kn4ds
01-28-2007, 06:19 AM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,01:09)]It's only going to get worse.
I don't see how anybody can't just love your attitude. It's refreshing to see.
So is it going to get worse or not?
Where are all of the folks that are going to "save" ham radio?
AE6IP
01-28-2007, 07:13 AM
Nobody claimed that dropping element 1 would "save" ham radio.
There's always confusion when rules change. It'll sort itself out.
There's going to be a brief surge in upgrades from tech to general and then things will calm back down. Numbers of US hams will continue to decline and the sky won't fall.
There will be a far lot more people like KE4UWL among the newcomers.
You'd think you "old timers" would have learned from the last restructuring, but it looks like some prejuidices are just too hard for people to let go of.
Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 27 2007,23:19)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,01:09)]It's only going to get worse.
I don't see how anybody can't just love your attitude. It's refreshing to see.
Well you know, I hope I am wrong. I'm for giving everyone a chance on the air. Unfortunately, most of the present NCT creme has floated to the top already and it's just hard to ignore the stupidity involved with not being able to operate on the right frequencies and not waiting until it is time.
But they know everything and don't need help from OFs.
KC2PFV
01-28-2007, 07:17 AM
Quote[/b] (n4aud @ Jan. 27 2007,15:12)]I keep a copy of the band plan taped to the desk right in front of me, and I don't have to be THAT careful where I go...
That is exactly what I do. I don't have it "memorized" yet, mainly because they switched the band allocations a month to the day that I became a General, but I know where I can go on the portions of the bands that I use.... I mainly operate in the same areas anyway, CW or PSK31... When I do SSB, I need to look at the chart since I rarely operate that mode.
I'm sure with time I'll memorize it, but the new band plan really messed me up since I had it memorized for the VE session the month prior, but then everything changed... hi hi.
73 de TOM KC2PFV
KI4NGN
01-28-2007, 11:23 AM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,00:16)]Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 27 2007,23:19)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,01:09)]It's only going to get worse.
I don't see how anybody can't just love your attitude. #It's refreshing to see.
Well you know, I hope I am wrong. #I'm for giving everyone a chance on the air. #Unfortunately, most of the present NCT creme has floated to the top already and it's just hard to ignore the stupidity involved with not being able to operate on the right frequencies and not waiting until it is time.
But they know everything and don't need help from OFs.
And yet we have posts from those currently allowed HF ops wondering if it is OK to call outside of our bands to answer DX calls transmitting in their own allocated spaces.
Or those current ops who just do it.
Guess they must have slipped through that pesky filter of code testing by passing it.
Snide aside, everyone makes mistakes, and there are always those who don't care about the rules. Nothing has or will change. People are people in all of our good and bad variations.
Mike
W5IEI
01-28-2007, 01:39 PM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 28 2007,00:13)]Nobody claimed that dropping element 1 would "save" ham radio.
There's always confusion when rules change. It'll sort itself out.
There's going to be a brief surge in upgrades from tech to general and then things will calm back down. Numbers of US hams will continue to decline and the sky won't fall.
There will be a far lot more people like KE4UWL among the newcomers.
You'd think you "old timers" would have learned from the last restructuring, but it looks like some prejuidices are just too hard for people to let go of.
You really need to go back a few years and read what 90% of the no code techs were saying then.
They said the code was keeping out the geniuses who were going to save us.
Come clean Marty,what does the dropping of code tests have in it for you?
Do you have a relative,or friend too lazy to pass it that you want on the air?
N8CPA
01-28-2007, 03:14 PM
Maybe the savior geniuses are witholding all their advancements of the radio art until they can install them in the flying cars they're inventing too.
Here is what I think could happen.
1. There will be some who think they have privileges but in reality they don't.
2. They may camp out on 80, 40, 15 and 10 meter phone because they have confused their CW privileges with phone privileges.
3. Some will take the attitude that they will operate any were they want and dare someone to stop them.
4. Some OFs will begin to look up call signs and if they do not have the privileges, they will be told so.
5. The OFs are either going to be thanked for the heads up or will be blasted for being a snoop.
6. Logs will be kept by some concerning who is operating illegally, and those logs will be sent to the FCC for action.
7. The FCC may be come overwhelmed, as they did with CB in the 70s and 80s and say the hell with it, just get on and don't bother us any more.
Hopefully, we will not see this, but one needs to wonder how the enforcement will take place. Has anyone heard anything from the ARRL as it concerns the Official Observer program and how they will handle out of privilege operation?
73
George
K3UD
KD6NIG
01-28-2007, 03:55 PM
The OO's should handle it like they handle any kind of operation like this. If you're out of band, you get a notice CC the FCC.
Why should the enforcement be any different? Out of band operation is out of band operation-just because its a Tech with new privledges exceeding them doesn't mean it should be enforced any differently.
Right? Or are we going to set a new enforcement standard just for them? I would hope not http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif If they do, then the FCC should suspend the OO program for not properly and uniformly enforcing the rules.
wa5tts
01-28-2007, 04:49 PM
Kinda like the Generals jumped the gun on Frequency allocation....It happens
ad4mg
01-28-2007, 05:51 PM
Quote[/b] (kb5vez @ Jan. 28 2007,11:49)]Kinda like the Generals jumped the gun on Frequency allocation....It happens
Well, it shouldn't. It is a requirement that you know the rules and regulations. Otherwise, it's CB.
Every licensed amateur should:
1. Have a current copy of Part 97 Rules and Regulations available.
2. Understand those regulations to the extent that they adhere to them.
3. Have a copy of current band charts so they know what frequencies are available to them.
4. Understand the frequency allocations available to them.
5. Have a copy of applicable bandplans to make it possible to adhere to those bandplans, including the "gentlemen's agreements".
6. Conduct themselves on the air in a manner that doesn't lessen the enjoyment of others.
The above is a bare minimum. If you cannot adhere to all of the above, then you have no business being an amateur radio operator.
Plain and simple, no excuses.
Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Jan. 28 2007,04:23)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,00:16)]Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 27 2007,23:19)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,01:09)]It's only going to get worse.
I don't see how anybody can't just love your attitude. It's refreshing to see.
Well you know, I hope I am wrong. I'm for giving everyone a chance on the air. Unfortunately, most of the present NCT creme has floated to the top already and it's just hard to ignore the stupidity involved with not being able to operate on the right frequencies and not waiting until it is time.
But they know everything and don't need help from OFs.
And yet we have posts from those currently allowed HF ops wondering if it is OK to call outside of our bands to answer DX calls transmitting in their own allocated spaces.
Or those current ops who just do it.
Everybody check this out! Mike here is defending the diptard rule breaker NCTs mentioned in the title post. He uses the old ploy that if a guy is a child molester, he can drag a mass murder in next to him when looking in a mirror and say, "well he's worse than I am so I must be ok!"
We're talking about a handful of goob NCTs here. Is what they did right or wrong? No comparison to Charles Manson or Son of Sam. Simple question.
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Jan. 28 2007,08:44)]Here is what I think could happen.
1. There will be some who think they have privileges but in reality they don't.
2. They may camp out on 80, 40, 15 and 10 meter phone because they have confused their CW privileges with phone privileges.
3. Some will take the attitude that they will operate any were they want and dare someone to stop them.
4. Some OFs will begin to look up call signs and if they do not have the privileges, they will be told so.
5. The OFs are either going to be thanked for the heads up or will be blasted for being a snoop.
6. Logs will be kept by some concerning who is operating illegally, and those logs will be sent to the FCC for action.
7. The FCC may be come overwhelmed, as they did with CB in the 70s and 80s and say the hell with it, just get on and don't bother us any more.
Hopefully, we will not see this, but one needs to wonder how the enforcement will take place. Has anyone heard anything from the ARRL as it concerns the Official Observer program and how they will handle out of privilege operation?
73
George
K3UD
George,
As usual, you took what I was thinking will happen into a clear concise post. My prediction is in 5 years, the Ham bands will sound more like CB radio than today's Ham bands. Many comments to the FCC on 05-235 cautioned the FCC that their proposed action would bring about an enforcement situation beyond their ability to control. The bottom line was that we could never demonstrate regulatory purpose. The code test is history.
I plan to give everyone a fair shot. Hopefully the FCC will do their part with our help.
ai4ep
01-28-2007, 09:57 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif it is all down hill from here.
this is just an indication to what will happen even more in the future.
But I do have a question --- Did the folks who wanted " codeless hf privileges " want this kind / type of situation to happen, or even PLAN for this to happen ?
Who knows what EVIL lurks in some folks inner intentions ?
W5HTW
01-28-2007, 10:16 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,12:42)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Jan. 28 2007,08:44)]Here is what I think could happen.
1. There will be some who think they have privileges but in reality they don't.
2. They may camp out on 80, 40, 15 and 10 meter phone because they have confused their CW privileges with phone privileges.
3. Some will take the attitude that they will operate any were they want and dare someone to stop them.
4. Some OFs will begin to look up call signs and if they do not have the privileges, they will be told so.
5. The OFs are either going to be thanked for the heads up or will be blasted for being a snoop.
6. Logs will be kept by some concerning who is operating illegally, and those logs will be sent to the FCC for action.
7. The FCC may be come overwhelmed, as they did with CB in the 70s and 80s and say the hell with it, just get on and don't bother us any more.
