Hams help with Columbia recovery
Steve Adell - KF2TI
Vshah101
http://www.msnbc.com/news/869906.asp
" ACCORDING TO THE national membership association for amateur radio, the
American Radio Relay League (ARRL), ham radio volunteers are currently
assisting federal, state and local officials and relief organizations in Texas
in their search for shuttle Columbia debris and the remains of the crew
members. "
I did not hear any mention of Ham (or amateur) radio operators, in regard to
the Columbia recovery, in the news. Not one. I guess ARRL is the "inside" news
organization.
"Ham radio has proven to be the only reliable communications options during the
recovery effort,"
...
"The communications systems used by other federal and state organizations
cannot penetrate 'The Pine Curtain' as we know it in East Texas," he said. "The
dense forests and hilly terrain just swallow up most radio traffic, and even
county sheriff and county fire department radio systems have serious blind
spots."
Hype.
If you look more closely, this actually supports removing amateur radio
privileges (to get rid of those serious "blind spots"). Not good for amateur
radio.
"Three of the Columbia astronauts were licensed amateur radio operators."
Irrelevant. In any group, some of them may have amateur radio licenses. Just
because they happen to have licenses, does not support the claim. It was part
of their work anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Even astronaut hopeful Lance Bass of 'N Sync is a ham - KG4UYY."
I doubt it. Why does this celebrity not proclaim he is a Ham in public?
Lloyd
important" valuable ham radio operations in selected
emergencies. The league has been living in a dream world
since the 1960s incentive licensing flap. Their only purpose now
is to preserve and protect their own worthless jobs.
Been to any hamfests recently? They are a target rich
environment for psychology students studying abnormal
psychology and mental health issues.
Lloyd
"Vshah101" <vsha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030210195449...@mb-bh.aol.com...
Bill, W7TI
@pita.alt.net:
> The ARRL continues to spew fiction about "glorious and
> important" valuable ham radio operations in selected
> emergencies. The league has been living in a dream world
> since the 1960s incentive licensing flap. Their only purpose now
> is to preserve and protect their own worthless jobs.
>
> Been to any hamfests recently? They are a target rich
> environment for psychology students studying abnormal
> psychology and mental health issues.
>
> Lloyd
>
_______________________________________________________________
I hate it when someone criticizes the hobby I love and is exactly on
target. Damn.
--
Bill, W7TI
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: vsha...@aol.com (Vshah101)
>Date: 2/10/03 6:54 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030210195449...@mb-bh.aol.com>
Once again, Vipul the Imputzable tries to "support" Amateur Radio with
another dazzling display of ignorance and stupidity.
>I did not hear any mention of Ham (or amateur) radio operators, in regard to
>the Columbia recovery, in the news. Not one. I guess ARRL is the "inside"
>news
>organization.
HEY BLOCKHEAD! "MSNBC" >>IS<< the news! It's an affiliate of MSN and NBC
networks.
>"The communications systems used by other federal and state organizations
>cannot penetrate 'The Pine Curtain' as we know it in East Texas," he said.
>"The
>dense forests and hilly terrain just swallow up most radio traffic, and even
>county sheriff and county fire department radio systems have serious blind
>spots."
>
>Hype.
">>HYPE<<"...?!?! What complete and utter ignorance brings you to THIS
conclusion...?!?! when were YOU in east Texas and made an assessment of the
terrain from which to draw this conclusion?
>If you look more closely, this actually supports removing amateur radio
>privileges (to get rid of those serious "blind spots"). Not good for amateur
>radio.
And I bet if we look real closely we can find a trace of >>HUMAN<< DNA in
your genetics, Vipul, but I really don't care to strain THAT hard.
Again, from WHAT passage in that report do you come to the conclusion that
this article even REMOTELY suggests that Amateurs have privileges
removed...?!?!
>"Three of the Columbia astronauts were licensed amateur radio operators."
>
>Irrelevant.
Now I've seen it all. Only the most ignorant of the ignorant would
consider Amateur Radio operators on the Shuttle "irrelevent" in a newsgroup
about Amateur Radio in a thread about Amateur Radio operators that were killed
on a shuttle.
>"Even astronaut hopeful Lance Bass of 'N Sync is a ham - KG4UYY."
>
>I doubt it. Why does this celebrity not proclaim he is a Ham in public?
You "doubt" it..?!!? What...QRZ and Buckmaster won't work in MA..?
Vipul, your posts have gone from "dubiously uninformed" to downright
stupid. It's no wonder that you can't find anyone in the NE Corridor to "play"
Ham Radio with...You're an idiot ! ! ! !
Steve
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 2/10/03 11:46 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns931EDD725...@216.168.3.50>
"On target"...?!?!
Oh...Wait a minute...Bill is from California.
Never mind. That explains it all.
Steve
Janet
wrote:
> The ARRL continues to spew fiction about "glorious and
>important" valuable ham radio operations in selected
>emergencies. The league has been living in a dream world
>since the 1960s incentive licensing flap.
Obviously you weren't working in east texas during the last week. I was. Along
with many other ham volunteers.
And of course the news wasn't picking this up. We're a support function, not
the 'front lines'. And that's how it should be. There weren't big articles
about what the Salvation Army or Red Cross were doing there. There weren't big
articles about the highway patrol. But the National Guard search team I was
was with also included a highway patrolman.
"glorious", no. But important? Yes. We were wanted and useful. Can't beat
that! Even when teams had cell phones, what happened?
If the search organizers needed to contact all the search teams, net control
could put one call out via ham radio and all hams would then confirm they
received it individually. For 20 teams, this took about 5-10 mins max. But
when contacting teams via cell phone, let's see. Most cell systems didn't work
in San Augustine. And those that did were picky about where they worked. Walk
a few feet and they were silent. And the person with a cell phone tended to put
it in a pocket or pack and not notice when it rang. 4 hours later, many of
those search teams without a ham still hadn't received the change of search
protocols.
No, "ham radio" isn't the critical thing here. It was just that our "job" there
was communications. We paid attention to it. We listened. And when there was
something important to pass on, we did it.
In this case, there's nothing the national/local news would even bother to pick
up. So it's nice that the ARRL DOES try to get some publicity for things that
the hams do that help the public in time of need.
It's funny. One of the guys on my search team told me they thought that ham
radio was only for 'old guys' and wasn't worth much in this modern world. He
told me he couldn't believe how wrong he was (*grin*).
Janet
WB9ZPH
Bill, W7TI
news:20030211091133...@mb-fz.aol.com:
> Oh...Wait a minute...Bill is from California.
>
> Never mind. That explains it all.
>
_______________________________________________________________
I *did* go to Iowa once. :-)
--
Bill, W7TI
N2EY
> From article
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/869906.asp
>
> " ACCORDING TO THE national membership association for amateur radio, the
> American Radio Relay League (ARRL), ham radio volunteers are currently
> assisting federal, state and local officials and relief organizations in Texas
> in their search for shuttle Columbia debris and the remains of the crew
> members. "
>
> I did not hear any mention of Ham (or amateur) radio operators, in regard to
> the Columbia recovery, in the news. Not one.
Isn't MNSNBC "the news"?
> I guess ARRL is the "inside" news organization.
Is it a bad thing if ARRL can get positive publicity for ham radio?
>
> "Ham radio has proven to be the only reliable communications options during
> the
> recovery effort,"
> ...
> "The communications systems used by other federal and state organizations
> cannot penetrate 'The Pine Curtain' as we know it in East Texas," he said. "The
> dense forests and hilly terrain just swallow up most radio traffic, and even
> county sheriff and county fire department radio systems have serious blind
> spots."
>
> Hype.
Nope - fact.
>
> If you look more closely, this actually supports removing amateur radio
> privileges (to get rid of those serious "blind spots"). Not good for amateur
> radio.
How will removing amateur radio privileges remove the blind spots?
Giving police and fire companies more frequencies won't improve the
coverage.
>
> "Three of the Columbia astronauts were licensed amateur radio operators."
>
> Irrelevant.
Why?
> In any group, some of them may have amateur radio licenses. Just
> because they happen to have licenses, does not support the claim. It was part
> of their work anyway.
Is it a bad thing for astronauts to be hams and have direct contact
with the public via ham radio?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Even astronaut hopeful Lance Bass of 'N Sync is a ham - KG4UYY."
>
> I doubt it.
No, it's true. Also Joe Walsh, Patty Loveless, Walter Cronkite, and
many others.
> Why does this celebrity not proclaim he is a Ham in public?
How would you have him do that? Pull out an HT at a concert?
Sorry to bust your bubble, Vipul, but not all hams fit your narrow,
stereotypical view of us.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Bill, W7TI
@posting.google.com:
> Is it a bad thing if ARRL can get positive publicity for ham radio?
>
_______________________________________________________________
Only when it makes us look self-congratulatory, which it *often* does.
--
Bill, W7TI
N2EY
<jam...@upyours.now> writes:
Then how do we get the word out? Let's face it, the average nonham thinks the
police and other govt. agencies have communications equipment for every
possible contingency. "Everybody has a cell phone" is another frequently heard
comment. The idea that amateur volunteers play a key role is a tough sell to
the media and the public, even though it's true.
How should it be done, Bill?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Vshah101
>The idea that amateur volunteers play a key role is a tough sell to
>the media and the public, even though it's true.
>
>How should it be done, Bill?
How about a special on PBS? This could definately fit in to their current
programs. They have done "documentary" specials on "sandwiches" and other
topics. After watching the "flea market" program, a special on Ham radio
showing Hamfests would fit right in.
Bill, W7TI
cc.aol.com:
> How should it be done, Bill?
>
_______________________________________________________________
Not by us.
I'm so tired of people/groups/organizations banging their own drum. If
their work is really good and desirable, others will realize it and beat
the drum for them.
You younger folks who grew up in the age of Muhammad Ali may not realize
it, but modesty in your accomplishments used to be considered a virtue
worthy of respect. Nobody *ever* bragged on themself. If you were good,
others would do it for you and it meant something. Nowdays it's so
pervasive us old guys just tune it out. Wish the younger ones would too.
--
Bill, W7TI
Mike Coslo
> From article
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/869906.asp
>
> " ACCORDING TO THE national membership association for amateur radio, the
> American Radio Relay League (ARRL), ham radio volunteers are currently
> assisting federal, state and local officials and relief organizations in Texas
> in their search for shuttle Columbia debris and the remains of the crew
> members. "
>
> I did not hear any mention of Ham (or amateur) radio operators, in regard to
> the Columbia recovery, in the news. Not one. I guess ARRL is the "inside" news
> organization.
I did.
> "Ham radio has proven to be the only reliable communications options during the
> recovery effort,"
> ...
> "The communications systems used by other federal and state organizations
> cannot penetrate 'The Pine Curtain' as we know it in East Texas," he said. "The
> dense forests and hilly terrain just swallow up most radio traffic, and even
> county sheriff and county fire department radio systems have serious blind
> spots."
>
> Hype.
I guess you don't know about HF versus VHF/UHF Propogation.
> If you look more closely, this actually supports removing amateur radio
> privileges (to get rid of those serious "blind spots"). Not good for amateur
> radio.
>
> "Three of the Columbia astronauts were licensed amateur radio operators."
> Irrelevant. In any group, some of them may have amateur radio licenses. Just
> because they happen to have licenses, does not support the claim. It was part
> of their work anyway.
We lost three hams. I'm sorry you find that irrelevant. I do not. In my
area, we feel the loss when one of our own dies. I can't even imagine
you said that
> "Even astronaut hopeful Lance Bass of 'N Sync is a ham - KG4UYY."
>
> I doubt it. Why does this celebrity not proclaim he is a Ham in public?
He has a license. look it up.
Now I gotta say it..... SHEESH. Your insensitivity on this issue makes me
want to PUKE. You take a national tragedy like this and try to twist it
to further your dislike of Ham radio operators and the ARS. Do you have
no shame?
I would suggest you take a minute or day to think about what you have
said here. You owe the entire group an apology. If you don't like hams
so be it. But I doubt that the fattest smelliest social misfit ham you
see at a hamfest (that you so detest) has the decency to care about
these people.
Shame on you.
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: "Bill, W7TI" jam...@upyours.now
>Message-id: <Xns931F9A8B...@216.168.3.50>
>Only when it makes us look self-congratulatory, which it *often* does.
"Self-congratulatory"...?!?!
Interesting term, since the advertising business, which is essentially the
profession of self-congratulating, is a multi-billion dollar industry.
So we're supposed to just sit around and HOPE that someone promotes our
activities and programs? Maybe the professional broadcasters, with whom we
compete for spectrum allocations, will do this for us...?!?!?
73
Steve, K4YZ
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: "Bill, W7TI" jam...@upyours.now
>Message-id: <Xns931FBB1D7...@216.168.3.50>
>> How should it be done, Bill?
>Not by us.
>
>I'm so tired of people/groups/organizations banging their own drum. If
>their work is really good and desirable, others will realize it and beat
>the drum for them.
Uh huh...sure. I belong to an aviation organization that is really poor
about getting their own word out, yet are one of the most proactive rescue and
aviation advocates in the United States..
As a real recent and "in your face" "fer instance", which agancy was the
only civil agency allowed to fly in the immdeiate post attack phase of 9/11?
What agency flies 85% of all USAF assigned air search and rescue missions
in the United States (and has maintained that threshold for over 40 years of
it's 60 years of existence?)
What agency has the largest civil fleet of aircraft in the United States?
What civil aviation organizaton has the highest saftey record in the
United States?
Now, unless you happen to be a member of Civil Air Patrol or are just a
trivia-geek, (or took the BIG hint from my lead-in above!), you probably DIDN'T
know it was Civil Air Patrol.
I agree with your suggestions that once-upon-atime it was not necessary
for one to self-promote, however that was in a much simpler day and before the
onslaught of media exposure, Bill.
If you want your "story" out there, you're gonna have to do it. Some do
it better than others, but oh well.......
73
Steve, K4YZ
Brian Kelly
That in itself is not all bad but would the hams in Texas who are
actually doing their thing do it if there was no ARRL?? I think so.
w3rv
N2EY
(Brian Kelly) writes:
If amateur radio hadn't been legislated out of existence, yes. Which probably
would have happened years ago without ARRL or an equivalent group banging the
drum on both a national and international level.
