Another Long Reply to an N2EY Long Reply
Valentine Germann
[Concerning testing and the lack of new hams]:
I agree in principle, but there are many factors involved
besides license tests. For example, back before cheap
cell phone service many hams around here got licenses
and used the local repeaters for "honeydew" purposes.
That was a significant source of new hams even before the
Tech lost its code test. The advent of low cost family cell
phone plans and better coverage all but ended that source
of new hams.
[[Yes, cell phones have been a major blow, no doubt. It sure seems as
though they have just about vitiated the early 1980s changes, as you say. ]]
[Why all the recent changes in licensing?]:
There are several concerns. One is that the FCC doesn't have
unlimited or even adequate resources. Thus the VE and QPC
systems - FCC unloads a huge burden of admin work on unpaid
volunteers. Another factor is the mandate for implification of rules
and regs. Why have six classes of license if three will do? Why
have highly technical tests if the problems (violations) of the
ARS are not primarily technical? Look at the FCC enforcement
letters - they are rarely about purely technical issues, and mostly
about operating issues. "Access" is a big thing to the FCC.
They would rather have all interested parties licensed rather than
have to chase pirate stations.
[[ It's a big problem, indeed, when a volunteer group, led by a small paid
staff, has to cooperate with an under-funded government agency, which has
the fate of the volunteer group in its hands. That paid staff has to be
good, doesn't it. ]]
[Concerning the importance of CW in the ARS]:
The problem is that the FCC doesn't see it that way, and hasn't
seen it that way for a long time. FCC's attitude is that they don't
want to do any code testing any more. So it's up to us hams to
keep the mode alive. FCC won't do it. The ARRL BoD has strongly
supported code testing for many years because the membership
wanted them to. But it has become clear in the past few years that
doing so is not going to make any difference to the FCC, nor with
most other IARU member societies. And there are lots of other
issues demanding ARRL resources.
[[ No doubt these are all good points. However, it sure seems as though
seismic shifts are taking place in amateur radio land, and in some respects
the ARRL is arranging lawn chairs right atop the major fault. That is, why
have amateur radio at all (?) if the real need for it has disappeared, as
the dramatic advent of non-caring by the FCC seems to indicate? That is, if
the ARS had to justify itself all over again . . . could it? ]]
[[Concerning VHF-type FM voice on HF. I said, Where would the WORLD hide
from the U.S. generated noise!]]
Exactly . . . the end result would probably just be chaos.
[[ Ouch. Is this where we could be headed? Not soon, but someday? ]]
[Concerning the importance, or not, of the ham equipment market, and the
fact that the economic factor in rule making is not mentioned]:
It's not spoken because it's just not that much money. Start arguing
that ham radio is important because 683,000 US hams spend a
half-billion per year and others services will point to having more
users spending many times that.
[[ What I meant here is that the U.S. businesses with a cut of the ham
market, even if they are only dealers, DO, most likely, have a say in rule
making, one way or another. I can hardly believe that they remain
silent. ]]
[ Concerning the Big Problem in Ham Radio]:
I think the big concern is that relative lack of growth compared to other
services could mean big trouble holding on to frequency allocations.
[[ Yes, and so could the recruitment of a whole lot of people who can't help
you, if they're combined with a serious loss of prestige for the ARS. ]]
[[ Concerning the future of the written tests ]]:
All the way to a simple multiple choice exam on the basic regs and one class
of
license.
[[ Well, you have to hope it doesn't come to THAT And if the ARS needs to
UPGRADE in this market, not DOWNGRADE? But that's REALLY pushing water
uphill these days, no doubt. And then there's the issue of RE-testing,
which would be the ultimate "upgrade" in the service, in my view anyway. Do
you have a view on that? ]]
[[ Concerning how many 'active' hams there are on HF ]]:
No easy way to tell. Many factors involved, such as propagation, time zones
and
how much a particular ham transmits. How much time on the air is needed to
be
considered "active"?
[[ What would you think might be a starting place here? ]]
Val
KC0MUB
KAY-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO
"Valentine Germann" <vger...@socket.net> wrote
> That is, if the ARS had to justify itself all over again . . . could it?
If Amateur Radio did not exist today, it would never gain enough
traction for approval now.
Which is precisely why we need to stop squandering our energy on meaningless
squabbles about internal issues like how fast we can beep, and concentrate
on external issues like how can we renew our value to PICON.
With all kind wishes,
de Hans, K0HB
PS: Congrats on the new license. Welcome aboard.
CAM
> N2EY's comments are in plain type, mine are in [brackets].
And that is a violation of netnews attribution rules, Val.
Are you a person who follows the rules or not?
--
cheers, CAM http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Valentine Germann
KAY-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO wrote, concerning
the possibility of the ARS justifying itself today:
>If Amateur Radio did not exist today, it would never
>gain enough traction for approval now.
Ouch!
>Which is precisely why we need to stop squandering our
>energy on meaningless squabbles about internal issues
>like how fast we can beep, and concentrate on external
>issues like how can we renew our value to PICON.