Hopefully, we will not see this, but one needs to wonder how the enforcement will take place. Has anyone heard anything from the ARRL as it concerns the Official Observer program and how they will handle out of privilege operation?
73
George
K3UD
George,
As usual, you took what I was thinking will happen into a clear concise post. My prediction is in 5 years, the Ham bands will sound more like CB radio than today's Ham bands. Many comments to the FCC on 05-235 cautioned the FCC that their proposed action would bring about an enforcement situation beyond their ability to control. The bottom line was that we could never demonstrate regulatory purpose. The code test is history.
I plan to give everyone a fair shot. Hopefully the FCC will do their part with our help.
I, too, plan to give newcomers to HF the benefit of the doubt. If they follow the rules and good amateur operating procedures and polices, I will have no problem communicating with them, and welcoming them to HF.
The problem is I fear that will not be the case, as already mentioned. I think there are a sizable percentage of the newcomers who WILL be good hams. I don't want to lump everyone in that "CB migrant" bucket. But there are enough of those that I believe the on air sound of amateur radio will be very different. It has already happened not only with two meters, which became VHF CB/cell phone in the late 90s, but with the "I bought my license from my buddy VE" bunch in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That seriously affected the sound of the ham bands.
I don't believe the FCC can do as it did with CB, though, and simply throw in the towel. The reason is we have access to much more frequencies with reliable world wide coverage. We don't just interfere with the neighbor next door, and we don't interfere only when "skip" is out. We can do it all the time. Unless worldwide amateur radio is degraded into CB, we can't permit one nation to do it.
The FCC, if it reaches that point of frustration, would have to take far more drastic action. One possibility would be to limit ALL amateur radio operation to 10 meters and above. Get rid of all the HF bands 160 through 12. Allocate them to over the horizon radar, or high power HF military telemetry or other wide band high power services. I don't think the FCC could permit hams to "run wild" as they did with CB, because we are a borderless hobby.
Will they be facing that decision? Probably not. I do not think the majority of hams will be a serious problem. There may be enough of a problem, though, that the FCC may have to find a way to get more money for more enforcement capabilities.
What I really fear, I guess, is the on-air wars between the no-code newcomers and the with-code old timers. And in this instance, "old timers" will be anyone who took a code test, so that throws in all those licensed up through 2006 as well. We will have not two but three factions - the "old way" Morse testees, at 13 and 20, the "new way" ones at 5 wpm, and the "newest way" ones at zero wpm.
I do think there is going to be a LOT of on-air animosity at first, perhaps for months, perhaps for a year. But eventually it will settle down a lot. The question is, how much can the FCC - and ham radio - stand while we wait for the "eventually?"
Ed
K7JEM
01-29-2007, 12:49 AM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,12:42)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Jan. 28 2007,08:44)]Here is what I think could happen.
1. There will be some who think they have privileges but in reality they don't.
2. They may camp out on 80, 40, 15 and 10 meter phone because they have confused their CW privileges with phone privileges.
3. Some will take the attitude that they will operate any were they want and dare someone to stop them.
4. Some OFs will begin to look up call signs and if they do not have the privileges, they will be told so.
5. The OFs are either going to be thanked for the heads up or will be blasted for being a snoop.
6. Logs will be kept by some concerning who is operating illegally, and those logs will be sent to the FCC for action.
7. The FCC may be come overwhelmed, as they did with CB in the 70s and 80s and say the hell with it, just get on and don't bother us any more.
Hopefully, we will not see this, but one needs to wonder how the enforcement will take place. Has anyone heard anything from the ARRL as it concerns the Official Observer program and how they will handle out of privilege operation?
73
George
K3UD
George,
As usual, you took what I was thinking will happen into a clear concise post. My prediction is in 5 years, the Ham bands will sound more like CB radio than today's Ham bands. Many comments to the FCC on 05-235 cautioned the FCC that their proposed action would bring about an enforcement situation beyond their ability to control. The bottom line was that we could never demonstrate regulatory purpose. The code test is history.
I plan to give everyone a fair shot. Hopefully the FCC will do their part with our help.
George, your points are accurate. Some or all of those things are likely to occur. It is inevitable whenever a major change takes place. When 60M was allocated, many hams couldn't figure out how to get on the proper frequency, due to confusion.
The article doesn't quantify how many techs we are talking about here. Is it 20, 200, or 2000? We don't know. I expect some of this will occur, because many people are basically stupid. It doesn't matter if they are tech, general, or extra. In this case, techs are the ones who will get the blame. Rightfully so, in some cases. Blanket condemnation in others. The real problem will come from those who don't want to play by the rules. This has always been the case.
Charlie: I'm sure your prediction is wrong. We heard the same thing would happen to 2M after 1991. It didn't materialize. It won't happen this time either. Remember, most of the hams that move to HF will already have some sort of experience on VHF and UHF, so they won't be total newcomers.
In any event, we will need to work with the newbies and help them learn the ropes. That is the way they will become good ops.
Joe
WA2ZDY
01-29-2007, 01:13 AM
This lawlessness has been predicted for several years. If you can HONESTLY say you're surprised by these latest revelations, you've had your head in the sand, or in the pages of QSTreet.
I try to remain optimistic, but Mr Pessimism ends up never being disappointed.
PE1RDW
01-29-2007, 10:36 AM
From what I see those that jumped the gun on this one are no better or worse then all the other rule breakers on HF, it doesn't matter what licence class they have, it matters that they break the rules.
An extra jamming on 20 meters should be fined just like a tech working on 40 meters.
KI4NGN
01-29-2007, 10:43 AM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,12:35)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Jan. 28 2007,04:23)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,00:16)]Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 27 2007,23:19)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 28 2007,01:09)]It's only going to get worse.
I don't see how anybody can't just love your attitude. #It's refreshing to see.
Well you know, I hope I am wrong. #I'm for giving everyone a chance on the air. #Unfortunately, most of the present NCT creme has floated to the top already and it's just hard to ignore the stupidity involved with not being able to operate on the right frequencies and not waiting until it is time.
But they know everything and don't need help from OFs.
And yet we have posts from those currently allowed HF ops wondering if it is OK to call outside of our bands to answer DX calls transmitting in their own allocated spaces.
Or those current ops who just do it.
Everybody check this out! #Mike here is defending the diptard rule breaker NCTs mentioned in the title post. #He uses the old ploy that if a guy is a child molester, he can drag a mass murder in next to him when looking in a mirror and say, "well he's worse than I am so I must be ok!"
We're talking about a handful of goob NCTs here. Is what they did right or wrong? No comparison to Charles Manson or Son of Sam. #Simple question.
Charlie, how obtuse can you possibly be?
You were focusing on the mistakes of some newbies, and I pointed out that even those supposedly more qualified make mistakes or are ignorant of the rules.
Then I summarized by saying that people in general make mistakes. I didn't defend anyone, but pointed out the obvious to blunt the point that you were sticking into the newbies.
If you're going to quote me, at least put it all in there!
NN4RH
01-29-2007, 12:11 PM
I don't expect to see any increase in deliberate lawlessness on the ham bands. Probably a spike in the in number of mistakes made, though. One thing that the code test used to do is slow people down just enough that they couldn't help having some of the band limits etc creep into long term memory, whether tried to learn the rules or not.
The CB & freeband folk just are not interested in becoming hams. There will not be an invasion of CBers.
There will be a flood of upgrades over the coming couple of months, and over the next year or two a surge in the number of new hams - but I think these will be mostly people in their 30s and older who for whatever reason used to have an interest in ham radio but never acted on it.
There will not be any long-term increase in licensing rates of young people. There just is not a lot in ham radio that will hold any interest to kids.
Many of the new hams and upgraders will never get on HF at all.
Many of those who do get on HF, will become bored or disappointed with it within a few months and go inactive.
In the meantime, present hams will continue to die off.
Five years from now the ham bands will be practically empty of US hams during weekdays and evenings and weekends when there isn't a major contest - emptier than now, I mean.
KI4NGN
01-29-2007, 02:08 PM
Quote[/b] ]Five years from now the ham bands will be practically empty of US hams during weekdays and evenings and weekends when there isn't a major contest - emptier than now, I mean.
Hmmm... response to 'emptier'...
Many hams work during weekdays.
I'm not sure which bands you listen to or operate on, but evenings and weekends I find plenty of activity. Some bands are crowded. Don't forget that we're also at the bottom (hopefully) of the sunspot cycle. Things will pick up a lot when that cycle starts to swing back up!
I'm one of those who mostly avoid the bands when there is a contest going on. I don't think I'm the only one. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Mike
WA2ZDY
01-29-2007, 03:01 PM
Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Jan. 29 2007,07:11)]I don't expect to see any increase in deliberate lawlessness on the ham bands. Probably a spike in the in number of mistakes made, though.
I disagree. These are not mistakes. These are the folks figuring nobody will notice.
Quote[/b] ]The CB & freeband folk just are not interested in becoming hams. There will not be an invasion of CBers. You're half right. They don't want to be hams. But there will be an invasion. They won't be hams but they'll gladly accept the ever easier access to "more channels."
Quote[/b] ]There will be a flood of upgrades over the coming couple of months, and over the next year or two a surge in the number of new hams - but I think these will be mostly people in their 30s and older who for whatever reason used to have an interest in ham radio but never acted on it. Agreed. These will be the ones who waited "patiently" (or like a few regulars here - not so patiently) for the handout.