> I think so.
Reading the blurb, note that ARRL does not say it's an ARRL thing, but a ham
radio thing. All Newington is doing is getting the word out.
Would MSNBC have carried the story about what the hams in Texas are actually
doing if there was no ARRL?? I don't think so.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<jam...@upyours.now> writes:
>n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote in news:20030211203627.14527.00000262@mb-
>cc.aol.com:
>
>> How should it be done, Bill?
>>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>Not by us.
Then it won;t get done.
>
>I'm so tired of people/groups/organizations banging their own drum. If
>their work is really good and desirable, others will realize it and beat
>the drum for them.
I wish it were so. But the fact is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease in
our society. Most nonhams I meet have no idea that amateur radio even exists,
despite the fact that there are 685,000 of us in the USA alone. Those who do
know often confuse amateurs with cbers and freebanders.
Do you think the MSNBC piece would have happened without somebody pushing it?
Who is going to push it, if not some organized amateur radio group like ARRL?
>
>You younger folks who grew up in the age of Muhammad Ali may not realize
>it, but modesty in your accomplishments used to be considered a virtue
>worthy of respect.
I hear what you are saying, but there's a big difference between bragging and
telling the story so the credit goes where it is due.
> Nobody *ever* bragged on themself.
"It ain't braggin' if ya really done it" - Babe Ruth
Heck, just look at the history of radio. Marconi, Sarnoff, DeForest and others
were tireless self-promoters, often to the point of distorting the facts. Many
books will tell you that all-electronic TV made its debut at the 1939 NYC
World's Fair, and that it was "invented" by RCA - even though Philo T.
Farnsworth was the actual inventor, and gave a public demonstration five years
earlier (1934) in Philadelphia, at the Franklin Institute.
>If you were good,
>others would do it for you and it meant something.
Wish it was like that today, but it's not.
>Nowdays it's so
>pervasive us old guys just tune it out. Wish the younger ones would too.
I'm 48. Been a ham 35 years. Publicity has always been a problem - as in not
enough.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
I can only add two words to your excellent post:
Thank you
73 de Jim, N2EY
Janet <jan...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<agvh4v8ag320rpf57...@4ax.com>...
Bill, W7TI
> "Self-congratulatory"...?!?!
>
> Interesting term, since the advertising business, which is
> essentially the
> profession of self-congratulating, is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Are you holding the advertising industry up as a role model?
If so, plonk me now.
> So we're supposed to just sit around and HOPE that someone
> promotes our
> activities and programs? Maybe the professional broadcasters, with
> whom we compete for spectrum allocations, will do this for us...?!?!?
Yes you are and yes they will. Do a good job, be useful, smile, and the
word will get around. One word from another person is worth a hundred of
your own.
--
Bill, W7TI
Bill, W7TI
> I agree with your suggestions that once-upon-atime it was not
> necessary
> for one to self-promote, however that was in a much simpler day and
> before the onslaught of media exposure, Bill.
>
> If you want your "story" out there, you're gonna have to do it.
> Some do
> it better than others, but oh well.......
>
_______________________________________________________________
I agree with everything you said Steve, I just lament it.
--
Bill, W7TI
Brian Kelly
> In article <d22b54c3.0302...@posting.google.com>, ke...@dvol.com
> (Brian Kelly) writes:
>
> >"Bill, W7TI" <jam...@upyours.now> wrote in message
> >news:<Xns931F9A8B...@216.168.3.50>...
> >> N2...@AOL.COM (N2EY) wrote in news:c2356669.0302110943.37927a89
> >> @posting.google.com:
> >>
> >> > Is it a bad thing if ARRL can get positive publicity for ham radio?
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________________________
> >>
> >> Only when it makes us look self-congratulatory, which it *often* does.
> >
> >That in itself is not all bad but would the hams in Texas who are
> >actually doing their thing do it if there was no ARRL??
>
> If amateur radio hadn't been legislated out of existence, yes. Which probably
> would have happened years ago without ARRL or an equivalent group banging the
> drum on both a national and international level.
Ya picked the wrong example.
There were only two points in history when the existence of ham radio
was threatened. The first came in 1910 when a Senator Drew wrote a
bill prohibiting amateur experimentation. The Junior Wireless Club
squashed that and Hiram Percy was nowhere on the horizon.
The second was in 1919 when the Alexander bill would have eliminated
ham radio. The ARRL got into it but the league was only one of a
number of players who helped kill that proposal. Those included Hugo
Gernsback who has been credited by many with actually turning the tide
vs. the puffery about Hiram and the ARRL's role in certain League
publications. Drum:Beating:Twist history. Marconi and Fleming also
went to bat for ham radio. How much clout do ya 'spose those two icons
had in Congress vs. Hiram Percy??
How much column space did QST give Gernsback, Fleming and Marconi (vs.
Hiram Percy) for their efforts?
There was never an international movement to eliminate ham radio.
>
> > I think so.
>
> Reading the blurb, note that ARRL does not say it's an ARRL thing, but a ham
> radio thing. All Newington is doing is getting the word out.
>
> Would MSNBC have carried the story about what the hams in Texas are actually
> doing if there was no ARRL?? I don't think so.
I haven't seen anything yet about what the Civil Air Patrol or the Boy
Scouts are doing in Texas either but you can bet yer bippy both are up
to their eyeballs in it. Ham news is for hams, nobody else cares.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
w3rv
Bill, W7TI
news:d22b54c3.0302...@posting.google.com:
> That in itself is not all bad but would the hams in Texas who are
> actually doing their thing do it if there was no ARRL?? I think so.
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
I'd like to think they would, too. Hams as individuals are great guys.
It's when they band together and call themselves "ARRL" that things start
to go a little goofy.
Like nearly all bureaucracies, the League's first mission is self-
preservation. I can't really fault them for that since it *is* the way
of the world, but it sometimes gets in the way of their professed mission
and really does get tiresome.
--
Bill, W7TI
Bill, W7TI
news:20030212063626...@mb-mr.aol.com:
> Many
> books will tell you that all-electronic TV made its debut at the 1939
> NYC World's Fair, and that it was "invented" by RCA - even though
> Philo T. Farnsworth was the actual inventor, and gave a public
> demonstration five years earlier (1934) in Philadelphia, at the
> Franklin Institute.
>
_______________________________________________________________
A perfect example of why beating your own drum sucks. Had other people
with no ax to grind been doing the bragging, the truth would have no
doubt prevailed.
Remember last summer's Enron commercials? The most successful and
wonderful company on earth.
I'm a realist, guys. I don't expect to return to the '50s anytime soon.
But there *were* some advantages.
--
Bill, W7TI
N2EY
> > the Columbia recovery, in the news. Not one. I guess ARRL is the "inside"
> > news
> > organization.
>
> I did.
Mike,
'There are none so blind as those who will not see, nor deaf as those
who will not hear'.
>
> > "Ham radio has proven to be the only reliable communications options during the
> > recovery effort,"
> > ...
> > "The communications systems used by other federal and state organizations
> > cannot penetrate 'The Pine Curtain' as we know it in East Texas," he said. "The
> > dense forests and hilly terrain just swallow up most radio traffic, and even
> > county sheriff and county fire department radio systems have serious blind
> > spots."
> >
> > Hype.
>
> I guess you don't know about HF versus VHF/UHF Propogation.
Or repeater coverage, antenna patterns, state/county/local
communications budgets, etc.
>
> > If you look more closely, this actually supports removing amateur radio
> > privileges (to get rid of those serious "blind spots"). Not good for amateur
> > radio.
The main reason there are blind spots is because the various agencies
simply haven't built the necessary infrastructure to cover the entire
area reliably. Probably boils down to $$. Taking away the ham bands
won't make other services' coverage any better.
Because hams are unpaid, and often willing to use recycled and simpler
technology, the cost of a ham repeater can be much lower than the
equivalent "professional" installation. And because hams put emphasis
on operating skill as well as technology, they can make do with
less-than-optimal setups.
> >
> > "Three of the Columbia astronauts were licensed amateur radio operators."
>
> > Irrelevant. In any group, some of them may have amateur radio licenses. Just
> > because they happen to have licenses, does not support the claim. It was
> > part
> > of their work anyway.
>
>
> We lost three hams. I'm sorry you find that irrelevant. I do not. In my
> area, we feel the loss when one of our own dies. I can't even imagine
> you said that
But he did.
Consider for a moment - who does Mr. Shah sound like in this
discussion? He's minimizing the public service contributions of hams,
calling the publicity "hype", and dismissing as "irrelevant" the fact
that quite a few astronauts are also hams, and the loss most of us
feel.
>
> > "Even astronaut hopeful Lance Bass of 'N Sync is a ham - KG4UYY."
> >
> > I doubt it. Why does this celebrity not proclaim he is a Ham in public?
>
> He has a license. look it up.
>
> Now I gotta say it..... SHEESH. Your insensitivity on this issue makes > me
> want to PUKE. You take a national tragedy like this and try to twist it
> to further your dislike of Ham radio operators and the ARS. Do you have
> no shame?
>
> I would suggest you take a minute or day to think about what you have
> said here. You owe the entire group an apology. If you don't like hams
> so be it. But I doubt that the fattest smelliest social misfit ham you
> see at a hamfest (that you so detest) has the decency to care about
> these people.
>
> Shame on you.
Mike, thank you for expressing what many of us felt when we read
Vipul's nonsense, but could not adequately get across.
I'll repeat what I wrote about Mr. Shah and another constant critic a
little while, back:
"Their hobby is wasting time. Your time."
When you read their posts, you are being baited. Perhaps by the
master, perhaps by the apprentice. Perhaps they are one and the same.
The writing style is a little different but the message is almost
identical. They ignore facts and exposing of their faulty logic.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Herb
EMT, etc.). What are your first thoughts as the first car load
of ham radio operators arrives on the scene of a disaster or search?
Well, I can tell you, because I have heard it many times. "Tell those
*#4%$* CB ham assholes we don't need them. The last time
they were here they ate all the free food and got in the way." And
more than once, some obese ham op himself diverts emergency
resources when he has a heart attack walking in the woods for the
first time in years. Sorry to bring you the painful truth, but the glory
days of ham radio are long over. Ham radio's hey day was in the
1950s and early 60s, just before the shitheads in Newington started
their selfish incentive licensing program to sell more publications.
Herb
"Steve Adell - KF2TI (Landing, NJ FN20qv)" <kf...@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:b28s0g$k45$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/869906.asp
Dave Heil
Bill,
Dick Irving K3FK and I chewed on this one for months and came to a
similar conclusion. At some point in the fairly recent past, the League
lost sight of its primary mission--to serve its membership--and became
obsessed with perpetuating and expanding the organization.
The removal of "Section News" and contest line scores, the inauguration
of the elitist "Diamond Club", charging applicants for the Rag Chewers
Club and Old Timers Club certificats and doing away with the plastic
mailing sleeve for QST (some years back) are a few of my peeves.
Dave K8MN
Mike Coslo
Herb wrote:
> You are a professional first responder (firefighter, police officer,
> EMT, etc.). What are your first thoughts as the first car load
> of ham radio operators arrives on the scene of a disaster or search?
> Well, I can tell you, because I have heard it many times. "Tell those
> *#4%$* CB ham assholes we don't need them. The last time
> they were here they ate all the free food and got in the way."
In my area, they seek us out.
> And
> more than once, some obese ham op himself diverts emergency
> resources when he has a heart attack walking in the woods for the
> first time in years.
Data to back up that sad claim?
> Sorry to bring you the painful truth, but the glory
> days of ham radio are long over.
Perhaps for you. Some of us think the good times are right now.
> Ham radio's hey day was in the
> 1950s and early 60s, just before the shitheads in Newington started
> their selfish incentive licensing program to sell more publications.
Amazing that some people are still wound up about that.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: "Bill, W7TI" jam...@upyours.now
>Message-id: <Xns9320589F2...@216.168.3.50>
>> "Self-congratulatory"...?!?!
>>
>> Interesting term, since the advertising business, which is
>> essentially the
>> profession of self-congratulating, is a multi-billion dollar industry.
>
>Are you holding the advertising industry up as a role model?
>If so, plonk me now.
Yes I am and not yet.
>> So we're supposed to just sit around and HOPE that someone
>> promotes our
>> activities and programs? Maybe the professional broadcasters, with
>> whom we compete for spectrum allocations, will do this for us...?!?!?
>
>Yes you are and yes they will. Do a good job, be useful, smile, and the
>word will get around. One word from another person is worth a hundred of
>your own.
No I won't and they won't either.
The present day media is living proof that unless it involves sex, drugs,
violence or scandal, they don't have any room for it.
The Laci Peterson story is a prime example.
Your expectations of the goodness of the media's heart is pretty poor,
Bill, and does not even remotely resemble reality. I dare you to sit down with
the paper today and count the "human interest" stories as opposed to the
aforementioned "scandal" stories. I know the San Diego area and know there are
dozens of worthy causes that should be highlighted in the press. How many are
there today?
Self promotion, while perhaps a violation of God's law to avoid vanity, is
the only way persons, organizations and programs get what they want or need.
Sorry you don't think so, Bill.
Reality, while in short supply in Southern California, sucks.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: "Bill, W7TI" jam...@upyours.now
>Message-id: <Xns932059AEE...@216.168.3.50>
>Like nearly all bureaucracies, the League's first mission is self-
>preservation. I can't really fault them for that since it *is* the way
>of the world, but it sometimes gets in the way of their professed mission
>and really does get tiresome.
How can they accomplish any of their stated goals if they don't first take
steps to ensure their viability?
Steve, K4YZ
Brian Kelly
I could not agree more. I'm a member and I fully support the League on
most of the positions it takes. But when they start their puffery or
get stupid again and the ARRL groupies buy it hook line sinker I go
looking for my harpoons.
w3rv
Vshah101
>
>
>> Irrelevant. In any group, some of them may have amateur radio licenses.
>We lost three hams. I'm sorry you find that irrelevant. I do not. In my
>area, we feel the loss when one of our own dies. I can't even imagine
>you said that
Sorry, I meant that it was irrelevant that they have amateur radio licenses,
not irrelevant that they died.
Len Over 21
(N2EY) writes:
>> I did not hear any mention of Ham (or amateur) radio operators, in regard
>to
>> the Columbia recovery, in the news. Not one.
>
>Isn't MNSNBC "the news"?
It is not.
There is no journalistic activity named "MNSNBC."
There is an MSNBC, a news operation of Microsoft
and National Broadcast Company on cable TV.
All such errors and mistakes cast doubt upon the relevancy
of Mr. N2EY to be believed in this newsgroup.
Len Over 21
writes:
>In article <Xns931FBB1D7...@216.168.3.50>, "Bill, W7TI"
><jam...@upyours.now> writes:
>
>>n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote in news:20030211203627.14527.00000262@mb-
>>cc.aol.com:
>>
>>> How should it be done, Bill?
>>>
>>_______________________________________________________________
>>
>>Not by us.
>
>Then it won;t get done.
You are in Good Hands with ARRL-State.
>>I'm so tired of people/groups/organizations banging their own drum. If
>>their work is really good and desirable, others will realize it and beat
>>the drum for them.
>
>I wish it were so. But the fact is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease in
>our society. Most nonhams I meet have no idea that amateur radio even exists,
>despite the fact that there are 685,000 of us in the USA alone. Those who do
>know often confuse amateurs with cbers and freebanders.
The USA has a population of approximately 300 million.
Citizens of the USA know about cellular telephones
(little two-way radios connected to the telephone system)
and one out of three are cellphone subscribers according
to the Census Bureau.
Citizens of the USA know that CB exists and that public
safety people use radios. Such has been shown on both
TV news and fictional drama for over two decades.
Citizens of the USA know that radio and television broad-
casting exists since they listen and watch it for news.
Citizens of the USA don't know much about "ham radio."
If they do, they probably don't know any detail such as it
being this "vital service to the nation" etc., etc., etc.
It is doubtful that many citizens of the USA know
"freebanding." ;-)
Or has there been a "poll" that Mr. N2EY (his real surname?)
uses for a "reference?"
>Do you think the MSNBC piece would have happened without somebody pushing it?
Do you really want to know? Journalism 101 should be
available in some nearby night classes there in downtown
Pennsylvania...inquire locally.
>Who is going to push it, if not some organized amateur radio group like ARRL?
"Pushing?" That one bit was "pushing?"
>>You younger folks who grew up in the age of Muhammad Ali may not realize
>>it, but modesty in your accomplishments used to be considered a virtue
>>worthy of respect.
>
>I hear what you are saying, but there's a big difference between bragging and
>telling the story so the credit goes where it is due.
There's an even BIGGER difference between reporting and
careful word-crafting to exclude certain details. ARRL is
very good at such craftsmanship.
>> Nobody *ever* bragged on themself.
>
>"It ain't braggin' if ya really done it" - Babe Ruth
This isn't a baseball or candy newsgroup. And Mr. N2EY
isn't a major league slugger.
>Heck, just look at the history of radio. Marconi, Sarnoff, DeForest and others
>were tireless self-promoters, often to the point of distorting the facts.
Of course. Everyone knows that amateurs and St. Hiram
invented radio, pioneered short waves, perfected everything
as told in the temple at Newington. No problem.
Erich von Daniken wrote no less than five books explaining
visits to earth by ancient astronauts. :-)
>Many
>books will tell you that all-electronic TV made its debut at the 1939 NYC
>World's Fair, and that it was "invented" by RCA - even though Philo T.
>Farnsworth was the actual inventor, and gave a public demonstration five
>years earlier (1934) in Philadelphia, at the Franklin Institute.
Vladimir K. Zworykin of Westinghouse had demonstrated in
1929 a television receiver containing his kinescope picture
tube. RCA Corporation hired him in 1930 and he became a
research director. In 1931 he and his associates invented the
iconoscope camera tube, one more sensitive than he had
invented in 1923. Other approaches lacked the storage
feature of the iconoscope and Philo Farnsworth's image
dissector were less successful.
- ELECTRONICS 50th Anniversary Issue, April 17, 1980
Scotsman John Logie Baird demonstrated much television
in the 1920s and 1930s but those were all using the Nipkow
mechanical scanning disk.
The image orthicon from RCA Corporation became the
studio camera tube of choice by 1950, the iconoscope
relegated to film and transparency pickup. The vidicon
soon followed for small cameras. There was no
"philocon" ever made or used.
>>If you were good,
>>others would do it for you and it meant something.
>
>Wish it was like that today, but it's not.
Nobody recognizes Mr. N2EY's glorious achievements?
How many patents does Miccolis have?
>>Nowdays it's so
>>pervasive us old guys just tune it out. Wish the younger ones would too.
>
>I'm 48. Been a ham 35 years. Publicity has always been a problem - as in not
>enough.
Just think, 35 years! All that time and not being able to
"push" his lifestyle into the media! Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Maybe it's due to all his errors and mistakes? No one can
possibly think he has anything worthwhile to offer after so
many errors and mistakes...tsk, tsk, tsk...
Dwight Stewart
>
> (snip) Many books will tell you that all-electronic
> TV made its debut at the 1939 NYC World's Fair, and
> that it was "invented" by RCA - even though Philo T.
> Farnsworth was the actual inventor, and gave a public
> demonstration five years earlier (1934) in
I'll accept that, Jim. However, how many people saw that demonstration at
the Franklin Institute versus at the World's Fair? How many saw it in
magazines and newspapers as a result of the fair? For most Americans,
television did make its debut at the 1939 World's Fair. Why argue with most
Americans over a point this minor? The Farnsworth versus RCA controversy is
worth noting however (inventors deserve credit).
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
Len Over 21
(N2EY) writes:
>Mike Coslo <mco...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:<3E49D788...@adelphia.net>...
>> Vshah101 wrote:
>>
>> > From article
>> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/869906.asp
>> >
>> > I did not hear any mention of Ham (or amateur) radio operators, in regard
to
>> > the Columbia recovery, in the news. Not one. I guess ARRL is the "inside"
>
>> > news
>> > organization.
>>
>> I did.
>
>Mike,
>
>'There are none so blind as those who will not see, nor deaf as those who will
not hear'.
Gosh...been speed-reading Bartlett's Familiar
Quotations again? Should we all laminate that and put
it in our wallets?
None are blinder than the Devout Followers of the Church
of St. Hiram in the morse cult.
>> I guess you don't know about HF versus VHF/UHF Propogation.
>
>Or repeater coverage, antenna patterns, state/county/local
>communications budgets, etc.
Tell us again how inefficient, illogical, and unreliable the
professionals are in radio, how nothing survives the least
disaster or emergency...
>> > If you look more closely, this actually supports removing amateur radio
>> > privileges (to get rid of those serious "blind spots"). Not good for
amateur
>> > radio.
>
>The main reason there are blind spots is because the various agencies
>simply haven't built the necessary infrastructure to cover the entire
>area reliably. Probably boils down to $$. Taking away the ham bands
>won't make other services' coverage any better.
Oh? The Columbia shuttle tragedy is now threatening to
take ham bands away from hams?!?!?
>Because hams are unpaid, and often willing to use recycled and simpler
>technology, the cost of a ham repeater can be much lower than the
>equivalent "professional" installation. And because hams put emphasis
>on operating skill as well as technology, they can make do with
>less-than-optimal setups.
All professionals goof up in everything and hams have to
jump in and Save The Day, right? :-)
>> We lost three hams. I'm sorry you find that irrelevant. I do not. In my
>> area, we feel the loss when one of our own dies. I can't even imagine
>> you said that
>
>But he did.
I can't imagine you lifestylers are THAT brainwashed to
think that astronauts were amateur radio operators FIRST
before anything else.
The vast majority of hams were simply requested to add one
minor item to a large list of Tasks To Do...aid NASA PR and
get a Technician license.
>Consider for a moment - who does Mr. Shah sound like in this
>discussion? He's minimizing the public service contributions of hams,
>calling the publicity "hype", and dismissing as "irrelevant" the fact
>that quite a few astronauts are also hams, and the loss most of us
>feel.
Yes, you all "feel" great emotion. Not for those human beings
but for their licenses, Mr. N2EY. Their loss reflects on your
surname, a ham callsign. Great crocodile tears shed...in the
newsgroups.
>Mike, thank you for expressing what many of us felt when we read
>Vipul's nonsense, but could not adequately get across.
Yes...you, Mr. N2EY, are the Emotion and Grief Director of
the newsgroup. All shall grieve as you direct.
Never mind that seven human souls were lost in a Real
Pioneering endeavor, seven who had families and friends.
Your concern was only for the three who were granted
amateur radio licenses.
>I'll repeat what I wrote about Mr. Shah and another constant critic a
>little while, back:
>
>"Their hobby is wasting time. Your time."
You are the one wasting time doing a poor parody of
"shame" and "grief," enjoying some perverse pleasure
of attempted emotional manipulation to win some
message points. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Isn't it time for another Sermon on The Antenna Mount,
Reverend?
>When you read their posts, you are being baited. Perhaps by the
>master, perhaps by the apprentice. Perhaps they are one and the same.
>The writing style is a little different but the message is almost
>identical. They ignore facts and exposing of their faulty logic.
Yes, according to the Reverend's poor replay of ARRL
dogma, all that do not agree with his righteous opinions
are "ignoring facts" and using exposed faulty logic...
All shall think like the Reverend to be Correct and
Faithful in the Service of the Church of St. Hiram.
Amen...over and out...roger that.
Bill, W7TI
>> Ham radio's hey day was in the
>> 1950s and early 60s, just before the shitheads in Newington started
>> their selfish incentive licensing program to sell more publications.
>
>
> Amazing that some people are still wound up about that.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
Mike, it really was better back then, and this is not just the musings of
a senile old fart, either. Before incentive licensing, hams were much
more fraternal. It was like a club where the newbies either upgraded
within a year or dropped out and all the regulars were pretty much equal:
Same license, same frequencies, same mode priviliges, everything.
When incentive licensing came, so did the "I have a better license, I'm a
better ham" school of thought. And since there were several new levels,
not just one, there was ample room for everybody to look down on someone
else. In your local club, do the Extras hang out only with the Extras?
Do the Generals shun the Novices? Does everyone look down on the
"No-Code Techs"? I'll bet most of the no-coders never come to their
second meeting.
There are lots of ways individuals could be recognized for their
achievments and encouraged to improve themselves. Licensing turned out
to be a very poor choice. You know what they say about the road to hell
being paved with? Add incentive licensing to the list.
--
Bill, W7TI
N2EY
writes:
>"N2EY" wrote:
>>
>> (snip) Many books will tell you that all-electronic
>> TV made its debut at the 1939 NYC World's Fair, and
>> that it was "invented" by RCA - even though Philo T.
>> Farnsworth was the actual inventor, and gave a public
>> demonstration five years earlier (1934) in
>> Philadelphia, at the Franklin Institute. (snip)
>
>
> I'll accept that, Jim.
Welcome back, Dwight!
> However, how many people saw that demonstration at
>the Franklin Institute versus at the World's Fair? How many saw it in
>magazines and newspapers as a result of the fair? For most Americans,
>television did make its debut at the 1939 World's Fair. Why argue with most
>Americans over a point this minor?
The point I'm making is that Sarnoff and RCA were shameless/tireless
self-promoters. Bill, W7TI, talks of an era when people supposedly didn;t do
such things. I use the example of TV to show it did happen back then.
>The Farnsworth versus RCA controversy is
>worth noting however (inventors deserve credit).
>
The courts ruled that Farnsworth and Armstrong had their patent rights
infringed by Sarnoff's RCA. Zwyorkin was no dummy but he was no Farnsworth,
either.
Sarnoff just didn't like to pay licensing fees.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
(Brian Kelly) writes:
>> >That in itself is not all bad but would the hams in Texas who are
>> >actually doing their thing do it if there was no ARRL??
>>
>> If amateur radio hadn't been legislated out of existence, yes. Which
>probably
>> would have happened years ago without ARRL or an equivalent group banging
>the
>> drum on both a national and international level.
>
>Ya picked the wrong example.
>
>There were only two points in history when the existence of ham radio
>was threatened. The first came in 1910 when a Senator Drew wrote a
>bill prohibiting amateur experimentation. The Junior Wireless Club
>squashed that and Hiram Percy was nowhere on the horizon.
>
>The second was in 1919 when the Alexander bill would have eliminated
>ham radio. The ARRL got into it but the league was only one of a
>number of players who helped kill that proposal. Those included Hugo
>Gernsback who has been credited by many with actually turning the tide
>vs. the puffery about Hiram and the ARRL's role in certain League
>publications. Drum:Beating:Twist history. Marconi and Fleming also
>went to bat for ham radio. How much clout do ya 'spose those two icons
>had in Congress vs. Hiram Percy??
There were several bills and other hurdles to be surmounted after WW1, not just
the Alexander bill. The WW1 shutdown included receivers. Getting transmitting
licenses took more work.
It must be remembered that "amateur wireless" did not mean the same thing in
1919 as today. Same for the licenses. Do not confuse efforts to get the
receiving ban lifted with efforts to get transmitting licenses issued.
>
And those were not the only times ham radio was threatened with extinction. In
the 1920s there were at least three international conventions for radio
allocations. Many other countries did not want wide bands or high power for
hams. Some did not want ham radio at all.
>How much column space did QST give Gernsback, Fleming and Marconi (vs.
>Hiram Percy) for their efforts?
Not much! How much space did Gernsback give ARRL in his many publications?
And what about the efforts of Stewart and Warner?
What side were all of the above on when quiet hours were imposed?
>
>There was never an international movement to eliminate ham radio.
>
Wrong. See accounts of the 1924, 1925 and 1927 conventions.
There's also the game of inches. Rather than complete elimination, tie down ham
radio with so many limitations (narrow bands, low power, etc.) that it could
not survive.
>> > I think so.
>>
>> Reading the blurb, note that ARRL does not say it's an ARRL thing, but a
>ham
>> radio thing. All Newington is doing is getting the word out.
>>
>> Would MSNBC have carried the story about what the hams in Texas are
>actually
>> doing if there was no ARRL?? I don't think so.