Quote[/b] ]There will not be any long-term increase in licensing rates of young people. There just is not a lot in ham radio that will hold any interest to kids.
Many of the new hams and upgraders will never get on HF at all.
Many of those who do get on HF, will become bored or disappointed with it within a few months and go inactive.
In the meantime, present hams will continue to die off.
Five years from now the ham bands will be practically empty of US hams during weekdays and evenings and weekends when there isn't a major contest - emptier than now, I mean. I agree with you fully on these points.
wa4ilh
01-29-2007, 03:07 PM
Actually, the FCC did not "give up" or "Throw in the towel" on CB in the 70's..... Congress did, ... by cutting their funding. I have never understood why congress left the FCC "out to dry" on funding. I thought they were doing a pretty good job.
... another point on misunderstanding the rules, I was listening to a couple of NCT's talking on one of the 2 m repeaters last week. They were asking about converting AM ONLY CB rigs to the "new" (sic) 10 meter band. When one of the OF's came on to tell them that AM was not authorized for Techs on 10 m, they started arguing with him and telling him that the rules had changed and that he needed the "get with the (new) times". These guys actually believed that they were right and he was "behind the times". How do you respond to this kind of ignorance?
Tom WA4ILH
kn4ds
01-29-2007, 03:45 PM
Quote[/b] (wa4ilh @ Jan. 29 2007,10:07)]They were asking about converting AM ONLY CB rigs to the "new" (sic) 10 meter band. When one of the OF's came on to tell them that AM was not authorized for Techs on 10 m, they started arguing with him and telling him that the rules had changed and that he needed the "get with the (new) times". These guys actually believed that they were right and he was "behind the times". How do you respond to this kind of ignorance?
Tom WA4ILH
All you can do is point them to part 97... 97.305 has notes 1, 2 and 10 for 28.3 to 28.5 MHz... referring to 97.307(f), which states right there in paragraph 10:
A station having a control operator holding a Novice Class operator license or aTechnician Class operator licenseand who has received crdit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements may only transmit a CW emission using the international Morse code or phone emissions J3E and R3E
Seems pretty clear to me...
The problem, of course, is getting them to look it up and understand what it means.... in this case, they'd probably insist that the 'new' rules weren't in force yet, but that they will include A3E... <shrug>
I dunno how to get past things like that. All anybody can do is try to point out the correct information... if they (and I include myself in this) won't listen, you've done all you can.
wa4ilh
01-29-2007, 04:15 PM
Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 29 2007,08:45)]... in accordance with the international requirements may only transmit a CW emission using the international Morse code or phone emissions J3E and R3E
Seems pretty clear to me...
The problem, of course, is getting them to look it up and understand what it means.... in this case, they'd probably insist that the 'new' rules weren't in force yet, but that they will include A3E... <shrug> ...
These idiots probably dont't even begin to unerstand the ITU emission designators. Is that even covered in the Tech test?
Tom WA4ILH
kn4ds
01-29-2007, 04:26 PM
Quote[/b] (wa4ilh @ Jan. 29 2007,11:15)]These idiots probably dont't even begin to unerstand the ITU emission designators. Is that even covered in the Tech test?
It's been quite some time since I took the Tech test... the question pool has changed since then, so I wouldn't want to hazard a guess... it seems like there might've been a question or two that asked about emission types, but I could just be imagining that from having dealt with them over the years.
NN4RH,
I started another topic on predictions. Please enter your predictions there as suggested in the first post. That's if you aren't afraid to. LOL!
W8FAX
01-29-2007, 06:41 PM
OO's do not "enforce" ANY regulations...........
KI4PEQ
01-29-2007, 11:58 PM
Quote[/b] (ku4my @ Jan. 27 2007,16:07)]Quote[/b] ]Topic: Techs Take to the Airwaves, Yep....too early.
Man 10m was really hopping the first day that the proposed R&O was posted on the ARRL website...... idiots, ya gotta love em. On the very first day, these diptards proved the reasoning behind the need for a 'poo' filter for getting onto the HF bands. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
And what would that "poo filter" be, a Morse test?
Proof positive that the Morse test was not a "poo filter" can be seen from some of the liddish and profane utterances from those who are proficient in Morse.
So Riley sends out a few letters slapping some hands, maybe fining a few of those newcomers who are a few bricks shy of a full load. Maybe Riley can send a few letters to those wazoos who have been hams for years, continue with bad operation and bad behavior, and should know better.
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Chicken Little lives on QRZ!
KI4PEQ
01-30-2007, 12:04 AM
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Jan. 28 2007,11:51)]Quote[/b] (kb5vez @ Jan. 28 2007,11:49)]Kinda like the Generals jumped the gun on Frequency allocation....It happens
Well, it shouldn't. #It is a requirement that you know the rules and regulations. #Otherwise, it's CB.
Every licensed amateur should:
1. #Have a current copy of Part 97 Rules and Regulations available.
2. #Understand those regulations to the extent that they adhere to them.
3. #Have a copy of current band charts so they know what frequencies are available to them.
4. #Understand the frequency allocations available to them.
5. #Have a copy of applicable bandplans to make it possible to adhere to those bandplans, including the "gentlemen's agreements".
6. #Conduct themselves on the air in a manner that doesn't lessen the enjoyment of others.
The above is a bare minimum. #If you cannot adhere to all of the above, then you have no business being an amateur radio operator.
Plain and simple, no excuses.
Well said. Advice I follow in my own shack. I'm new and have a lot to learn, and have not committed a lot to memory. If I have any question about operations, I look to the books. That's why I bought them.
Quote[/b] ]Quote (wa4ilh @ Jan. 29 2007,11:15)
These idiots probably dont't even begin to unerstand the ITU emission designators. Is that even covered in the Tech test?
It's been quite some time since I took the Tech test... the question pool has changed since then, so I wouldn't want to hazard a guess... it seems like there might've been a question or two that asked about emission types, but I could just be imagining that from having dealt with them over the years.
It used to be simple. As I recall,
A1 was CW
A2 was modulated CW
A3 was AM
A3J was SSB
A5 was Television
F1 was FSK
F3 was FM phone
etc.
Then they changed the designations and it's confusing.
Of course when we were required to keep logs, we tended to pay more attention to the mode designations since they were a required log entry.
K7JEM
01-30-2007, 06:06 PM
Those designators are mostly still good, they just have suffixes that tell what the modulation source is. A is telegraphy, D is data, E is voice, etc.
A1A
F3E
A3E
A1D would be on/off keyed data as opposed to telegraphy.
J3E is SSB.
Joe
Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Jan. 29 2007,03:43)]You were focusing on the mistakes of some newbies, and I pointed out that even those supposedly more qualified make mistakes or are ignorant of the rules.
Then I summarized by saying that people in general make mistakes. I didn't defend anyone, but pointed out the obvious to blunt the point that you were sticking into the newbies.
We're not talking about others breaking the rules, we're talking about these particular boobs. You call it an honest mistake, I call it being too stupid to know what they were doing before they transmit. If you try to explain away this NCT SNAFU, you're defending them.
So nice try trying to change the subject. LOL!!
K7JEM
01-30-2007, 06:07 PM
(1) The first symbol indicates the
type of modulation on the transmitter
carrier.
A—Amplitude modulation, double sideband
with identical information on each sideband.
F—Frequency modulation.
G—Phase modulation.
J—Single sideband with suppressed carrier.
P—Unmodulated pulse.
W—Cases not covered above, in which an
emission consists of the main carrier modulated,
either simultaneously or in a preestablished
sequence, in a combination of
two or more of the following modes: amplitude,
angle, pulse.
(2) The second symbol indicates the
type of signal modulating the transmitter
carrier.
0—No modulation.
1—Digital modulation, no subcarrier.
2—Digital modulation, modulated subcarrier.
3—Analog modulation.
(3) The third symbol indicates the
type of transmitted information.
A—Telegraphy for aural reception.
B—Telegraphy for machine reception.
C—Facsimile.
D—Data, telemetry, and telecommand.
E—Voice.
N—No transmitted information.
W—Combination of the above.
Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 29 2007,16:58)]Proof positive that the Morse test was not a "poo filter" can be seen from some of the liddish and profane utterances from those who are proficient in Morse.
It was more a "Poo Strainer". The some of the little biddy poo fell through and got in, but it kept out the big honkin' mega poo lumps. Proof? Look on QRZ who it kept out! ROFLMAO!!!
So please, lets get off this metaphoric journey...
K7JEM
01-30-2007, 06:21 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 30 2007,11:06)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Jan. 29 2007,03:43)]You were focusing on the mistakes of some newbies, and I pointed out that even those supposedly more qualified make mistakes or are ignorant of the rules.
Then I summarized by saying that people in general make mistakes. I didn't defend anyone, but pointed out the obvious to blunt the point that you were sticking into the newbies.
We're not talking about others breaking the rules, we're talking about these particular boobs. You call it an honest mistake, I call it being too stupid to know what they were doing before they transmit. If you try to explain away this NCT SNAFU, you're defending them.
So nice try trying to change the subject. LOL!!
We don't know enough about the cases to make a judgment call. People do stupid things all the time, I would expect some of these new hams to do some stupid things.
Generals and extras do stupid things too. I remember a couple of years ago, when 60M was authorized, so many of the extras and generals couldn't for the life of them figure out where to put their VFO so that they would be on channel.
If generals and extras were being given totally new bands, you would see the same confusion. It's not an issue with the hams being techs, it's an issue of the hams being stupid. The class of license is just something to glom onto, since these people are being watched like a hawk.
"See, See-- What did I tell you!! Lookie lookie, this guy didn't (insert favorite violation here)!"
Joe
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 30 2007,11:21)]We don't know enough about the cases to make a judgment call.
Let's see, on wrong frequencies, on before the rules take effect, on without a proper upgrade. Not much left for the imagination.
Quote[/b] ]Generals and extras do stupid things too.
True. Start your own thread and discuss it.
Quote[/b] ] It's not an issue with the hams being techs, it's an issue of the hams being stupid.
At least we agree on the stupid part. But it is really an issue of them being stupid Techs. Not all techs are stupid but these were.
K7JEM
01-30-2007, 08:38 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 30 2007,12:00)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 30 2007,11:21)]We don't know enough about the cases to make a judgment call.
Let's see, on wrong frequencies, on before the rules take effect, on without a proper upgrade. Not much left for the imagination.
Quote[/b] ]Generals and extras do stupid things too.
True. Start your own thread and discuss it.
Quote[/b] ] It's not an issue with the hams being techs, it's an issue of the hams being stupid.
At least we agree on the stupid part. But it is really an issue of them being stupid Techs. Not all techs are stupid but these were.
The first quote about a "judgment" is referring to the whole class of technicians. If only a few people did this, then that would be expected. If 2000 did this, then we can bring out a broader brush. If 50,000 did this, then we could pretty much condemn the whole class. Yes, what they did was wrong.
These were indeed stupid techs. That doesn't even seem debatable. But, as you say, not all techs are stupid. I would guess the ratio of stupid techs is about the same as generals and probably extras.
In the words of that other famous 4-lander, "Stupid is as stupid does".
Joe
I have to wonder why Joe keeps heavily defending NCT's who whine, cry and BREAK THE LAW!
KE5FRF
01-30-2007, 09:03 PM
W4GMP?
Quote[/b] ]In the words of that other famous 4-lander, "Stupid is as stupid does".
K7JEM
01-30-2007, 09:33 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 30 2007,14:01)]I have to wonder why Joe keeps heavily defending NCT's who whine, cry and BREAK THE LAW!
Not defending them, just pointing out that this is not ALL techs, just a very small minority. Generals and extras do similar things, or worse, yet we don't say "those stupid generals".
It is somewhat bigoted the way we throw labels around. Why even call these guys NCT's? Why not techs, or just hams? Everyone is on edge, expecting these newbies to screw up, and when they inevitably do, people scream "Told you so!". But every day on 75 and 20M much worse things go on, perpetuated by higher class licensees.
But let 10 techs get on because they're stupid, and don't understand the rules, and all hell breaks loose.
Joe
wb7dmx
01-30-2007, 09:49 PM
yep, and right here on qrz.
I only did one stupid thing.
when I went from novice to advanced, I made my first contact on the portion of the band for advanced only and let my fist do the talking by signing with my novice call.
that brought a notice from the fcc monitoring station.
KL1ZB
01-30-2007, 10:04 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 29 2007,15:01)]I have to wonder why Joe keeps heavily defending NCT's who whine, cry and BREAK THE LAW!
O GOD you are so right! Because we all know only NCT's break the law.
Please grow up.
KI4NGN
01-31-2007, 11:36 AM
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 30 2007,14:33)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 30 2007,14:01)]I have to wonder why Joe keeps heavily defending NCT's who whine, cry and BREAK THE LAW!
Not defending them, just pointing out that this is not ALL techs, just a very small minority. Generals and extras do similar things, or worse, yet we don't say "those stupid generals".
It is somewhat bigoted the way we throw labels around. Why even call these guys NCT's? Why not techs, or just hams? Everyone is on edge, expecting these newbies to screw up, and when they inevitably do, people scream "Told you so!". But every day on 75 and 20M much worse things go on, perpetuated by higher class licensees.
But let 10 techs get on because they're stupid, and don't understand the rules, and all hell breaks loose.
Joe
YO and MH have their minds made up, so there is no point in arguing with them.
They're focused on newbies screwing up, want the focus to remain there and have explicitly stated this a couple of times now. They doesn't care that everyone makes mistakes, stupid or not, they just want to be able to prove that newbies will be a problem, supporting their belief that removing the code skill test was a mistake.
If you point out that generals and extras make mistakes also, and stupid ones, or intentionally violate regulations, that kills their focus, so any attempt to do so is changing the subject or defending those who did wrong. They don't want you gumming up their argument that newbies will be a problem by pointing out that they are no different than all other ops.
Mike
N5PVL
01-31-2007, 12:16 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 28 2007,01:51)]So is it going to get worse or not?
Where are all of the folks that are going to "save" ham radio?
Well, they can hardly be expected to save ham radio until it has really been pushed to the brink, can they? - These folks may be destroying the hobby now but as everybody knows, when it comes down to the crunch they will suddenly change course and save the hobby!
What's the matter with you, don't you like heroes?
k6jpd
01-31-2007, 12:20 PM
From the ARRL Letter:
(edit for brevity)
Quote[/b] ].... Some Technician licensees reportedly ....
just kinda wondering about the "reportedly" statement.
why was this "reported" to the ARRL vice the FCC? (yes, i do understand who oversee's the "OO" program, but don't they officially make reports to the FCC and not the ARRL?)
has any of this actually been confirned and verified? #or is it perhaps, just a "planted "rumor?
guess we will just have to wait 'till the next NAL's are published to find out the truth.
KI4LFG
01-31-2007, 12:42 PM
Still rag chewing on 2m........
I also have a bandplan taped to my keyboard try on my desk and I am commonly listening to only the general portions of the band because I know when the 23rd comes I will need to know where my frequency privileges are.
Quote[/b] ]I also have a bandplan taped to my keyboard try on my desk and I am commonly listening to only the general portions of the band because I know when the 23rd comes I will need to know where my frequency privileges are.
And that's the way it should be done.
One of my elemers told me to listen for a week after I got my license to learn the lay of the land. Of course back then you could pretty much tell who was who by the type of call they had.
The FCC did a great disservice when they announced both the bandplan shuffle and the "gift" nearly at the same time. Still, those who violated the rules by transmitting illegally have pretty much proven they don't give a rat's hairy ass in a bonfire about following the rules or they'd have read them to be sure they were legal.
This was no "mistake". A mistake is when you get too close to a band edge or use the wrong mode in a part of the band. By transmitting on a band that they had no privi's on they're either drooling idiots, and shouldn't be Hams, or they could care less about the rules.
ai4ep
01-31-2007, 01:27 PM
I see by reading the posts JUST ON THIS PAGE of who supports the rule breakers and who does not.
simple & to the point
KI4NGN
01-31-2007, 01:43 PM
Quote[/b] ]This was no "mistake". A mistake is when you get too close to a band edge or use the wrong mode in a part of the band. By transmitting on a band that they had no privi's on they're either drooling idiots, and shouldn't be Hams, or they could care less about the rules.
I suppose the same could be said about those generals and extras who jumped the gun on the band changes also. They obviously don't care about the rules either.
N5PVL
01-31-2007, 01:53 PM
Every now and then, one of my teenagers try the "well, the other fellow did it and didn't get into trouble, so that means it's OK for me to do it" arguement.
They are teenagers... What's your excuse?
KI4NGN
01-31-2007, 02:11 PM
Charles, I have no need of excuses and am I not defending or excusing anyone else. If you follow my comments, all I have said is that it is bogus to focus on one group of operators because some of them may have done the same (type of) thing as others who come from the ranks of all other operators. This focus is being used to prove a point about that one group, and the fact that the general complaints about some from the one group can be applied to some for all ranks, refutes using that focus to make a point.
That is not a defense or an excuse, but a demonstration of the fallacy of this argument.
This argument is analogous to one about drivers under 17 years old. Someone may point out that some in that group are reckless drivers, which goes to show that those under 17 should not be allowed to drive. The response to that is that among the set of all drivers there are some who are reckless regardless of age, so this is not necessarily a valid argument to keep those younger drivers off the road. The verbage in this thread has more or less been I don't care about that fact, don't change the subject, there are drivers under 17 who are reckless, which proves that they (under 17) should not be allowed on the road.
This is not a defense of reckless drivers in any group, nor does it excuse them. It merely points out the fallacy of using this as an argument.
Mike
kn4ds
01-31-2007, 02:18 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 31 2007,08:13)]This was no "mistake". A mistake is when you get too close to a band edge or use the wrong mode in a part of the band. By transmitting on a band that they had no privi's on they're either drooling idiots, and shouldn't be Hams, or they could care less about the rules.
I agree. I made a mistake last night when I switched from 20m to 40m, and couldn't understand a thing that was said... oh yeah, change to LSB, dumbass (which is what I said to myself)... that's a mistake.
As a technician, operating on HF is verboten... period. I don't have privileges there.
But then, I can read, and comprehend mostly, even though I did go to public school in Oklahoma. I knew that the R&O did not go into effect immediately, because in reading it, it had "[effective date]," which led me to believe the actual date was not known.