>
>I haven't seen anything yet about what the Civil Air Patrol or the Boy
>Scouts are doing in Texas either but you can bet yer bippy both are up
>to their eyeballs in it.
Agreed!
> Ham news is for hams, nobody else cares.
So should we not bang our own drum?
>
>
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<jam...@upyours.now> writes:
>Mike Coslo <mj...@psu.edu> wrote in news:3E4AC51C...@psu.edu:
>
>>> Ham radio's hey day was in the
>>> 1950s and early 60s, just before the
[expletive deleted]
>>> in Newington started
>>> their selfish incentive licensing program to sell more publications.
>>
>> Amazing that some people are still wound up about that.
>>
First, some history:
Incentive licensing was NOT an ARRL idea. It was pushed by the FCC, starting as
early as 1958. Yes, ARRL leadership supported it, but so did a slim majority of
the membership.
And it was not a new idea, either. The pre-1951 ABC system made a big
distinction between Class A and other hams: No HF phone below 25 MHz unless you
have a Class A. The 1951 restructuring created the Extra, Novice and Tech
licenses, renamed the others, and would have continued to restrict the most
popular 'phone bands to Advanceds and Extras. But at the end of '52, FCC gave
all hams except Novices and Techs all operating privileges.
>>
The original 1963 ARRL proposal was very simple: Go back to the old system,
restricting HF phone on 75 to 15 meters to Advanceds and Extras. No subbands,
no additional code tests, just get an Advanced if you want to work 'phone. All
of the complexity was the result of other suggestions and proposals, and the
FCC.
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>Mike, it really was better back then, and this is not just the musings of
>a senile old fart, either. Before incentive licensing, hams were much
>more fraternal. It was like a club where the newbies either upgraded
>within a year or dropped out and all the regulars were pretty much equal:
>Same license, same frequencies, same mode priviliges, everything.
Was there no animosity between SSB and AM folks? CW vs. 'phone? Where did
Technicians fit into the picture back then?
Did the folks with shiny Collins stations accept the
converted-surplus-and-homebrew folks as equals?
>When incentive licensing came, so did the "I have a better license, I'm a
>better ham" school of thought. And since there were several new levels,
>not just one, there was ample room for everybody to look down on someone
>else.
The Extra began in 1951. The Advanced is the old Class A, which wgoes back to
before WW2. There was a guy who was so ticked off about Gnerals and
Conditionals getting 'phone on HF that he would call CQ and say "no kids, no
lids, no space cadets, Class A operators only".
>In your local club, do the Extras hang out only with the Extras?
Nope. Not in any of the clubs I've belonged to.
>Do the Generals shun the Novices?
Nope. Not at all.
> Does everyone look down on the
>"No-Code Techs"? I'll bet most of the no-coders never come to their
>second meeting.
Not in any club I've been to. Nobody give's a [expletive deleted] what
somebody's license class is, unless they need a control op for something. Just
not an issue.
>
>There are lots of ways individuals could be recognized for their
>achievments and encouraged to improve themselves. Licensing turned out
>to be a very poor choice. You know what they say about the road to hell
>being paved with? Add incentive licensing to the list.
Take a look at the 1965 FCC plan: Advanceds demoted to General, four code test
speeds, distinctive callsign blocks for every license class from Novice to
Extra. Fortunately, the opposition of ARRL and others stopped the worst of
that.
>
Look at what's left of the 1968-69. Only three classes of license open to new
issues. One code test speed, kept alive by treaty requirement alone. Three
written tests from published Q&A pools. No waiting/experience period for any
license.
What system do you propose if/when FCC dumps Element 1?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Bill, W7TI
news:20030213063939...@mb-cc.aol.com:
> And those were not the only times ham radio was threatened with
> extinction.
_______________________________________________________________
That's right. You should have met my neighbor two doors down.
--
Bill, W7TI
Bill, W7TI
cc.aol.com:
> Bill, W7TI, talks of an era when people supposedly didn;t do
> such things.
_______________________________________________________________
That isn't what I said. It was frowned on, it was rare and most people
didn't behave that way because that was the custom. Today's custom is
just the opposite. The bell-shaped curve rule applied then just like
now. There's always the fringe element out at the ends.
And it wasn't "supposedly".
--
Bill, W7TI
N2EY
writes:
>At some point in the fairly recent past, the League
>lost sight of its primary mission--to serve its membership--and became
>obsessed with perpetuating and expanding the organization.
I'd phrase it another way, Dave. I'd say that in some areas the ARRL leadership
has become out of touch with what "serving the membership" entails.
>
>The removal of "Section News" and contest line scores, the inauguration
>of the elitist "Diamond Club", charging applicants for the Rag Chewers
>Club and Old Timers Club certificats and doing away with the plastic
>mailing sleeve for QST (some years back) are a few of my peeves.
>
Mine too. Also the removal of Board minutes. Here's another:
Back in 1975, FCC proposed a complex "dual-ladder" license scheme. This was
just a few years after the hotly-debated incentive licensing changes.
So ARRL leadership sent out a multipage questionaire to all members.
Standardized 5-point agree-disagree format on most of the questions. Results
were published in QST, and ARRL policy closely followed those results.
Fast forward to 1996. ARRL sends out a flawed survey to 1500 or so hams, mostly
members. Partial results are published in QST. The flaws are discussed in
detail here and elsewhere.
In 1998, both ARRL and FCC propose restructuring. Is there a new all-members
survey? Nope. Yet it would have been simple to dust off and rework the 1975
survey, and get a detailed view of what members think. Costs too much? They had
the money in '75. And I for one would be gald to donate some bucks to fund an
in-depth survey.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Brian Kelly
> Mike Coslo <mj...@psu.edu> wrote in news:3E4AC51C...@psu.edu:
>
> >> Ham radio's hey day was in the
> >> 1950s and early 60s, just before the shitheads in Newington started
> >> their selfish incentive licensing program to sell more publications.
> >
> >
> > Amazing that some people are still wound up about that.
> >
> > - Mike KB3EIA -
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> Mike, it really was better back then, and this is not just the musings of
> a senile old fart, either. Before incentive licensing, hams were much
> more fraternal. It was like a club where the newbies either upgraded
> within a year or dropped out and all the regulars were pretty much equal:
> Same license, same frequencies, same mode priviliges, everything.
Having been on the air since about two years after "the first
incentive licensing scenario" got dropped on ham radio (the 1951
creation of the Novice & Tech tickets. Another long forgotten major
uproar) I was obviously there and there were "pecking orders". Maybe
they were a bit more "fraternal" but they were there. The engineers
patting us technical newbie kid Novices on their lame heads. No, they
didn't usually take the time to do any elmering, they told us to go
buy a handbook. Novices spoke only when spoken to at meetings
dominated by the OFs. The real biggie was the money. I clearly
remember the first time I visited a Big Gun's station, stacks of
Collins gear. I was dumbstruck and it showed. His comment was
something like "Some of us have it and some just don't, that's the way
it is kid." With a sneer. Fortunately the dramatic changes in personal
and equipment economics since then have leveled that particular
pecking order.
My point is that human nature hasn't changed a damned bit since then,
the establishment of pecking orders are normal human behavior by
whatever means they can be generated and they *will* happen. At this
point in ham radio the details are just minor details which shift over
time based on the FCC fiat of the moment. All of it is completely
ignorable. If ya don't ignore it, YOU own the problem.
> When incentive licensing came, so did the "I have a better license, I'm a
> better ham" school of thought. And since there were several new levels,
> not just one, there was ample room for everybody to look down on someone
> else. In your local club, do the Extras hang out only with the Extras?
Hams around here with similar interests clump together, they
definitely do not clump based on license class. The dxers & contesters
clump and we're overwhelmingly Extras or Advanced licensees simply
because ya need an Extra or an Advanced if yer serious about dxing.
Has absolutely nothing to do with pecking orders or "classism".
Hell, I sailed along happy as a clam dxing & contesting my buns off
for 14 years as a General with never a thought of upgrading until the
FCC lowered the boom in '68 and tossed us Generals out of the HF DX
windows. So I took the frigging test and got the windows back. Big
deal.
> Do the Generals shun the Novices? Does everyone look down on the
> "No-Code Techs"? I'll bet most of the no-coders never come to their
> second meeting.
We have clubs around here chaired by Techs & Generals and the machines
are loaded with nocodes who are nice guys and good ops and get
seriously involved in various events. While numbers of lethargic 20wpm
Extras sit on their dead butts and do nothing. To the point that of
the numerous neighborhood type clubs around here I don't know of one
chaired by an Extra.
On the rare occasions I've run into here when somebody got stupid and
took a swipe at nocodes on one of the machines, for instance, the
machine lit up like an Xmas tree with guys telling the jerk to go
pound sand and worse. Like as not it's 1x2 who will suggest the sand.
It just ain't tolerated.
I've noticed over time that ham behavior seems to be a tad different
on the left coast than it is here on the right coast . . ?
> There are lots of ways individuals could be recognized for their
> achievments and encouraged to improve themselves. Licensing turned out
> to be a very poor choice. You know what they say about the road to hell
> being paved with? Add incentive licensing to the list.
That was 35 years ago fer chrissake, when do we get to finally bury
it??
w3rv
Bill, W7TI
@posting.google.com:
> That was 35 years ago fer chrissake, when do we get to finally bury
> it??
>
_______________________________________________________________
Reminds me of Clinton: "Fer chrissake, can we get beyond the blue dress
and move on to more important things?"
IOW, the discussion will go away when the problem goes away. Clinton
didn't consider the blue dress a problem; you don't consider incentive
licensing a problem. Others do.
--
Bill, W7TI
Robert Casey
> The real biggie was the money. I clearly
> remember the first time I visited a Big Gun's station, stacks of
> Collins gear. I was dumbstruck and it showed. His comment was
> something like "Some of us have it and some just don't, that's the way
> it is kid." With a sneer. Fortunately the dramatic changes in personal
> and equipment economics since then have leveled that particular
> pecking order.
>
That's more of the "established working adult" vs the "starving unemployable
teenager" pattern than anything else. And some of the adult's demand that
the teenager to kiss his ass. Ever notice that the more accomplished
adults are less likely to demand "respect" than less accomplished ones?
Len Over 21
writes:
>In article <BA707341.E70A%ste...@say.net>, Dwight Stewart
<ste...@say.net>writes:
>> However, how many people saw that demonstration at
>>the Franklin Institute versus at the World's Fair? How many saw it in
>>magazines and newspapers as a result of the fair? For most Americans,
>>television did make its debut at the 1939 World's Fair. Why argue with most
>>Americans over a point this minor?
>
>The point I'm making is that Sarnoff and RCA were shameless/tireless
>self-promoters.
So is ARRL. :-)
>Bill, W7TI, talks of an era when people supposedly didn;t do
>such things. I use the example of TV to show it did happen back then.
Not really. You made a point of spotlighting Philadelphia.
Camden, NJ, was the center of RCA Corpoartion, right acress
the Delaware River from Philly. Do we sense some local
sociopolitical antipathy? :-)
Here's some more "examples" on TV:
Bell Labs did their first TV transmission on April 7, 1927.
Using a "flying spot" scanner camera system, they
transmitted their "Felix the Cat" image in 1930, that
received image shown on movie theater newsreels later.
First installation of a TV antenna on NYC's Empire State
building was in 1931, first TV transmission from there on
October 30, 1931. Oops, that was by greedy, evil,
capitalistic RCA! :-)
Telefunken used iconoscope TV cameras at the 1936
Berlin summer Olympics. In the same year there were
six US companies making TV sets for the NYC market.
Whatever happened to ol' Philo's image dissector?
>>The Farnsworth versus RCA controversy is
>>worth noting however (inventors deserve credit).
>>
>The courts ruled that Farnsworth and Armstrong had their patent rights
>infringed by Sarnoff's RCA. Zwyorkin was no dummy but he was no Farnsworth,
>either.
That's nice. Mrs. Farnsworth and Mrs. Zworykin must have been
happy about being able to distinguish one from the other.
Note Vladimir's surname spelling. If you keep on making all
those errors and mistakes, no one will take you seriously in
here... :-)
>Sarnoff just didn't like to pay licensing fees.
Greedy, evil capitalists are like that. It affected Ed Armstrong
so much (about all the law suits, some of which he started)
that his wife left him and he eventually committed suicide.
Business is IN business FOR pecuniary interest. Hello?
Amateur radio is defined by law as NOT for pecuniary
interest...
Len Over 21
>It must be remembered that "amateur wireless" did not mean the same thing in
>1919 as today. Same for the licenses.
Yes, try not to be influenced by old aphorisms like "the past is
prologue!" :-)
How many SSB and FM rigs were used by hams in 1919,
old timer?
>And those were not the only times ham radio was threatened with extinction.
In
>the 1920s there were at least three international conventions for radio
>allocations. Many other countries did not want wide bands or high power for
>hams. Some did not want ham radio at all.
>
>>How much column space did QST give Gernsback, Fleming and Marconi (vs.
>>Hiram Percy) for their efforts?
>
>Not much! How much space did Gernsback give ARRL in his many publications?
>
>And what about the efforts of Stewart and Warner?
>
>What side were all of the above on when quiet hours were imposed?
Answer the questions, old timer. How did all of that
affect your ham operations?
>>There was never an international movement to eliminate ham radio.
>>
>Wrong. See accounts of the 1924, 1925 and 1927 conventions.
>
>There's also the game of inches. Rather than complete elimination, tie down
ham
>radio with so many limitations (narrow bands, low power, etc.) that it could
>not survive.
Yes, a little thing like World War 2 sort of tied things down,
didn't it? :-)
>> Ham news is for hams, nobody else cares.
>
>So should we not bang our own drum?
Unlike Elvis, the drumbeat hasn't left the building...
Gosh, old timer, after 35 years experience you might have
found SOMEONE to listen to your bongos?
Brian Kelly
> ke...@dvol.com (Brian Kelly) wrote in news:d22b54c3.0302130919.11796f70
> @posting.google.com:
>
> > That was 35 years ago fer chrissake, when do we get to finally bury
> > it??
> >
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> Reminds me of Clinton: "Fer chrissake, can we get beyond the blue dress
> and move on to more important things?"