I read the entry in the Federal Register when it did appear, and it clearly states the effective date.
None of that was hard, even for a low-life no-code tech that went to public school in rural Oklahoma. Whether the rule-breakers were worse off in the mental midget department than I am, or just didn't care, I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 30 2007,16:33)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 30 2007,14:01)]I have to wonder why Joe keeps heavily defending NCT's who whine, cry and BREAK THE LAW!
Not defending them, just pointing out that this is not ALL techs, just a very small minority. Generals and extras do similar things, or worse, yet we don't say "those stupid generals".
You have to look at yourself.
Anytime someone says anything about any of the codeless folks you automatically go into defense mode.
Quote[/b] ]
It is somewhat bigoted the way we throw labels around. Why even call these guys NCT's? Why not techs, or just hams?
NCT is easier to type than "Technician". "Tech" has a different meaning. I generally use "Tech" to refer to someone that does something at least a little bit technical with radios, like fix or install them for others.
Calling them just "hams" won't work when referring to one license class.
Quote[/b] ] Everyone is on edge, expecting these newbies to screw up, and when they inevitably do, people scream "Told you so!". But every day on 75 and 20M much worse things go on, perpetuated by higher class licensees.
Not on edge here, Joe. I'm only expecting some people to screw up because of the attitude they've displayed. All Knobs To The Right, run as much power as possible into my almighty G5RV in an attempt to drown out everyone who dares challenge me.
Or the "I'm young so I'm going to save ham radio and take it away from you old farts" (said by hams who are older than me) folks.
Or my personal favorite, "I know everything because I've been on 11 meters since even before marconi (or whoever) invented radio!" Right. We get it. 11 meters is a shining example of excellent radio operators. We should all bow and kiss your feet because you are the almighty king of 11 meters, and your kingdom has now been expanded into ham radio. Riiiiiiiight.
Quote[/b] ]But let 10 techs get on because they're stupid, and don't understand the rules, and all hell breaks loose.
Joe
You chalk it up to stupidity and not understanding the rules, I chalk it up to a little stupidity, the reliance on hearsay and the attitude of break the law now because the code is going away anyway and no one will notice.
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 03:32 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,07:30)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 30 2007,16:33)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 30 2007,14:01)]I have to wonder why Joe keeps heavily defending NCT's who whine, cry and BREAK THE LAW!
Not defending them, just pointing out that this is not ALL techs, just a very small minority. Generals and extras do similar things, or worse, yet we don't say "those stupid generals".
You have to look at yourself.
Anytime someone says anything about any of the codeless folks you automatically go into defense mode.
I go into defense mode only when blanket statements of condemnation are used. If someone does something stupid, or illegal, then that person has done something stupid and illegal, not the whole group. As a matter of fact, we don't know how many people are even involved here, or really even if the accusations are true. In a sense, everyone here is going off "half cocked", based on a single report, without names, callsigns, length of time, how many were involved, etc.
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,07:30)]
Quote[/b] ]
It is somewhat bigoted the way we throw labels around. Why even call these guys NCT's? Why not techs, or just hams?
NCT is easier to type than "Technician". "Tech" has a different meaning. I generally use "Tech" to refer to someone that does something at least a little bit technical with radios, like fix or install them for others.
Calling them just "hams" won't work when referring to one license class.
Why not just call them "Ts" then? Why the NCT? It is no longer relevant, at least after the 23 of Feb. NCT is simply a derogatory way of referring to techs. Now, no class of license will require the code, so maybe we'll just get back to E,A,G,T,N. Oh, but there will be those that want to differentiate themselves. They'll be a "G", the newbies will be "NCG".
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,07:30)]
Quote[/b] ] Everyone is on edge, expecting these newbies to screw up, and when they inevitably do, people scream "Told you so!". But every day on 75 and 20M much worse things go on, perpetuated by higher class licensees.
Not on edge here, Joe. I'm only expecting some people to screw up because of the attitude they've displayed. All Knobs To The Right, run as much power as possible into my almighty G5RV in an attempt to drown out everyone who dares challenge me.
Or the "I'm young so I'm going to save ham radio and take it away from you old farts" (said by hams who are older than me) folks.
Or my personal favorite, "I know everything because I've been on 11 meters since even before marconi (or whoever) invented radio!" Right. We get it. 11 meters is a shining example of excellent radio operators. We should all bow and kiss your feet because you are the almighty king of 11 meters, and your kingdom has now been expanded into ham radio. Riiiiiiiight.
Your personal favorite is demonstrated every day right here on QRZ. But they use ham radio instead of CB. "I've been licensed since before the tests went to multiple choice". I've met plenty of oldtimers that don't know which way is up, but that doesn't mean that all oltimers are bad. Same thing with CB types. You can gain a lot of experience in CB, and most of it may be good. A lot is bad, too.
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,07:30)]
Quote[/b] ]But let 10 techs get on because they're stupid, and don't understand the rules, and all hell breaks loose.
Joe
You chalk it up to stupidity and not understanding the rules, I chalk it up to a little stupidity, the reliance on hearsay and the attitude of break the law now because the code is going away anyway and no one will notice.
Why would anyone think no-one would notice? Does anyone notice generals who operate in the extra portions? Sure, but it happens all the time. Those that just don't know better move back to their allocation. The jerks stay there, and are defiant. What was the attitude of these techs? It wasn't pointed out now was it? They may have immediately shut down, when they realized their error. Or they may have continued, we just don't know. I think if they had been defiant, it would have been pointed out. "And when these technicians were told they were not authorized, they just laughed and carried on anyway." Truly, thats what YOU want, and thats what YOU are hoping for. You want it because that is what must happen, in your mind. You have a psychological vested interest in seeing that these guys "screw up" royally.
Joe
Quote[/b] ]I suppose the same could be said about those generals and extras who jumped the gun on the band changes also. They obviously don't care about the rules either.
I have no problem with that either.
You either have standards and rules and enforce them or you don't. It was decided a long time ago that ignorance of the rules is not an acceptable excuse. It's the Ham's responsibility to keep track of and know the rules as they apply to their license class.
If you don't know for sure don't transmit till you do. Pretty easy to figure out unless you're trying to "get one over on everybody else".
W3MIV
01-31-2007, 03:54 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 31 2007,11:37)]Quote[/b] ]I suppose the same could be said about those generals and extras who jumped the gun on the band changes also. They obviously don't care about the rules either.
I have no problem with that either.
You either have standards and rules and enforce them or you don't. It was decided a long time ago that ignorance of the rules is not an acceptable excuse. It's the Ham's responsibility to keep track of and know the rules as they apply to their license class.
If you don't know for sure don't transmit till you do. Pretty easy to figure out unless you're trying to "get one over on everybody else".
One can easily (and accurately) extrapolate this entire debate to almost every aspect of American society today -- perhaps even more than just American society, but all of Western civilization.
Though you are correct in your evaluation of standards, Kevin, the failing applies universally. Travel and Interstate at the speed limit and you will impede traffic, bringing one-finger salute upon another. When was the last time you saw anyone actually stop at a stop sign? Or before turning right at a red signal?
Amateur radio is merely following the course of the rest of our society, and more and more people are comfortable with a sliding scale of obeisance that fits their ease rather than their obligations.
I applaud your resolve to hold a line, but I believe you are doomed to repeated disappointment.
Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Jan. 31 2007,04:36)]YO and MH have their minds made up, so there is no point in arguing with them.
They're focused on newbies screwing up, want the focus to remain there and have explicitly stated this a couple of times now. They doesn't care that everyone makes mistakes, stupid or not, they just want to be able to prove that newbies will be a problem, supporting their belief that removing the code skill test was a mistake.
I don't know who is goofier, you or BZ trying to impress someone with his 2X2 technician call. ROFLMAO!!! All I want is that the NCTs who read this not to ignore the stupidity of what these people (in the ARRL Letter) did by making half-a##ed excuses like you guys are doing. There are mistakes, and then there is just being stupid. These folks are in catagory #2. This wasn't a simple being on the wrong frequency error. This was a wrong frequency, unauthorized license class, wrong date issue of having their HUA. My hope is that techs will read this and study up on their band limits, what is needed for getting on the air as a General, and know that the date is 2/23 and not before. These goobs and their defenders make things bad for the NCTs who are trying to do it the right way.
That "other people do it" is the new PC justification for doing stupid things and justifying them to yourself. So let's be clear. These folks were wrong, no matter what everyone else does.
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 04:06 PM
I totally agree, Charlie. These people and others are just stupid. There is no other way to describe it.
The fact that this happened on Dec 15 tells me a lot. On that day, the announcement was made, but few details were given. Stupid people interpreted it to mean that they just had all privileges now, without giving it a second thought. Kind of like Forrest Gump jumping off the shrimp boat that he was piloting.
Now Gump was a hero and a vet. But he did some stupid things, so don't come down on me for that statement.
And thats all I have to say about that.
Joe
Yeah Joe, hopefully they learned their lesson and will turn out to be great Amateurs...
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 04:09 PM
Stupid is as stupid does.
PE1RDW
01-31-2007, 05:39 PM
I wonder how many stupid folks run into a tech+ or tech with CW certificate on HF and asume that they are iligal, afterall from what I understand those will show up as tech in the licence database
Tech+ shows up in the db as Technician Plus
Tech with element 1 will show up as Technician.
Quote[/b] ]One can easily (and accurately) extrapolate this entire debate to almost every aspect of American society today -- perhaps even more than just American society, but all of Western civilization.
Though you are correct in your evaluation of standards, Kevin, the failing applies universally. Travel and Interstate at the speed limit and you will impede traffic, bringing one-finger salute upon another. When was the last time you saw anyone actually stop at a stop sign? Or before turning right at a red signal?
Amateur radio is merely following the course of the rest of our society, and more and more people are comfortable with a sliding scale of obeisance that fits their ease rather than their obligations.
I applaud your resolve to hold a line, but I believe you are doomed to repeated disappointment.
Of course you are correct.
In the space of two generations we have gone from "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", to, "I want it now and I'll follow the rules as long as it's convenient, or doesn't cramp my fun".
If one NCT reads this and decides to do things the right way then my "jousting" will have been worth it.
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 06:42 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,10:56)]Tech+ shows up in the db as Technician Plus
Tech with element 1 will show up as Technician.
My understanding is that tech+ that was renewed within a certain window shows up as technician, even though they are tech+. Very confusing, to say the least. But I'll bet money that more than one legit tech+ has been hassled by a stupid general or advanced.
Kind of a moot point in about 24 days.
Joe
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,13:42)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,10:56)]Tech+ shows up in the db as Technician Plus
Tech with element 1 will show up as Technician.
My understanding is that tech+ that was renewed within a certain window shows up as technician, even though they are tech+. Very confusing, to say the least. But I'll bet money that more than one legit tech+ has been hassled by a stupid general or advanced.
Kind of a moot point in about 24 days.
Joe
Agreed, but I kinda doubt that all of these Tech+'s came out of the woodwork within the last month or so, don't ya think? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,10:56)]Tech+ shows up in the db as Technician Plus
Tech with element 1 will show up as Technician.
The AE7Q site downloads from the FCC site and has what a person's code profeciency is. It will be useful after 2/23, you can look at code profeciency and previous license class. No need to look up the hard working newbees to HF if they are polite and get along with others. But if you get a real knothead, you can look him up and see if he is a new licensee or one of the few NCT whiners who upgraded.
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 06:55 PM
It's easy enough to check tech+ status if they've been licensed for some time. The ones that no one knows about are the techs with a CSCE.
It would be a simple matter for a tech to get on the tech+ bands right now, and claim that he has a CSCE. Who would know? By the time anyone got around to checking, it wouldn't matter. No one would make a bid deal about it unless they knew for sure that the CSCE didn't exist.
The VEC's should have been required to post the calls of those that had obtained a 5wpm CSCE, both for their protection and to prevent abuse.
That was always a crappy way of doing things by the FCC. I'm glad it will soon be over.
Joe
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 06:58 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 31 2007,11:52)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,10:56)]Tech+ shows up in the db as Technician Plus
Tech with element 1 will show up as Technician.
The AE7Q site downloads from the FCC site and has what a person's code profeciency is. It will be useful after 2/23, you can look at code profeciency and previous license class. No need to look up the hard working newbees to HF if they are polite and get along with others. But if you get a real knothead, you can look him up and see if he is a new licensee or one of the few NCT whiners who upgraded.
But does it list those that were operating with a CSCE? Thats the real problem. Someone accusing another of being an NCT when in fact he isn't. No real way to prove or disprove it, without looking at the actual document. Guy might have gotten a CSCE at the last test session, who knows?
Joe
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,13:55)]It's easy enough to check tech+ status if they've been licensed for some time. The ones that no one knows about are the techs with a CSCE.
It would be a simple matter for a tech to get on the tech+ bands right now, and claim that he has a CSCE. Who would know? By the time anyone got around to checking, it wouldn't matter. No one would make a bid deal about it unless they knew for sure that the CSCE didn't exist.
The VEC's should have been required to post the calls of those that had obtained a 5wpm CSCE, both for their protection and to prevent abuse.
That was always a crappy way of doing things by the FCC. I'm glad it will soon be over.
Joe
That's true but Tech+ status doesn't give you any rights to transmit on 75m phone or 20m.
Quote[/b] ]The VEC's should have been required to post the calls of those that had obtained a 5wpm CSCE, both for their protection and to prevent abuse.
Why doesn't the NCVEC keep a database like that?
You should be able to go to any of the member VEC's websites and check on outstanding CSCE's for any call or individual using the same info that VEC's send the the FCC, well except for Extra's.
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,13:58)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 31 2007,11:52)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,10:56)]Tech+ shows up in the db as Technician Plus
Tech with element 1 will show up as Technician.
The AE7Q site downloads from the FCC site and has what a person's code profeciency is. It will be useful after 2/23, you can look at code profeciency and previous license class. #No need to look up the hard working newbees to HF if they are polite and get along with others. #But if you get a real knothead, you can look him up and see if he is a new licensee or one of the few NCT whiners who upgraded.
But does it list those that were operating with a CSCE? Thats the real problem. Someone accusing another of being an NCT when in fact he isn't. No real way to prove or disprove it, without looking at the actual document. Guy might have gotten a CSCE at the last test session, who knows?
Joe
With the ease of element 3 I really doubt many techs would be walking around with a CSCE for element 1.
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,11:58)]But does it list those that were operating with a CSCE? Thats the real problem. Someone accusing another of being an NCT when in fact he isn't. No real way to prove or disprove it, without looking at the actual document. Guy might have gotten a CSCE at the last test session, who knows?
Joe
ROFLMAO!!!! If he is a good Amateur, he won't have anything to worry about. But IF he is a doofus, and IF he got his certificate at the last minute and IF they didn't get it filed before 2/23, then that one guy out of 100,000 I will gladly apologize to. The others are busted!
kn4ds
01-31-2007, 07:38 PM
Of course, such a Tech with a CSCE should expect he might be challenged, and get someone to scan in the CSCE so he could email to any who question it.
But I really doubt there are that many in that situation.
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 07:56 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,12:03)]With the ease of element 3 I really doubt many techs would be walking around with a CSCE for element 1.
There are lots of them, right now. That's what I am talking about. Right now, if you are a tech with a csce, you are legal on certain HF bands. There is no way to prove that a person has a CSCE, so no way to check up on techs that might be "cheating". Every other ham class is verifiable, but not this one. Not totally, at least
Joe
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 08:04 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 31 2007,12:03)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,11:58)]But does it list those that were operating with a CSCE? Thats the real problem. Someone accusing another of being an NCT when in fact he isn't. No real way to prove or disprove it, without looking at the actual document. Guy might have gotten a CSCE at the last test session, who knows?
Joe
ROFLMAO!!!! If he is a good Amateur, he won't have anything to worry about. But IF he is a doofus, and IF he got his certificate at the last minute and IF they didn't get it filed before 2/23, then that one guy out of 100,000 I will gladly apologize to. The others are busted!
So, if you run into a tech on 10M SSB, and he's a good op, you don't care if he's "cheating" or not?
Thats what I'm talking about. Verification. Every other license class is easily verifiable, but not tech with code.
Anyway, doesn't matter now. It just kind of bugged me that a person could get on without the code, and no-one would really know if he was authorized, since you just go on the word of the tech. "Yeah, got my CSCE right here."
On the flip side, how many techs with code have been hassled on 10M SSB because the data base shows them as tech. Unfairly accused as it were.
Joe
kn4ds
01-31-2007, 08:14 PM
It's only in the last few years that anything's been easily verifiable.
What did you do before when all you had was an outdated callbook?
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 08:23 PM
Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 31 2007,13:14)]It's only in the last few years that anything's been easily verifiable.
What did you do before when all you had was an outdated callbook?
But it was verifiable, even if it was difficult to call the FCC, or use some other source.
This is totally non-verifiable, either way. The only person that knows is the ham with the CSCE. I don't think the VECs keep that info, or even have it available to the public, since they don't have to.
The ham isn't required to make copies of his CSCE, or scan and post it. Even if he did, it wouldn't mean much, could be fake.
You can't fake a license, they are recorded at the FCC. So if that is your name, callsign, and address, at least you know that the license is real. It's public info.
Joe
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,14:56)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,12:03)]With the ease of element 3 I really doubt many techs would be walking around with a CSCE for element 1.
There are lots of them, right now. That's what I am talking about. Right now, if you are a tech with a csce, you are legal on certain HF bands. There is no way to prove that a person has a CSCE, so no way to check up on techs that might be "cheating". Every other ham class is verifiable, but not this one. Not totally, at least
Joe
I doubt that the majority of active techs or even a significant number have an element 1 certificate and haven't upgraded to General yet.
Why stay at Tech with HF when you can take an easy test and get General?
Oh I get it, this is a loophole so your lawbreaking NCT buddies can get off the hook easily, huh?
Nice try, but ROFLOL!
kn4ds
01-31-2007, 08:27 PM
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,15:23)]This is totally non-verifiable, either way. The only person that knows is the ham with the CSCE. I don't think the VECs keep that info, or even have it available to the public, since they don't have to.
The ham isn't required to make copies of his CSCE, or scan and post it. Even if he did, it wouldn't mean much, could be fake.