. . and he was right.
> IOW, the discussion will go away when the problem goes away. Clinton
> didn't consider the blue dress a problem; you don't consider incentive
> licensing a problem. Others do.
All three of ya clump together and enjoy.
w3rv
N2EY
<wa2...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Brian Kelly wrote:
>
>> The real biggie was the money. I clearly
>> remember the first time I visited a Big Gun's station, stacks of
>> Collins gear. I was dumbstruck and it showed. His comment was
>> something like "Some of us have it and some just don't, that's the way
>> it is kid." With a sneer. Fortunately the dramatic changes in personal
>> and equipment economics since then have leveled that particular
>> pecking order.
>>
>
>That's more of the "established working adult" vs the "starving unemployable
>teenager" pattern than anything else.
Sort of. You have to remember that in the time period of which W3RV speaks
(50s/60s) a Collins setup cost serious amounts of dough. Example: In 1958, a
75A-4 cost about $700 new - without the special reduction knob, and with just
one mechanical filter. This was back when a $5000/yr pre-tax income was
considered solidly middle class. And the 'A-4 was just a receiver! You don't
even want to think about what the matching KWS-1 transmitter cost.
Of course Collins was top of the line ham gear back then, like the FT-1000 or
an Orion is today.
>And some of the adult's demand that
>the teenager to kiss his ass.
Which just goes to prove 'RV's point. There was a "pecking order" or "class
system" back then, too.
Which would you rather have: a system based on skill and knowledge, (as
exemplified by license classes with serious tests) or one based on age and $$?
>Ever notice that the more accomplished
>adults are less likely to demand "respect" than less accomplished ones?
Sure. And they are also more likely to give respect, too.
>
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<jam...@upyours.now> writes:
>n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote in news:20030213063939.14527.00000301@mb-
>cc.aol.com:
>
>> Bill, W7TI, talks of an era when people supposedly didn;t do
>> such things.
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>That isn't what I said.
OK, Bill, here's what you wrote that I'm referring to:
"Nobody *ever* bragged on themself."
I took that to mean it just didn't happen. Now it's clear that what you meant
was:
>It was frowned on, it was rare and most people
>didn't behave that way because that was the custom.
OK, fine. I think we could use a more of that these days.
>Today's custom is
>just the opposite. The bell-shaped curve rule applied then just like
>now. There's always the fringe element out at the ends.
>
>And it wasn't "supposedly".
I'll take your word for it, Bill. The exceptions I referred to were just that -
exceptions.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<jam...@upyours.now> writes:
>n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote in
>news:20030212063626...@mb-mr.aol.com:
>
>> Many
>> books will tell you that all-electronic TV made its debut at the 1939
>> NYC World's Fair, and that it was "invented" by RCA - even though
>> Philo T. Farnsworth was the actual inventor, and gave a public
>> demonstration five years earlier (1934) in Philadelphia, at the
>> Franklin Institute.
>>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>A perfect example of why beating your own drum sucks. Had other people
>with no ax to grind been doing the bragging, the truth would have no
>doubt prevailed.
Agreed. But the guy who banged his own drum got the money and fame. And only
now is the true story becoming widely known.
>
>Remember last summer's Enron commercials? The most successful and
>wonderful company on earth.
Shades of the 1920s....
>I'm a realist, guys. I don't expect to return to the '50s anytime soon.
>But there *were* some advantages.
Agreed. But it wasn't the licensing system that was the cause of those
advantages, in my view.
Heck, there were at least three license levels back in those days anyway:
Novices, with extremely limited privs and an upgrade-or-leave-the-air ticket.
(talk about incentives to learn!)
Technicians, who had no HF at all and not even all of 6 and 2 - even though
they'd passed the same written as the General
Generals/Conditionals, the vast majority
There were also about 40,000 Advanceds, at least some of whom were REALLY
ticked at having lost their top of the heap position in 1951-53.
And about 4,000 Extras, mostly "because it's there" types, or those in search
of the 1x2 at the end of the 25 year rainbow.
That period of "Generals and above get it all" lasted less than 16 years. Been
almost 35 years since it ended.
I remember getting my first LM back in 1966 or so, and wondering why there were
three full-privs license classes, one of which wasn't even open to new issues.
Strange.
I'll ask again: What should the system look like if/when S25.5 disappears and
Dave Heil
>
> In article <c2356669.03021...@posting.google.com>, N2...@AOL.COM
> (N2EY) writes:
>
> >> I did not hear any mention of Ham (or amateur) radio operators, in regard
> >to
> >> the Columbia recovery, in the news. Not one.
> >
> >Isn't MNSNBC "the news"?
>
> It is not.
>
> There is an MSNBC, a news operation of Microsoft
> and National Broadcast Company on cable TV.
> All such errors and mistakes cast doubt upon the relevancy
> of Mr. N2EY to be believed in this newsgroup.
Would that type of thinking also apply to your use of "National
Broadcast Company" rather than the National Broadcasting Company?
Whew! You're certainly good for some grins, Leonard.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
Incentive licensing wasn't perceived as a problem by me until a year or
so after the intial phase took place in 1968. I was living in
Shreveport at the time. I handled it by driving the 200 miles to Dallas
and passing the Advanced exam. When incentive licensing started
cramping my style in chasing DX on both SSB and CW, I took the Extra
exam. Anyone still carping about incentive licensing thirty-five years
after the fact needs more fiber in his diet.
Dave K8MN
Dwight Stewart
>
> IOW, the discussion will go away when the
> problem goes away. Clinton didn't consider
> the blue dress a problem; you don't consider
> incentive licensing a problem. Others do.
But neither of those problems are going to go away. The blue dress is a
past that cannot be changed, and there is no move towards removing incentive
licensing. Therefore, I think the point is that to continue to dwell on
either is somewhat useless.
Dwight Stewart
>> I'll accept that, Jim.
>
> Welcome back, Dwight!
My involvement online is a little shaky (moving again), but I'm back for
the moment anyway.
> The point I'm making is that Sarnoff and RCA
> were shameless/tireless self-promoters. (snip)
I understood your point, Jim. My comments were not a criticism.
Bill, W7TI
> . . and he was right.
Can't do logic...
> All three of ya clump together and enjoy.
Can't count.
By any chance, were you on Governor Davis' energy advisory board last
summer? I see some similarities.
>
--
Bill, W7TI
Bill, W7TI
news:20030213210352...@mb-fm.aol.com:
> I'll ask again: What should the system look like if/when S25.5
> disappears and FCC dumps Element 1?
>
_______________________________________________________________
I'd like to see a beginner's class and a regular class and that's it.
Kind of like driving a car where you get a learner's permit with
restricions and when you can show you know the ropes, a regular driver's
license.
Just having a driver's license doesn't mean you're Richard Petty. It
means you know enough to not be a menace on the road. I'd like to see
something similar with ham licenses.
If I were making the rules for the FCC, I'd focus lots more on good
operating techniques and less on the technical stuff. I'd rather have a
new ham understand how to correctly tune an amplifier than to know Ohm's
law, for example. Memorize the band edges instead of antenna patterns.
How to work split instead of how to calculate impedance.
The technical stuff is fun; in fact it's my favorite part of ham radio,
but I'm not convinced it should be a priority in licensing.
--
Bill, W7TI
N2EY
<jam...@upyours.now> writes:
>n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote in
>news:20030213210352...@mb-fm.aol.com:
>
>> I'll ask again: What should the system look like if/when S25.5
>> disappears and FCC dumps Element 1?
>>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>I'd like to see a beginner's class and a regular class and that's it.
>Kind of like driving a car where you get a learner's permit with
>restricions and when you can show you know the ropes, a regular driver's
>license.
Interesting. That's only one less class than we have now (for new license
issues, anyway).
Would you make the beginner class 10-year-renewable, or something else, like
the old Novice?
>
>Just having a driver's license doesn't mean you're Richard Petty. It
>means you know enough to not be a menace on the road. I'd like to see
>something similar with ham licenses.
Understood. I presume that you would match the test requirements to the
privileges granted, too. Example: Beginner's license doesn't allow high power,
but also doesn't include a lot of RF exposure questions. Am I on the right
track?
>
>If I were making the rules for the FCC, I'd focus lots more on good
>operating techniques and less on the technical stuff. I'd rather have a
>new ham understand how to correctly tune an amplifier than to know Ohm's
>law, for example. Memorize the band edges instead of antenna patterns.
>How to work split instead of how to calculate impedance.
>
Interesting concept! Of course some techno stuff is needed in order to
understand the rules (knowing the band edge is at 7000 kHz doesn't mean much
unless ou know what a kHz is). But more focus on operating might be worthwhile.
>The technical stuff is fun; in fact it's my favorite part of ham radio,
>but I'm not convinced it should be a priority in licensing.
>
Good points, all. I don;t necessarily agree 100%. but good points.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Bill, W7TI
news:20030214063655...@mb-fm.aol.com:
> Would you make the beginner class 10-year-renewable, or something
> else, like the old Novice?
>>
>>Just having a driver's license doesn't mean you're Richard Petty. It
>>means you know enough to not be a menace on the road. I'd like to see
>>something similar with ham licenses.
>
> Understood. I presume that you would match the test requirements to
> the privileges granted, too. Example: Beginner's license doesn't allow
> high power, but also doesn't include a lot of RF exposure questions.
> Am I on the right track?
>>
>>If I were making the rules for the FCC, I'd focus lots more on good
>>operating techniques and less on the technical stuff. I'd rather have
>>a new ham understand how to correctly tune an amplifier than to know
>>Ohm's law, for example. Memorize the band edges instead of antenna
>>patterns. How to work split instead of how to calculate impedance.
>>
> Interesting concept! Of course some techno stuff is needed in order to
> understand the rules (knowing the band edge is at 7000 kHz doesn't
> mean much unless ou know what a kHz is). But more focus on operating
> might be worthwhile.
>
>>The technical stuff is fun; in fact it's my favorite part of ham
>>radio, but I'm not convinced it should be a priority in licensing.
>>
> Good points, all. I don;t necessarily agree 100%. but good points.
>
>
________________________________________________________________
Thank you, Jim. I expected massive incineration and instead get
reasonable, well thought out comments. How nice!
To answer your questions:
1. I envision the Learner's class like a driving learner's permit. You
only have so long, then you either upgrade or take the bus. The purpose is
to learn and qualify for the "regular" license, not to operate in
restricted mode forever.
2. Correct about beginner's licence restrictions. A beginner doesn't need
a KW to learn radio. Doesn't need a bunch of bands or modes (like
satellite) or other fancy stuff. When you're learning to drive, you don't
need a Ferrari, a Chevy will do fine. Once you show you can do it
responsibly, enjoy the Ferrari!
3. Also correct about the tech stuff overlapping the operating stuff.
Whoever puts the actual tests and restrictions together needs to be a cut
above the typical lazy bureaucrat.
--
Bill, W7TI
Janet
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/latestnews/stories/021303dnricdebris.50a29.html
Janet - WB9ZPH
Brian Kelly
> ke...@dvol.com (Brian Kelly) wrote in
> news:d22b54c3.03021...@posting.google.com:
>
> > . . and he was right.
>
> Can't do logic...
Can't do the National Enquirer either.
>
> > All three of ya clump together and enjoy.
>
> Can't count.
I stand corrected; make it both of you.
> By any chance, were you on Governor Davis' energy advisory board last
> summer?
Hell no, and I didn't help re-elect the dim bulb either. Have you
people checked yer water recently?
> I see some similarities.
I'm the taller one.
w3rv
Brian Kelly
> Brian Kelly wrote:
>
> > The real biggie was the money. I clearly
> > remember the first time I visited a Big Gun's station, stacks of
> > Collins gear. I was dumbstruck and it showed. His comment was
> > something like "Some of us have it and some just don't, that's the way
> > it is kid." With a sneer. Fortunately the dramatic changes in personal
> > and equipment economics since then have leveled that particular
> > pecking order.
> >
>
> That's more of the "established working adult" vs the "starving unemployable
> teenager" pattern than anything else. And some of the adult's demand that
> the teenager to kiss his ass.
I've seen gobs of it in the adult-to-adult sphere too, megabucks goons
dissing those who are in much lower economic income brackets. The
worst of those are the dweeb$ who simply inherited their wads, we have
several of those in the neighborhood.
> Ever notice that the more accomplished
> adults are less likely to demand "respect" than less accomplished ones?
Let me count the times . .
w3rv
Bill, W7TI
>> I see some similarities.
>
> I'm the taller one.
>
>
________________________________________________________________
And one difference.
--
Bill, W7TI
Mike Coslo
I'm interested, but they want an awful lot of info to register. Why
they need to know my yearly income is a little beyond what I want to share.
Maybe you could post some text?
- Mike KB3EIA -
Brian Kelly
> In article <d22b54c3.03021...@posting.google.com>, ke...@dvol.com
> (Brian Kelly) writes:
>
> There were several bills and other hurdles to be surmounted after WW1, not just
> the Alexander bill.
That bill was by far the most threatening ever by a long shot, the
rest were bureaucratic shuffles in comparison.
The WW1 shutdown included receivers.
So?
> Getting transmitting
> licenses took more work.
Yeah, yeah, and we had to do more work to get our tickets than we
would now.
> >How much column space did QST give Gernsback, Fleming and Marconi (vs.
> >Hiram Percy) for their efforts?
>
> Not much! How much space did Gernsback give ARRL in his many publications?
I sure read a bunch of his Pop Science mags which got into ham radio
and in every case I recall there was a refernce to the ARRL. In fact I
think in reading one of those articles was when I discovered that ARRL
existed.
Here's a squib to ponder:
"An immigrant from Luxembourg in 1904, Hugo Gernsback played a major
role both in fostering the amateur radio movement and in creating the
American science fiction tradition. Gernsback's Electro Importing
Company imported specialized electronic equipment from Europe and
helped to supply many of those who wanted to make their own radios and
transmitters. He designed and marketed the Telimco Wireless, the first
home radio set and the first walkie-talkie. He organized the Wireless
Association of America, a major organization in the amateur radio
movement. More importantly, he was an influential promoter of radio as
a participatory medium through his popular science magazines and
through books like "Radio for All" (1922). A technological utopian,
Gernsback believed that radio would foster better communications both
within the United States and globally, enabling stronger social and
cultural communities and a true participatory democracy."