You can't fake a license, they are recorded at the FCC. So if that is your name, callsign, and address, at least you know that the license is real. It's public info.
Joe
I realize that even a scan and/or fax of the CSCE could be faked. Obviously, all you can do is trust the operator...
Of course, if they're on phone anywhere but 28.3-28.5 (on HF... don't want anybody comin' after me for checking in to the 2m net!), they're operating beyond their privileges anyway.
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 08:29 PM
Very true.
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 08:43 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,13:27)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,14:56)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,12:03)]With the ease of element 3 I really doubt many techs would be walking around with a CSCE for element 1.
There are lots of them, right now. That's what I am talking about. Right now, if you are a tech with a csce, you are legal on certain HF bands. There is no way to prove that a person has a CSCE, so no way to check up on techs that might be "cheating". Every other ham class is verifiable, but not this one. Not totally, at least
Joe
I doubt that the majority of active techs or even a significant number have an element 1 certificate and haven't upgraded to General yet.
Why stay at Tech with HF when you can take an easy test and get General?
Oh I get it, this is a loophole so your lawbreaking NCT buddies can get off the hook easily, huh?
Nice try, but ROFLOL!
Man Ryan, I really don't know what your problem is. I'm not trying to get anyone off the hook for anything, just explaining that this is one class of license that is totally unverifiable.
I'm sure there are many techs out there with code, probably thousands of them, that can't be verified, other than through their own word.
This has been a problem for everyone, if we are concerned about "cheating". It was a mistake for the FCC to do this, without indicating on the license that the person has passed code.
Thats all. No hidden agenda, not covering for anyone. This is just an answer to Andre's post:
Quote[/b] ]I wonder how many stupid folks run into a tech+ or tech with CW certificate on HF and asume that they are iligal, afterall from what I understand those will show up as tech in the licence database
Joe
W5IEI
01-31-2007, 09:32 PM
What Ryan is getting at is:
If the lazy slobs indeed passed a code test,why aren't they Generals?
It's that simple.
Got a simple answer?
I'll go by the AE7Q database. No reasonable doubt exists. In the one in a million chance I am wrong, I'll gladly apologize.
The odds against what you suggest are phenominal.
wb7dmx
01-31-2007, 09:53 PM
Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ Jan. 31 2007,14:32)]What Ryan is getting at is:
If the lazy slobs indeed passed a code test,why aren't they Generals?
It's that simple.
Got a simple answer?
maybe because they have not passed the general exam yet.
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 09:55 PM
Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ Jan. 31 2007,14:32)]What Ryan is getting at is:
If the lazy slobs indeed passed a code test,why aren't they Generals?
It's that simple.
Got a simple answer?
I guess the same reason some generals aren't extras. If a lazy slob tech+ won't become a general, what is the excuse for a general not becoming an extra?
I know a few generals who have not made it to extra, do you know anyone like that?
Joe
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 10:01 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Jan. 31 2007,14:50)]I'll go by the AE7Q database. No reasonable doubt exists. In the one in a million chance I am wrong, I'll gladly apologize.
The odds against what you suggest are phenominal.
No, they're not phenomenal. There are thousands of techs who have earned tech+ or have a CSCE, yet if you check the QRZ database, they will show tech.
The older tech+ will show up on the FCC website, if you go that far, and know what to look for. The ops with CSCE only will not show up anywhere. There are hundreds or thousands of those.
Joe
Joe, the number of techs who have a CSCE for element 1 and haven't upgraded to General are a small minority.
Judging by how easy the general exam is, I am betting that almost no one who is active remains a tech with HF for a long time.
ai4ep
01-31-2007, 10:09 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Methinks this is a pretty good discussion.
On one side you have folks that will argue with a stop sign.
On the other side you have those that are beating their head against a brick wall.
Your guess which is which.
Keep on going, give the rest of us something to laugh at....you are doing great. Working on 5 full pages of this situation.
K7JEM
01-31-2007, 11:08 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 31 2007,15:07)]Joe, the number of techs who have a CSCE for element 1 and haven't upgraded to General are a small minority.
Judging by how easy the general exam is, I am betting that almost no one who is active remains a tech with HF for a long time.
I guess you are probably right. But a small minority could be a very large number.
If your argument is true, then the same must be said of generals. Why would a person remain at general, if the extra written is so easy (which it is)? Maybe other factors exist in a person's desire to upgrade.
I am not here to argue the specific numbers, because I don't think anyone really knows. The fact is, there are "some", and that could be quite a few, numerically.
I personally know one tech+, maybe more. There are thousands out there, and many are active. There are thousands of novices too, and many of them are active.
But back to the point, there are some techs "posing" as tech+ without anyone knowing any better. And there are hams that work tech+ stations, and swear (wrongly) that they are bootlegging. Both things would have been rectified by a published database. But it really doesn't matter now.
Joe
ai4ep
02-01-2007, 12:02 AM
It does too matter.
Communicating with an unlicensed station ( accidental or on purpose ) is still illegal ( in the eyes of the FCC ) .
illegal is still illegal, no amount of large wordings can get around it.
You break the rules, you should pay the maximum price.
-- simple & to-the-point --
kn4ds
02-01-2007, 12:33 AM
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,18:08)]If your argument is true, then the same must be said of generals. Why would a person remain at general, if the extra written is so easy (which it is)? Maybe other factors exist in a person's desire to upgrade.
I dunno... I know some techs who passed the code, but the "General Written" seems hard to them. Maybe they've not picked up a book and actually looked at the question pool, maybe they're not interested. I don't know the reason. But they've chosen not to take element 3.
The same can be said for the generals... the extra "seems" hard. That's what they've always heard. So maybe they just accept that, and are happy with the privileges they have. Again, I don't know.
I do know that as the question pools changed, the General (and Extra, for that matter) written exam has gotten easier for me. Or maybe I'm just retaining information better... maybe the pools aren't composed of easier questions (though I do remember that there used to be diagrams of transistors on the Tech exam and you had to determine the transistor type, and now I think the only diagrams at all are of logic gates and a couple of small circuits on the Extra).
You're right, though, there are other factors in people's desire to upgrade.
ai4ep
02-01-2007, 12:38 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif With all due respect, the EXTRA test was / is easier then the GENERAL test...but there are more questions to answer and so therefore, the test takes longer, which requires a tad bit more effort from you, the dude that answers the questions.
IMHO ( which has been said before ) the WRITTEN tests were easier than the old 5 wpm cw test................so...if the FCC eliminated the tough part, the easy part should allow more highly educated , and open minded individuals to move to the top of the class ( EXTRA ) with little or no effort....leaving the ones who aint gonna try anyway to remain where they are, and just renew their licenses every 10 years.
But back to the topic of this thread --- breaking the rules IS breaking the rules, and those guilty should be fined to the maximum monetary limit & / or jail time & / or license lost, or all three. No one " spiked the mike " but the guilty, and they SHOULD be punished
. IF I ( ai4ep ) were found guilty of even the minorest FCC offense, most of you would want me burned at the stake, with the remains devoured by starving rabid blue eyed 3 legged 6 toed opossums...and then the next day, do it again with the tid bits left over from the first nights events. I know how bloodthirsty some of you are. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
kn4ds
02-01-2007, 12:58 AM
Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Jan. 31 2007,19:38)]breaking the rules IS breaking the rules, and those guilty should be fined to the maximum monetary limit & / or jail time & / or license lost, or all three. No one " spiked the mike " but the guilty, and they SHOULD be punished
Agreed.
Anyway, my attitude is, that since we don't know who is who, and since it's highly possible that someone may be jumping the gun, a gentle reminder that they're exceeding their privs is in order.
If they say, "well I'm a tech with an element 1 cert" okay. QSO with them, but put a note to the FCC. The worst that will happen is they'll get a rileygram asking them to explain, and at that point they'll just reply with a copy of their element 1 cert. No harm done, just giving gov't employees some work to do.
If they say, "stfu old farts, go home, we rule ham radio, yeehaaw!" then the gloves are off and the FCC gets a nice little email and a recording of their transmission.
I was welcomed around these parts when I got my first ticket and intend to reciprocate. That’s just how it’s done around here. I would find it hard to believe that anyone would get dinged by an OO for asking, “Do you have your Element 1 endorsement, if not I am afraid I cannot talk to you until either you do, or after February the 23rd, whichever comes first? If you are currently a no-code Tech, sorry, but I must say 73 until the changes take effect.” At that point, the person would respond one way or the other. There is a difference, in my opinion, in operating licensed or unlicensed, just as there is within ones allowed frequency allocation or not. If the guy has a license, but is not within his allocation, tell him, or inquire as to whether or not he in fact has the privileges to be where he is. If he or she is where they do not belong, they now understand that and the QSO has come to an immediate end.
Now, all of this said, I understand it is not nearly enough drama and excitement for many of us here who pride themselves in being complete horse’s arses about everything in life and why on earth some of you guys got into a hobby that essentially puts you in a position of communicating with others (unless you are an RC modeler or a nut case who got into the hobby for the sole purpose of being an OO) is completely beyond me.