The guy was so far beyond Hiram Percy's "visions" and impact it ain't
even a discussion. Maxim invented a silencer (do we have to hear about
that AGAIN?) and he did a nice job of promoting the long since
irrelevant art & skill of hobby message relaying via his little
magazine. Not much if any more than a bit player in the 'teens & '20s.
>
> And what about the efforts of Stewart and Warner?
They were not in it representing the ARRL, they were in it as equals
to the ARRL and Hiram Percy, so was the kid from Baltimore.
> What side were all of the above on when quiet hours were imposed?
On the side of Our Boys Over There of course.
> >There was never an international movement to eliminate ham radio.
> >
> Wrong. See accounts of the 1924, 1925 and 1927 conventions.
>
> There's also the game of inches. Rather than complete elimination, tie down ham
> radio with so many limitations (narrow bands, low power, etc.) that it could
> not survive.
And some countries do not allow ham ops even today. Some countries
being opposed to ham radio does not constitute an international
movement to eliminate ham radio.
>
> > Ham news is for hams, nobody else cares.
>
> So should we not bang our own drum?
No, as long as we understand that beating our drums is a 98% snoozer
outside the ham community itself.
> >
> >
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
w3rv
Brian Kelly
> In article <d22b54c3.03021...@posting.google.com>, ke...@dvol.com
> (Brian Kelly) writes:
> What side were all of the above on when quiet hours were imposed?
Blooper on my part here. Cancel previous.
I've lost track of the details of quiet hours thing but it was no big
deal compared with the massive threat of 1919. Quiet hours are still
out there by the way.
N2EY
"Bill, W7TI" <jam...@upyours.now> wrote in message news:<Xns93223A21E...@216.168.3.50>...
Gentlemen can disagree without being disagreeable.
>
> To answer your questions:
>
> 1. I envision the Learner's class like a driving learner's permit. You
> only have so long, then you either upgrade or take the bus. The purpose is
> to learn and qualify for the "regular" license, not to operate in
> restricted mode forever.
I disagree with that a bit, because people learn at different rates.
Plus FCC will probably not want a license with a different term. But
what could be done is to make the Learner license non-renewable, so
that if at the end of 10 years the newbie is not ready to upgrade,
just take the test again. After all, new drivers are not restricted to
just one learner's permit per lifetime in any state I know.
>
> 2. Correct about beginner's licence restrictions. A beginner doesn't need
> a KW to learn radio.
Yup. Say 100-150 W on HF/MF, maybe 25-50 W on VHF/UHF (more RF
hazard).
> Doesn't need a bunch of bands or modes (like
> satellite) or other fancy stuff. When you're learning to drive, you don't
> need a Ferrari, a Chevy will do fine. Once you show you can do it
> responsibly, enjoy the Ferrari!
But the beginner should have a useful assortment of bands and modes.
One big thing wrong with the present Novice/Tech Plus setup is that it
gives too little HF, in both bands and modes.
>
> 3. Also correct about the tech stuff overlapping the operating stuff.
> Whoever puts the actual tests and restrictions together needs to be a cut
> above the typical lazy bureaucrat.
Well, the tests these days are all createdby the QPC, who are
volunteers. FCC checks and approves, but the grunt work of writing the
things is up to ham volunteers. Which means that last part could be
done under existing rules.
Here's a question I forgot: Should Learners have distinctive calls, or
at least not be able to get any unassigned call?
How about minimum age requirements?
73 de Jim, N2EY
WA8ULX
>volunteers. FCC checks and approves, but the grunt work of writing the
>things is up to ham volunteers. Which means that last part could be
>done under existing rules
Why not just call it what is CB. And get rid of the Phoney Testing all together
Janet
I agree that the registrations are a pain. Why they think they'll get GOOD
information I'll neve know. I would NEVER give my REAL info (other than a name
and possibly email address) on a site like that either. And maybe not even
that. Much less a valid number for income.
It's just a nice article about how the ham volunteers from the Dallas area were
involved.
I wonder if anyone in this newsgroup listened to the Nagadoches net during this
time? It was re-transmitted over Echolink and I know a lot of people quite a
ways off were listening.
Janet
N2EY
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/02/14/100/?nc=1
148 hams in one county, 198 in another. 80% from outside the area.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Lloyd
"N2EY" <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in :
> 148 hams in one county, 198 in another. 80% from outside the area.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
One newspaper reporter determined that although ham radio
operators comprised only about 5% of the manpower involved in
the recovery effort, they consumed 95% of the food and
constantly complained about the port-potties not being wide
enough to accommodate their obese asses. Moreover, hams
comprised the geriatric portion of the manpower, the youngest
ham involved in the recovery effort was reported to be 67 years
old. And as usual, the rocket scientists in Newington will
continue to crank out endless news releases which are of interest
to no one but hams themselves who want to take all the credit for
the recovery effort.
Lloyd
Len Over 21
>"Bill, W7TI" <jam...@upyours.now> wrote in message
>news:<Xns93223A21E...@216.168.3.50>...
>> 3. Also correct about the tech stuff overlapping the operating stuff.
>> Whoever puts the actual tests and restrictions together needs to be a cut
>> above the typical lazy bureaucrat.
>
>Well, the tests these days are all createdby the QPC, who are
>volunteers. FCC checks and approves, but the grunt work of writing the
>things is up to ham volunteers. Which means that last part could be
>done under existing rules.
The FCC requires only a minimum number of TOTAL
written questions. Type and kind are determined by the
VEC QPC. Complaints about the type and kind of
questions should be sent directly to the VEC QPC.
>Here's a question I forgot: Should Learners have distinctive calls, or
>at least not be able to get any unassigned call?
Absolutely. Keep them as isolated as possible until
they learn The Amateur Way. Make them stand out
so that they are easy to identify...for whatever reason
the long-timers have... :-)
>How about minimum age requirements?
Absolutely none. ARRL is just itching to have another
"world's youngest ham" news item, hopefully to beat the
four-year-old record. They shouldn't be disappointed.
After all, ARRL is THE representative of all US hams.
:-)
Dwight Stewart
>
> (snip) 1. I envision the Learner's class like a driving
> learner's permit. You only have so long, then you either
>
> 2. Correct about beginner's license restrictions. A
> beginner doesn't need a KW to learn radio. Doesn't need a
> bunch of bands or modes (like satellite) or other fancy
> stuff.
In every state I've lived in, a learner's permit can be renewed
indefinitely until a full driver's license is obtained.
However, getting back to the federal government (not state driver's
licenses), I'm not aware of any federal license with a learner's permit that
expires within a fixed time period without upgrade. What incentive would the
FCC have go against that trend in licensing?
Furthermore, how does a learner's permit further the stated goals of ham
radio (experimentation, pool of trained operators, and so on)? For example,
your learner's permit idea, with it sharp limitations, seems to actually
restrain experimentation with other modes, bands, power, technology, home
brewing, and so on. As such, it goes directly against one of the stated
goals of ham radio.
The existing license structure does not conflict with the stated goals. A
Technician, for example, can remain one for life and still fulfill the goals
of ham radio.
Given the above facts, why would the FCC even consider your learner's
permit idea over the existing licensing structure?
Randy
"Dwight Stewart" <ste...@say.net> wrote in message
news:BA73854E.EB4A%ste...@say.net...
Hi, Aaron! <g>
Bill, W7TI
> In every state I've lived in, a learner's permit can be renewed
> indefinitely until a full driver's license is obtained.
Is there actually anyone who's still on their learner's permit after
years of driving? I would suggest that someone who can not progress
beyond that point may have insufficient driving skills and should be put
on the bus. Would you like to be on the same road as that guy? Not me.
Would you like to be on the same band as someone who can not acquire the
skills needed to get a "regular" ham license? Not me.
> However, getting back to the federal government (not state driver's
> licenses), I'm not aware of any federal license with a learner's
> permit that expires within a fixed time period without upgrade.
I'm not aware either. Breaking new ground here.
> What incentive would the FCC have go against that trend in licensing?
The FCC's incentives are often murky. Bureaucratic inertia is often
involved in their actions (or lack of actions).
> Furthermore, how does a learner's permit further the stated goals of
> ham radio (experimentation, pool of trained operators, and so on)? For
> example, your learner's permit idea, with it sharp limitations, seems
> to actually restrain experimentation with other modes, bands, power,
> technology, home brewing, and so on. As such, it goes directly against
> one of the stated goals of ham radio.
Absolutely correct. As with a driver's learner's permit, the purpose is
not to allow you to go to the store for groceries, it's to allow you to
learn to drive. As soon as you have mastered the basics enough to not be
a menace on the road, you may drive across the continent by yourself at
night in your Ferrari. Until then it's daytime only, no passengers
except the instructor, stay off the freeways and go slow. (I don't know
if those are the *actual* regulations, but you get the idea).
> The existing license structure does not conflict with the stated
> goals. A Technician, for example, can remain one for life and still
> fulfill the goals of ham radio.
That's quite correct. I am proposing that it be changed. See the next
response.
> Given the above facts, why would the FCC even consider your
> learner's
> permit idea over the existing licensing structure?
Because the existing licensing structure is flawed, IMHO. The difference
between an Amateur Radio Operator and an equally talented electronics
hobbyist is that the ARO is allowed to transmit RF over the air. Having
this authority carries with it the responsibility to do so, well,
responsibly. I believe the FCC should focus more on that and less on
other things. Yes, some technical knowledge is required, but the
emphasis should be on:
1. Proper operating techniques (ID'ing, working split, knowing band
limits, etc)
2. Not causing interference (listen before transmitting, avoiding
splatter, etc)
3. Safety (RF exposure, high voltage precautions, etc)
4. Neighborhood relations (TVI, etc)
The other, more advanced stuff (driving the Ferrari) can come after the
basics have been mastered.
Please don't ask me how this all fits into the current FCC rules; it
doesn't. What I'm proposing is a revamping of the rules. I think it's
overdue. You may not. It's ok to disagree.
--
Bill, W7TI
W5TIT
news:BA73854E.EB4A%ste...@say.net...
The attractiveness of administrative reductions? Budgetary
constraints/reductions? Wouldn't less licenses and less testing make it
easier and less expensive (or "taxing" to the public...heh heh) to regulate?
Kim W5TIT
tiffanya...@yahoo.com
> >Yes you are and yes they will. Do a good job, be useful, smile, and the
> >word will get around. One word from another person is worth a hundred of
> >your own.
>
> No I won't and they won't either.
>
> The present day media is living proof that unless it involves sex, drugs,
> violence or scandal, they don't have any room for it.
>
> The Laci Peterson story is a prime example.
http://lacipeterson.20m.com/Laci.htm
Brian
> Hi, Aaron! <g>
Jones?
Len Over 21
>Looks like the need for hams in the recovery has ended:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/02/14/100/?nc=1
Yes, ARRL has informed NASA that the search has
ended......:-)
Len Over 21
writes:
>"Bill, W7TI" wrote:
>>
>> (snip) 1. I envision the Learner's class like a driving
>> learner's permit. You only have so long, then you either
>> upgrade or take the bus. (snip)
>>
>> 2. Correct about beginner's license restrictions. A
>> beginner doesn't need a KW to learn radio. Doesn't need a
>> bunch of bands or modes (like satellite) or other fancy
>> stuff.
>
>
> In every state I've lived in, a learner's permit can be renewed
>indefinitely until a full driver's license is obtained.
>
> However, getting back to the federal government (not state driver's
>licenses), I'm not aware of any federal license with a learner's permit that
>expires within a fixed time period without upgrade. What incentive would the
>FCC have go against that trend in licensing?
?
> Furthermore, how does a learner's permit further the stated goals of ham
>radio (experimentation, pool of trained operators, and so on)? For example,
>your learner's permit idea, with it sharp limitations, seems to actually
>restrain experimentation with other modes, bands, power, technology, home
>brewing, and so on. As such, it goes directly against one of the stated
>goals of ham radio.
Speaking seriously (if that is possible in this venue), there is no
consensus among a wide variety of the licensed ones on that
subject. What seems to be the case with some long-timers is
simply "turf" or the human territorial imperative...they seem to
think of their personal activity as the model for all others to
emulate. Most of that group profess to have become interested
as teen-agers, a time when they did not know much of
anything and thought they had discovered some wondrous
technology! They also seem to be a mind of guild or union
plateaus of expertise as if amateur radio (by definition not of
pecuniary interest) is also some kind of guild or union.
Those whose only knowledge of radio anything is limited to
official membership publications don't realize that there are
a large number of non-amateurs who have operated radios
for a long time, maintained them, calibrated them, designed
them. Many of that non-amateur group have done all that
in several different radio services.
The FCC does not sponsor or encourage amateur radio any
more than any other US radio service. It's not their legal
job. They just regulate US civil radio. The FCC does respond
to US citizens in regards to regulations on radio...all radio
services. They don't limit regulation communications only to
those who belong to one particular radio service.
> The existing license structure does not conflict with the stated goals. A
>Technician, for example, can remain one for life and still fulfill the goals
>of ham radio.
There is no consensus on those "goals." Amateur radio is an
activity engaged in without pecuniary interest. The opposite of
professional which, by definition, is for pecuniary interest. That
is basically a hobby or avocation activity. Are there some
national "goals" for hobbies?!?
Everyone needs to be careful about using the word "goals."
Personal goals are not necessarily those that govern national
goals. The FCC sets regulations for all civil radio in the USA
and all citizens.
> Given the above facts, why would the FCC even consider your learner's
>permit idea over the existing licensing structure?
Amateur radio does not involve moving vehicle safety or any
direct danger to human life. Automobile and aircraft piloting
does and that is much different than any hobby activity
involving radio, using radio for recreation.
The so-called need for an apprenticeship in radio operating is
an artificial construct of those conservative long-timers who
seem to be involved in "turf" thinking.
N2EY
>"Bill, W7TI" wrote:
>>
>> (snip) 1. I envision the Learner's class like a driving
>> learner's permit. You only have so long, then you either
>> upgrade or take the bus. (snip)
>>
>> 2. Correct about beginner's license restrictions. A
>> beginner doesn't need a KW to learn radio. Doesn't need a
>> bunch of bands or modes (like satellite) or other fancy
>> stuff.
>
>In every state I've lived in, a learner's permit can be renewed
>indefinitely until a full driver's license is obtained.
>
Last time I looked, PA required that you do some paperwork beyond a simple
renewal.
> However, getting back to the federal government (not state driver's
>licenses), I'm not aware of any federal license with a learner's permit that
>expires within a fixed time period without upgrade. What incentive would the
>FCC have go against that trend in licensing?
Bill (W7TI)'s main idea is the reduction in the number of license levels. The
learner's permit idea derives from the old Novice, which was only good for a
year (1951-1967) then two years (1967-~1975). It was not renewable until the
mid 1970s.
>
> Furthermore, how does a learner's permit further the stated goals of ham
>radio (experimentation, pool of trained operators, and so on)?
The idea is to have an easy-to-get license that gets a new ham started. Full
privileges require a more comprehensive test.
>For example,
>your learner's permit idea, with it sharp limitations, seems to actually
>restrain experimentation with other modes, bands, power, technology, home
>brewing, and so on. As such, it goes directly against one of the stated
>goals of ham radio.
For the past 34+ years, getting full amateur privs in the USA has required the
Extra license, and all the written exams connected with that license. I don't
think Bill wants the level of knowledge required for full privs to decrease. I
know I don't! So if the number of license classes decreases, the full-privs
exam must get bigger and cover more areas.
>
> The existing license structure does not conflict with the stated goals. A
>Technician, for example, can remain one for life and still fulfill the goals
>of ham radio.
Of course. The main thing is that Bill does not think the incentive licensing
structure (or what's left of it these days) is a good thing. So we are
discussing alternatives.
>
> Given the above facts, why would the FCC even consider your learner's
>permit idea over the existing licensing structure?
>
Less work for them, if it's done right.
But - is the current Tech/Gen/Extra system optimum for the ARS? Particularly
considering how Techs get so little amateur HF but all of amateur VHF/UHF?
Let me ask you the same questions I asked Bill:
If/when S25.5 goes away and FCC dumps Element 1, what should the US license
classes, requirements and privs be?
Obviously FCC isn't going to go for a more-complex system than we have now, but
maybe a better system can be developed that will have wide ranging support in
the amateur radio community.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Carl R. Stevenson
"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030215203615...@mb-mr.aol.com...
> Let me ask you the same questions I asked Bill:
>
> If/when S25.5 goes away and FCC dumps Element 1, what should the US
license
> classes, requirements and privs be?
>
> Obviously FCC isn't going to go for a more-complex system than we have
now, but
> maybe a better system can be developed that will have wide ranging support
in
> the amateur radio community.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
Jim,
My *personal* view would be as follows:
1) fix the disconnect between power levels and technical knowledge required
for the tech license (either make the test a bit more comprehensive or limit
the
power to more reasonable levels ... the first option would make entry
harder,
so I prefer the second approach, so as not to make the bar discouragingly
high
for newbies)
2) add limited power HF access to the tech license (same bands as General?)
3) improve the General and Extra tests a bit ... not necessarily to make
them
"harder" but to make them more up-to-date and comprehensive ... if this
requires
a reasonable increase in the number of questions on the test, so be it.
4) fix outmoded bandwidth/baud_rate/modulation_type and any other technical
rules that limit innovation
5) pretty much leave the rest as is (if it ain't broke, don't fix it ....)
Just to be PERFECTLY clear, these are my *personal* views, NOT "NCI's
position."
Carl - wk3c
Brian Kelly
> If/when S25.5 goes away and FCC dumps Element 1, what should the US license
> classes, requirements and privs be?
Bet: The FCC is not about to put themselves thru another
"restructuring" of ham radio for years. We've only had three major
overhauls in last 52 years, that's one every 17+ years. History does
repeat itself, yes?
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21)
>Date: 2/14/03 5:00 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030214180023...@mb-cu.aol.com>
>Absolutely. Keep them as isolated as possible until
> they learn The Amateur Way. Make them stand out
> so that they are easy to identify...for whatever reason
> the long-timers have
Stupid answer.
When I was a Novice, that "WN" call "bought" me some help when I made
mistakes on the air, and offers of assistance and advice at club meetings.
Never once did I take any "flak" over BEING a "Novice".
Stupid, Anderscum...really stupid.
Steve, K4YZ
N2EY
>n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote in message
>news:<20030215203615...@mb-mr.aol.com>...
>
>> If/when S25.5 goes away and FCC dumps Element 1, what should the US license
>> classes, requirements and privs be?
>
>Bet: The FCC is not about to put themselves thru another
>"restructuring" of ham radio for years.
Probably true. The most likely scenario is they just dump Element 1 and do
nothing else.
>We've only had three major
>overhauls in last 52 years, that's one every 17+ years.
Depends on what you call a major overhaul...
1951 gave us the basis of the scheme we have now.
1952-3 gave Generals and above all operating privs.
1968-9 gave us subbands on top of subbands
1990-1 gave us code waivers and a license with no code test
2000 simplified things somewhat, dropping two code test speeds and closing
three license classes to new issues.
If ya lump 51-2-3 into one pile, it's about 16 years to the next redo. Then
about twenty years to serious code test changes, and another decade to the last
restructuring. Which was 3 years ago.
> History does
>repeat itself, yes?
Sure - lookit how things were before 1951. Three classes of license, one code
test speed.....
>
Only way I can see FCC doing anything besides just dumping Element 1 is if
there's a simple, well-thought-out restructure proposal put before them that
gathers widespread support AND simplifies FCC's life.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<wk3...@wk3c.com> writes:
>"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030215203615...@mb-mr.aol.com...
>> Let me ask you the same questions I asked Bill:
>>
>> If/when S25.5 goes away and FCC dumps Element 1, what should the US
>license
>> classes, requirements and privs be?
>>
>> Obviously FCC isn't going to go for a more-complex system than we have
>now, but
>> maybe a better system can be developed that will have wide ranging support
>in
>> the amateur radio community.
>>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>Jim,
>
>My *personal* view would be as follows:
>
>1) fix the disconnect between power levels and technical knowledge required
>for the tech license (either make the test a bit more comprehensive or limit
>the power to more reasonable levels ... the first option would make entry
>harder, so I prefer the second approach, so as not to make the bar
>discouragingly high for newbies)
As we discussed before, RF safety at VHF/UHF is a big concern. To avoid taking
privs away from anybody, existing Techs could be allowed to run full power,
keeping their old license docs to show they really are "old" Techs.
>2) add limited power HF access to the tech license (same bands as General?)
If Techs get the same HF/MF as Generals, then the only reason to upgrade to
General will be to get more power. Is that really the most desirable incentive?
But Techs should definitely have a lot more HF/MF spectrum and modes than just
the old Novice bands.
>3) improve the General and Extra tests a bit ... not necessarily to make
>them "harder" but to make them more up-to-date and comprehensive ... if this
>requires a reasonable increase in the number of questions on the test, so be
it.
Yup. In fact, I think the idea should be to make the Tech written more focused
on operational and theory fundamentals.
>4) fix outmoded bandwidth/baud_rate/modulation_type and any other technical
>rules that limit innovation
Gotta give us more detail than that.
I'd say the HF/MF bands should be divided by occupied bandwidth of mode, and
forget about the baud rate or modulation type. What we now call the
"CW/digital" parts of the band would be open to any documented mode that has
less than, say, 900 Hz bandwidth. What we now call the "phone" parts of the
bands would be open to any documented mode that has less than, say, 7000 Hz
bandwidth. And the old "Novice" subbands would be open to any documented mode
that will fit inside the subband.
>5) pretty much leave the rest as is (if it ain't broke, don't fix it ....)
Three classes of license, 10 year term, no age requirement, etc.
>
I forgot one question: What happens to existing Advanceds and Novices? Just
leave 'em alone?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Phil Kane
>As we discussed before, RF safety at VHF/UHF is a big concern. To
>avoid taking privs away from anybody, existing Techs could be allowed
>to run full power, keeping their old license docs to show they really
>are "old" Techs.
>> 2) add limited power HF access to the tech license (same bands as
>> General?)
>If Techs get the same HF/MF as Generals, then the only reason to
>upgrade to General will be to get more power. Is that really the most
>desirable incentive?
To some of the "unititated" (i.e. those amongst us who have never
done compliance enforcement) power levels by class may appear to be
a good incentive.
For enforcement purposes, it is a bloody nightmare.
Best to find another incentive, and meanwhile make knowledge of RF
safety at all power levels up to the maximum authorized power a
basic testing requirement for ALL classes. Anyone who can't or
won't exhibit that knowledge is not qualified to be permitted to
operate a radio transmitter, whether six years old or sixty years
old.
To misquote an old Gil cartoon from the early 50s -
"Here lies old Jack McStencil, who drew arcs with a lead pencil"
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
N2EY
writes:
>"Bill, W7TI" wrote:
>>
>> IOW, the discussion will go away when the
>> problem goes away. Clinton didn't consider
>> the blue dress a problem; you don't consider
>> incentive licensing a problem. Others do.
>
> But neither of those problems are going to go away.
I don't think an incentive licensing system is a problem. The blue dress is a
different story.
>The blue dress is a
>past that cannot be changed, and there is no move towards removing incentive
>licensing. Therefore, I think the point is that to continue to dwell on
>either is somewhat useless.
The thing that really bugged me about the blue dress incident was the bald
faced lying connected with it.
As for removing incentive licensing, FCC seems to have moved from the idea that
amateur radio needs 5 or 6 levels of license to the idea that 3 levels are
adequate. Seems like a form of removal to me.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Carl R. Stevenson
If it's broke, it ought to be fixed ... but I doubt that you'd really be
taking away
something that's actually used by the vast majority of techs if you imposed
a limit
akin to what most "higher powered" mobiles put out ... say about 50W ...
Also, I think that most of the "old" techs who would likely be doing
something
more than just FM/packet/APRS with commercially built radios have probably
already upgraded to General or Extra already.
>
> >2) add limited power HF access to the tech license (same bands as
General?)
>
> If Techs get the same HF/MF as Generals, then the only reason to upgrade
to
> General will be to get more power. Is that really the most desirable
incentive?
Maybe not ... but they need to get "mainstreamed" so that they get a
(decent)
taste of HF ... to be honest, I'm hard pressed to think of a better "carrot"
than
giving them access but limiting their power (seems to be the way in the UK
and
when I worked from 4U1ITU, I gave preference to the new foundation class
guys from the UK, to give them "a rare one" and build some enthusiasm for
their
new privs ...)
> But Techs should definitely have a lot more HF/MF spectrum and modes than
just
> the old Novice bands.
>
> >3) improve the General and Extra tests a bit ... not necessarily to make
> >them "harder" but to make them more up-to-date and comprehensive ... if
this
> >requires a reasonable increase in the number of questions on the test, so
be
> it.
>
> Yup. In fact, I think the idea should be to make the Tech written more
focused
> on operational and theory fundamentals.
>
> >4) fix outmoded bandwidth/baud_rate/modulation_type and any other
technical
> >rules that limit innovation
>
> Gotta give us more detail than that.
Needs more thought to be detailed in a really coherent manner, but current
rules
tend to stifle innovation (and before folks start flaming, I'm not talking
about doing
spread spectrum all over HF at high powers ... if at all ... the HF bands
aren't wide
enough for SS except at rather low data rates, though there could be some
applications
for that ... but those applications could use low power ... much less than 1
W)
> I'd say the HF/MF bands should be divided by occupied bandwidth of mode,
and
> forget about the baud rate or modulation type. What we now call the
> "CW/digital" parts of the band would be open to any documented mode that
has
> less than, say, 900 Hz bandwidth. What we now call the "phone" parts of
the
> bands would be open to any documented mode that has less than, say, 7000
Hz
> bandwidth. And the old "Novice" subbands would be open to any documented
mode
> that will fit inside the subband.
Sounds heavily slanted towards low data rate stuff ... and why would you
allow the
entire old novice bands to be consumed by one signal while restricting to
much lower
bandwidths elsewhere?
> >5) pretty much leave the rest as is (if it ain't broke, don't fix it
....)
>
> Three classes of license, 10 year term, no age requirement, etc.
> >
> I forgot one question: What happens to existing Advanceds and Novices?
Just
> leave 'em alone?
Seems to be the approach ... though why someone who's actually
interested/active
in ham radio and already has lifetime credit for the 5 wpm Morse test would
remain
a novice really stumps me ... as for the advanceds, I suspect that
eventually all of them
will either upgrade or go SK (not that I'm eager for the latter in any way
...).
Once the numbers in those classes drop to zero, they can simply be ignored.
73,
Carl - wk3c
N2EY
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> writes:
>On 16 Feb 2003 18:31:52 GMT, N2EY wrote:
>
>>As we discussed before, RF safety at VHF/UHF is a big concern. To
>>avoid taking privs away from anybody, existing Techs could be allowed
>>to run full power, keeping their old license docs to show they really
>>are "old" Techs.
>
>>> 2) add limited power HF access to the tech license (same bands as
>>> General?)
>
>>If Techs get the same HF/MF as Generals, then the only reason to
>>upgrade to General will be to get more power. Is that really the most
>>desirable incentive?
>
> To some of the "unititated" (i.e. those amongst us who have never
> done compliance enforcement) power levels by class may appear to be
> a good incentive.
>
> For enforcement purposes, it is a bloody nightmare.
I hear ya, Phil! It's my understanding that one of the big reasons the
incentive licensing changes of the '60s involved loss of spectrum rather than
power was that it is much easier to enforce a violation for frequency privs...
And of course it's an uphill go to get The Comission to add restrictions that
don't exist today.
But let me play devil's advocate and ask this question....
Once upon a time, Novices were only allowed 75 watts input - was there ever a
serious enforcement problem with QRO Novices? How about today, with the
low-power limits on the Novice subbands and 30 meters?
>
> Best to find another incentive, and meanwhile make knowledge of RF
> safety at all power levels up to the maximum authorized power a
> basic testing requirement for ALL classes.
Kinda like the "core course" requirements for a degree.