I will not resort to bringing this down to the usual low that most of these threads reach based on what call area you are in versus me. Suffice it to say that after coming to this country, I have lived 100% of my time in the call area where I and my family have always been most comfortable. Unless I have not been very observant over these last 40 year, I feel this is as true as gospel to me. Those of you in other areas where being friendly or sociable or helping and communicating with others are the exception to the norm, tough luck, deal with it. A dollar to a doughnut says that I will never be dinged by a local OO to my area for asking if the station trying to initiate a QSO with me is appropriately licensed to do so.
kn4ds
02-01-2007, 02:12 AM
There will be those who upgrade after 2/23, and there will be some who don't believe the /AG or /AE. Simple enough to wait a week or so on those to show up on ULS, though.
I agree with MH... a note to the Commission won't hurt anything, and when they reply to a query from Riley with a copy of the CSCE, end of story. If I were in that situation, as soon as I got the letter from Riley, I'd just call him the next day and fax the CSCE to him.
Joe,
Give me the call sign of a technician who currently has a CW certificate but has not upgraded. Since the certificate conveys additional tech privleges today, the info would have to be sent to the FCC. Give me a couple of examples and we'll find out.
Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Jan. 31 2007,15:09)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Methinks this is a pretty good discussion.
On one side you have folks that will argue with a stop sign.
On the other side you have those that are beating their head against a brick wall.
Your guess which is which.
Keep on going, give the rest of us something to laugh at....you are doing great. Working on 5 full pages of this situation.
...part of the QRZ noise floor, like jty.
K7JEM
02-01-2007, 02:24 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Feb. 01 2007,05:38)]Joe,
Give me the call sign of a technician who currently has a CW certificate but has not upgraded. Since the certificate conveys additional tech privleges today, the info would have to be sent to the FCC. Give me a couple of examples and we'll find out.
Right off hand, I'm not sure of anyone I know who has a tech with CSCE. I know a tech+ who is listed as a tech, if you run the callsign here at QRZ.
Problem is, like you, I don't generally know the license class of the people I talk to. Since 95% of my operation is VHF+, they could have any class, other than novice.
Joe
KI4SQT
02-01-2007, 02:31 PM
Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Jan. 30 2007,19:02)]It does too matter.
Communicating with an unlicensed station ( accidental or on purpose ) is still illegal ( in the eyes of the FCC ) .
illegal is still illegal, no amount of large wordings can get around it.
You break the rules, you should pay the maximum price.
-- simple & to-the-point --
This sounds like a speach from a hanging judge...
Just what did you Perry Mason types do before the days when... you hear a new call sign, you just bring it up on the computer...Did you send a question to Riley by pack mule...or what? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Through the wide resources of AG4YO News, we've gotten our hands on a snapshot of one of the doofus NCT perpetrators. Here it is...
K7JEM
02-01-2007, 04:56 PM
That is too funny, Charlie!
What a hoot!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Joe
K9STH
02-01-2007, 05:48 PM
YO:
The information on passing Element 1 ONLY was NOT sent to the FCC in any shape or form. If the person upgraded to either General or Extra then the fact that the person passed Element 1 is conveyed to the FCC. But, for those Technician Class licensees who received a CSCE for Element 1 and thus got HF privileges no notification was given the FCC. The licensee is required to maintain his/her copy of the CSCE for passing Element 1 in their station records if questioned by the FCC.
I know of a local teenage Technician Class licensee that had someone file an official complaint to the FCC about operation on HF. The FCC did contact the Technician Class licensee about this and the FCC also sent a letter of apology to the licensee when a copy of the CSCE was furnished to the FCC.
Of course barring any unforseen circumstances this will be "moot" come the 23rd of this month.
Glen, K9STH
kn4ds
02-01-2007, 05:56 PM
Quote[/b] (K9STH @ Feb. 01 2007,12:48)]Of course barring any unforseen circumstances this will be "moot" come the 23rd of this month.
Glen, K9STH
Thanks for that story about the local ham... sounds like it was handled well...
I'm a little surprised that I've not seen any news of a petition for reconsideration... I'd have thought someone would file one, if for no other reason than to forestall the effective date.
Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Jan. 27 2007,18:21)]Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Jan. 27 2007,19:51)]Those who were not groomed on CB were groomed on Instant Messaging, where there are even less rules (below zero) than CB.
Are our wounds mortal? #Or can we actually make hams out of these "yeah, right" snickering newbies? #We have no choice but to try.
Ed
I think you're mostly correct, and I'm glad to be the exception to both of those rules.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've even keyed a CB, and I've never owned one.
I learned about ham operations from some long, LONG time hams, myself, in 1995, when there was no such thing as Instant Messaging and even public access to the Internet was in its infancy.
I don't like "slang" on the air myself... can't stand that CB garbage when I hear it, because to me, it basically sounds stupid.
I can't stand the silly abbreviations that have crept into use due to lazy typists, and now, cell phone "texting." I do not "text," either.
As the countdown clock continues toward the elimination of the code requirement, I'm spending time listening to nets, making note of differences in the operation of those nets as compared to the 2m nets I'm familiar with. #
I *hope* to be an example of what no-code operators can be. #I look at it the same way I look at messaging (regardless of form, method, protocol or the like) on the Internet... here, the only way one can know me is by the way I write. #On the air, the only impression I'll ever make on everyone else is how I operate. #
I'll make mistakes, no doubt about it. #I've made mistakes in the past, and I've no reason to think I'll ever be perfect.
Dave
YOu needed be a good example of "no code" HF operator, just a regular good operator. If you are, no one wil care. The nit wits that have been mouthing off about code going away, are probably some of the same ones that will talking to themselves on 14.125 SSB.
If you abide by the rules and regs, no one cares about what rig you have, what modes you like, etc. They only care that you operate courtesously and legally.
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 31 2007,14:55)]Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ Jan. 31 2007,14:32)]What Ryan is getting at is:
If the lazy slobs indeed passed a code test,why aren't they Generals?
It's that simple.
Got a simple answer?
I guess the same reason some generals aren't extras. If a lazy slob tech+ won't become a general, what is the excuse for a general not becoming an extra?
I know a few generals who have not made it to extra, do you know anyone like that?
Joe
I know quite a few friends of mine that never upgraded to Extra from General. They didn't see that much on an advantage.
But they did go through the wickets to get the General instead of whine and pout about having to take certain test elements. Never heard one of them complain once only that their buddy beat them by 1 more correct answer.
I applaud them. They are using the hobby and enjoying it the way they want to. Some never use CW and others use it primarily.
You get what you put into it.
K7JEM
02-01-2007, 06:13 PM
Was the guy doing something wrong, or did the other ham just suspect he was cheating?
This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. The FCC did a real disservice to hams by not requiring that the CSCE "upgrades" be made public.
Oh well, doesn't matter now. All is well in Hamdom.
Joe
w8cbc
02-01-2007, 10:59 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 31 2007,15:54)]When was the last time you saw anyone actually stop at a stop sign? Or before turning right at a red signal?
I do both, as I don't want to get slammed into by someone coming the other way. I've enough close calls as it is when I do have the right of way. There are times I get the idea that I'm the only one around here who bothers to pay attention. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Mistakes are forgivable for the most part provided you're willing to learn from them. Lots of what I hear is more down to attitude. SSB ops still jam AM because they don't like the mode, can't be bothered to find another frequency, whatever. This has been going on for how long? The 2-metre twits who got all over someone for explaining to them they couldn't run AM in 10 metres as technicians display this same sort of attitude. Me first and fck everyone else. It's everywhere - on-air, on the roads, what have you. The difference, if any, will be in quantity, not quality.
On the subject of mistakes - I heard someone running USB too close to the high end of 17 metres a little while ago - his modulation was definitely out of band. I considered suggesting (with CW in order to keep my own emissions within band) that he move down a bit. I didn't though. I'm too chicken I guess.
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Feb. 01 2007,13:13)]Was the guy doing something wrong, or did the other ham just suspect he was cheating?
This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. The FCC did a real disservice to hams by not requiring that the CSCE "upgrades" be made public.
I agree. They should have been made public instead of allowing this loopholes for NCT's to masquerade as P's.
Quote[/b] ]
Oh well, doesn't matter now. All is well in Hamdom.
"Now" isn't until February 23rd.
One can only hope all will be well, but I'm going to give everyone a fair shot.
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 31 2007,10:54)]Travel and Interstate at the speed limit and you will impede traffic, bringing one-finger salute upon another.
I do it all the time, but I stay right. That way those bozos who accuse me of impeding traffic can just use the passing lane and go around.
Quote[/b] ] When was the last time you saw anyone actually stop at a stop sign? Or before turning right at a red signal?
People do that all the time here... Am I supposed to expect that where you drive? In that case, I won't drive there.
ai4ep
02-02-2007, 12:08 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif If you really want a traffic jam, put a cop car at one stop sign of a 4 way stop.
If the FCC would / could appear on some amateur frequencies for 5 minutes, violators would be gone for the rest of the evening....based on that idea, wonder what would happen if the FCC appeared on 14.275 #?
Some time back, I saw a specific style of vehicle with a U S GOVERNMENT tag on the rear, and #what I would call a STRANGE type of antenna on the vehicle ( no I wont give a description of the vehicle, antenna, etc ) that I aint seen before. #The driver gave a energetic full hand wave, and a smile.
It is amazing how well behaved the average human can be when in the presense of superiors / enforcement personell.....folks aint as likely to " smart off " when the judge is in hearing range....same here on the internet, folks are less likely to type up something if they think an authority figure will take