> Anyone who can't or
> won't exhibit that knowledge is not qualified to be permitted to
> operate a radio transmitter, whether six years old or sixty years
> old.
Do you think today's test questions and methods are an adequate determination
of that knowledge?
>
> To misquote an old Gil cartoon from the early 50s -
>
> "Here lies old Jack McStencil, who drew arcs with a lead pencil"
>
HAW!! But yes, a serious message. Like the one with the caption:
"It will cause you to remove your hand VERY rapidly"...
73 de Jim, N2EY
Larry Roll K3LT
>Well, the tests these days are all createdby the QPC, who are
>volunteers. FCC checks and approves, but the grunt work of writing the
>things is up to ham volunteers. Which means that last part could be
>done under existing rules.
>
>Here's a question I forgot: Should Learners have distinctive calls, or
>at least not be able to get any unassigned call?
>
>How about minimum age requirements?
>
>73 de Jim, N2EY
I agree with Carl Stevenson's idea that entry-level hams should have
reduced power limits on VHF/UHF.
I don't think that entry-level hams should have the option of requesing
Vanity Call signs. In fact, I would like to change the Vanity call sign
program to eliminate the ability to request out-of-district call signs, with
the retroactive cancellation of any which have already been assigned!
Of course, everyone's assuming that when S25.5 goes away at the
International level, that the FCC will automatically drop the 5 WPM
code test for General/Extra. Has there been any indication from the
FCC that this was a fait accompli? It would be fun to see the FCC
say, "We've done enough changing of the requirements, they're not
set, live with them, we're not going to pay to print up a new set of
rules just to drop the code test!" However, I'm sure that the whiners
would eventually get their way with the government.
73 de Larry, K3LT
Alun Palmer
news:20030216210447...@mb-cu.aol.com:
From a regulator's point of view, dumping Element 1 is a 'small' change!
That's why the smart money is that they will do just that. Someone needs
to think of a 'simple' way to phase out the closed licence classes of
Advanced and Novice, and to redistribute their subbands. The FCC have said
that we must reach a consensus on that, and then they will do it, but not
before. I bet this group has a few proposals for that.
N2EY
<elek...@yahoo.com> writes:
>From a regulator's point of view, dumping Element 1 is a 'small' change!
>That's why the smart money is that they will do just that.
One paragraph, waiving Element 1 until a full rewrite can be done at some
future date.
>Someone needs
>to think of a 'simple' way to phase out the closed licence classes of
>Advanced and Novice, and to redistribute their subbands.
Why? FCC sees no problem with the way things are.
In fact, when ARRL and others proposed a free upgrade of Novices and Tech
Pluses to General back in 1998, FCC said no.
>The FCC have said
>that we must reach a consensus on that, and then they will do it, but not
>before. I bet this group has a few proposals for that.
>
The problem is simply one of not being able to meet all goals at once.
Take the Advanced for example. 88,000 of them, and slowly dropping.
If they get all privs, they've gotten a free upgrade to Extra that others had
to pass a test to get. Not going to be popular.
If they're reduced to General privileges, they've lost privs just to make the
rules a little shorter.
Neither idea is going to get much support.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<wk3...@wk3c.com> writes:
>> >My *personal* view would be as follows:
>> >
>> >1) fix the disconnect between power levels and technical knowledge
>> >required for the tech license (either make the test a bit more
>> > comprehensive or limit
>> >the power to more reasonable levels ... the first option would make entry
>> >harder, so I prefer the second approach, so as not to make the bar
>> >discouragingly high for newbies)
I prefer the first approach too, but as K2ASP points out, enforcement could be
a big problem. FCC may not want to enact rules that are harder to enforce than
the existing ones.
>>
>> As we discussed before, RF safety at VHF/UHF is a big concern. To avoid
>>taking
>> privs away from anybody, existing Techs could be allowed to run full
>>power,
>> keeping their old license docs to show they really are "old" Techs.
>
>If it's broke, it ought to be fixed ... but I doubt that you'd really be
>taking away
>something that's actually used by the vast majority of techs if you imposed
>a limit
>akin to what most "higher powered" mobiles put out ... say about 50W ...
If the vast majority are not running more than a few dozen watts, is there
really a problem at all?
Also, I'm pretty sure that a proposal to remove privileges from anyone won't be
popular enough to get enacted. Heck, we still see/hear griping about the
incentive licensing changes of 35+ years ago, from folks who weren't even
licensed at the time!
>Also, I think that most of the "old" techs who would likely be doing
>something
>more than just FM/packet/APRS with commercially built radios have probably
>already upgraded to General or Extra already.
I don't know about that. I know some Techs who are simply not interested in
HF/MF and its physically large antennas, unpredictable propagation, narrrow
bands, etc. These folks are into satellites, ATV, etc.
>>
>> >2) add limited power HF access to the tech license (same bands as
>> >General?)
>>
>> If Techs get the same HF/MF as Generals, then the only reason to upgrade
>>to
>> General will be to get more power. Is that really the most desirable
>>incentive?
>
>Maybe not ... but they need to get "mainstreamed" so that they get a
>(decent)
>taste of HF ...
I'd say give 'em all of 160 and the WARC bands, plus about half the General
subbands on 80/40/20/15. Same power level as allowed for Novices/Tech Pluses
today. All it would require is a rewrite of the part of the rules which specify
the bands/modes allowed to Novices and Tech pluses.
>to be honest, I'm hard pressed to think of a better "carrot"
>than giving them access but limiting their power
All depends where you put the power limit. The current limit for HF Novice/Tech
plus was set to be above that of the typical "100 watt" HF rig. Many hams never
use more power than that, so they would have no incentive to upgrade. Heck, the
most powerful ham rig I've ever used at my own station put out maybe 150 watts.
(but at other stations....)
Now if you limit them to QRP levels (as is done for UK novices), there's a
whole set of different problems, like rig selection and the double whammy of
low power and antenna inefficiency.
What's wrong with the idea below?
>> I'd say the HF/MF bands should be divided by occupied bandwidth of mode,
>> and
>> forget about the baud rate or modulation type. What we now call the
>> "CW/digital" parts of the band would be open to any documented mode that
>> has
>> less than, say, 900 Hz bandwidth. What we now call the "phone" parts of
>> the
>> bands would be open to any documented mode that has less than, say, 7000
>> Hz
>> bandwidth. And the old "Novice" subbands would be open to any documented
>> mode
>> that will fit inside the subband.
>
>Sounds heavily slanted towards low data rate stuff ...
The problem right now is that in the area of HF mode subbands we have a strange
set of rules about modes and bandwidths that, in my opinion, are based on a
hodgepodge of ideas rather than a comprehensive plan.
For example, if somebody figures out a way to fit a voice signal into a 500 Hz
occupied bandwidth (say, by buffering and accepting some time delays in
transmission), they cannot use that mode in the CW/digital subbands. But they
can use 850 Hz shift FSK Baudot RTTY, which is a much wider signal!
OTOH, data modes other than "image" are prohibited in the "voice" subbands,
again regardless of bandwidth.
Why not keep all the narrow signals together, and likewise all the wide ones?
> and why would you
>allow the
>entire old novice bands to be consumed by one signal while restricting to
>much lower
>bandwidths elsewhere?
Some time back there was a proposal to "refarm" the Novice subbands. "Refarm"
was just a euphemism for "widen the 'phone bands". Some of us thought a better
use would be to create a few subbands where any mode that would fit could be
tried out.
>
>> >5) pretty much leave the rest as is (if it ain't broke, don't fix it
>....)
>>
>> Three classes of license, 10 year term, no age requirement, etc.
>> >
>> I forgot one question: What happens to existing Advanceds and Novices?
>Just
>> leave 'em alone?
>
>Seems to be the approach ... though why someone who's actually
>interested/active
>in ham radio and already has lifetime credit for the 5 wpm Morse test would
>remain
>a novice really stumps me ...
In many cases I know, long-time Novices are inactive folks.
The number of Novices has dropped by about half since Restructuring - far
faster than Advanceds.
> as for the advanceds, I suspect that
>eventually all of them
>will either upgrade or go SK (not that I'm eager for the latter in any way
>...).
>
Agreed.
>Once the numbers in those classes drop to zero, they can simply be ignored.
Or written out of the rules.
Tech pluses will simply disappear in about 7 years even if nothing else is
done, due to renewal as Techs. Novices will continue to drop, but we may see an
aymptotic effect towards the end. Who gets to be the "last Novice"?
>
And here's a scary thought....
Back at the very end of 1952, FCC closed off the Advanced to new issues. No new
Advanceds were issued for almost 15 years - and then the license class was
reactivated. ~40,000 Advanceds in 1952, maybe 80% of that number in 1967.
~88,000 today.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:
>In article <c2356669.03021...@posting.google.com>, N2...@AOL.COM
>(N2EY) writes:
>
>>Well, the tests these days are all createdby the QPC, who are
>>volunteers. FCC checks and approves, but the grunt work of writing the
>>things is up to ham volunteers. Which means that last part could be
>>done under existing rules.
>>
>>Here's a question I forgot: Should Learners have distinctive calls, or
>>at least not be able to get any unassigned call?
>>
>>How about minimum age requirements?
>>
>>73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>I agree with Carl Stevenson's idea that entry-level hams should have
>reduced power limits on VHF/UHF.
Me too, but note K2ASP's observations on enforcement difficulties.
>
>I don't think that entry-level hams should have the option of requesing
>Vanity Call signs. In fact, I would like to change the Vanity call sign
>program to eliminate the ability to request out-of-district call signs, with
>the retroactive cancellation of any which have already been assigned!
Chances of that happening are slim-to-none, Larry!
How about this:
Entry level can have "six character" calls (2x3)
Middle level can have "five character" calls (2x2 or 1x3), OR they can keep
entry level call
Top level can have "four character" calls (1x2 or 2x1), OR they can keep
entry/middle level call
>
>Of course, everyone's assuming that when S25.5 goes away at the
>International level, that the FCC will automatically drop the 5 WPM
>code test for General/Extra. Has there been any indication from the
>FCC that this was a fait accompli?
Yes.
In the R&O to the 2000 restructuring, FCC addressed the various pro-code-test
arguments and said they did not agree. FCC also said they saw "no regulatory
purpose" in keeping any code test at all, EXCEPT meeting the requirements of
S25.5.
And even though the majority of those who commented not only supported code
testing, but supported code testing at at least 2 speeds, FCC dumped all but 5
wpm testing.
FCC made it as clear as they could without actually saying 'if/when S25.5 goes
we'll just dump element 1'.
>It would be fun to see the FCC
>say, "We've done enough changing of the requirements, they're not
>set, live with them, we're not going to pay to print up a new set of
>rules just to drop the code test!"
I'd be very happy if they did just that. But I hold out little hope for such an
outcome.
All FCC would have to do is issue some sort of order that Element 1 is waived
for all applicants, pending a rewrite of the rules during the next review. One
paragraph, replacing the current definition of Element 1. I think FCC could
even cite their earlier R&O's on the subject and simply do it without needing a
proposal or NPRM.
Another possibility, though less probable, would be for FCC to restart the
whole restructure process yet again. It's been 5 years since they began the
last one!
Main thing is that we hams should be proactive rather than waiting.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Brian Kelly
> >2) add limited power HF access to the tech license (same bands as General?)
>
> If Techs get the same HF/MF as Generals, then the only reason to upgrade to
> General will be to get more power. Is that really the most desirable incentive?
Fuhgeddit. Power level regs are beyond useless. When was the last time
any ham in the ham bands got busted for running over the legal limit??
And the drift toward lower average power on HF has been underway for
years.
> >4) fix outmoded bandwidth/baud_rate/modulation_type and any other technical
> >rules that limit innovation
Who besides you in all of hamdom is bitching about not having enough
HF bandwidth to "innovate"??
>
> I'd say the HF/MF bands should be divided by occupied bandwidth of mode, and
> forget about the baud rate or modulation type. What we now call the
> "CW/digital" parts of the band would be open to any documented mode that has
> less than, say, 900 Hz bandwidth. What we now call the "phone" parts of the
> bands would be open to any documented mode that has less than, say, 7000 Hz
> bandwidth. And the old "Novice" subbands would be open to any documented mode
> that will fit inside the subband.
50,000 Hz wide sigs on 80, 40 & 15 eh? Lessee now, where have we seen
this nonsense before . . ?
> Three classes of license, 10 year term, no age requirement, etc.
> >
> I forgot one question: What happens to existing Advanceds and Novices? Just
> leave 'em alone?
What a novel concept!
Brian
> As for removing incentive licensing, FCC seems to have moved from the idea that
> amateur radio needs 5 or 6 levels of license to the idea that 3 levels are
> adequate.
Jim knows the mind of the FCC.
Why would 3 levels be adequate?
Why wouldn't 3 levels be optimum?
In the FCC's view, that is.
Dave Heil
>
> In article <gkW3a.478$hj.4...@nnrp1.ptd.net>, "Carl R. Stevenson"
> <wk3...@wk3c.com> writes:
> >If it's broke, it ought to be fixed ... but I doubt that you'd really be
> >taking away
> >something that's actually used by the vast majority of techs if you imposed
> >a limit
> >akin to what most "higher powered" mobiles put out ... say about 50W ...
>
> If the vast majority are not running more than a few dozen watts, is there
> really a problem at all?
>
> Also, I'm pretty sure that a proposal to remove privileges from anyone won't be
> popular enough to get enacted. Heck, we still see/hear griping about the
> incentive licensing changes of 35+ years ago, from folks who weren't even
> licensed at the time!
>
> >Also, I think that most of the "old" techs who would likely be doing
> >something
> >more than just FM/packet/APRS with commercially built radios have probably
> >already upgraded to General or Extra already.
>
> I don't know about that. I know some Techs who are simply not interested in
> HF/MF and its physically large antennas, unpredictable propagation, narrrow
> bands, etc. These folks are into satellites, ATV, etc.
...and there are still plenty of "old" Technicians who, while not
particularly interested in HF are interested in unpredictable
propagation and BIG antennas on tall towers. These folks are doing weak
signal work on 50, 144, 432 and above with KW amps on SSB and CW. A
number are doing moon bounce on 6m, 2m and 70cm.
Dave K8MN