Can I have your views on how best to do this?
Val
[ KC0MUB, as of yesterday, April Fool's Day! YADDA! ]
**
P.S. Shouldn't it be "KILO-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO? :-)
CAM
>
> KAY-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO wrote, concerning
> the possibility of the ARS justifying itself today:
>
> >If Amateur Radio did not exist today, it would never
> >gain enough traction for approval now.
>
> Ouch!
>
> >Which is precisely why we need to stop squandering our
> >energy on meaningless squabbles about internal issues
> >like how fast we can beep, and concentrate on external
> >issues like how can we renew our value to PICON.
>
> Can I have your views on how best to do this?
How about stopping the civil war and directing our collective
energies toward the *real* problems facing the ARS in the
21st century, i.e. Ed's top ten? Most rational hams have
accepted the FCC's direction and gotten on with their
lives.
KAY-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO
"Valentine Germann" <vger...@socket.net> wrote
>
> P.S. Shouldn't it be "KILO-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO? :-)
>
According to K0CKB it is KAY-ZERO-HEAVENLY-BODY
Valentine Germann
KAY-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO wrote, concerning
my comment on the "KAY" vs "KILO" thingee:
>According to K0CKB it is KAY-ZERO-HEAVENLY-BODY
Now, just a darned minute here! That makes THREE
irregular usages. . . oh, wait a second . . . OK. :-)
Val
KC0MUB
[ KANSAS-CITY-ZERO-MISSOURI-UNIVERSITY-BUBBA ]
P.S. MAN, that would take a LONG time to send!
**
KAY-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO
>
> Can I have your views on how best to do this?
>
Four simple steps:
Step 1) Open the FCC rules to paragraph 97.1.
Step 2) Decide which of the 5 items (a, b, c, d, or e) is an area where you
can make a real contribution which increases the PICON value of amateur
radio.
Step 3) Focus on that purpose. Brainstorm. Write an article. Put on a
program at your club. Whatever, just GO FOR IT!
Step 4) When you burn out, return to Step 1.
With all kind wishes,
de Hans, K0HB
Lord High Liberator of the Electric Smoke
KAY-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO
"Valentine Germann" <vger...@socket.net> wrote
>
> Can I have your views on how best to do this?
>
Here are some other thoughts (not my thoughts, but I
agree with them).....
Back in June of 2000 FCC'er Dale N. Hatfield (W0IFO) Chief, Office of
Engineering and Technology made these comments in a speech to
AMRAD:
"I would urge you to continue shifting towards more spectrally
efficient communications techniques - especially digital techniques.
Such a shift has a number of benefits:
"- First of all, it demonstrates to POLICYMAKERS and REGULATORS
that you are good stewards of the public's airwaves even without
direct economic incentives.
"- Second, by using what you have efficiently, it strengthens
your case when you need to ask for additional spectrum.
"- Third, by allowing more users to access the available
allocations simultaneously, it improves the amateur experience and
ultimately increases the attractiveness of the service to new and
old users alike."
Then a couple of weeks later FCC Special Counsel for Amateur
Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth, K4ZDH, made some
chillingly similar comments in a public speech.
"Take nothing for granted. Bill Gates can't, and you can't either."
"You're at a crossroads now. An old Chinese philosopher (or my
grandmother--I can never remember which!) said, "Be careful what
you wish for. You may get it." Seize the moment, and make this
your finest hour. Ham radio has been at a crossroads before and
has thrived. Continue that tradition."
"Make sure that, on your watch, Amateur Radio never becomes
obsolete."
From those two FCC speeches, it ought to be clear to all of us that
Amateur Radio does *not* have a "free pass" to spectrum, not will
our current allocations be "protected" when other applications come
looking for a place to operate.
The handwriting is on the wall -- we can continue to bicker and
pout about tests, Morse requirements, and other irrelevancies,
or we can get back to the business of proving our contributions
to PICON. The FCC isn't much interested in what we used to do,
but is intensely watching our current stewardship of the resources
that are so highly coveted by other services.
Let's move on.
W1RFI
>Now, just a darned minute here! That makes THREE
>irregular usages. . . oh, wait a second . . . OK. :-)
Now, if you can think of any cute phonetics for my call, let me know.
I have had a few suggestions already -- Really Fine Individual.
In response to some of my posts, it has been Real Flaming Idiot and a few
variations on that theme. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
Hans,
This is as fine a post as I have seen on rrap. My hat is off to you, sir.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Valentine Germann
W1RFI wrote:
>Now, if you can think of any cute phonetics for my call,
>let me know.
>
>I have had a few suggestions already -- Really Fine Individual.
>
>In response to some of my posts, it has been Real Flaming Idiot
>and a few variations on that theme. :-)
In spite of the mistake I made in the message with your
call sign in it (typing a "1" instead of the "I") I immediately
thought of, quite a while back:
"Radio Frequency Interference"
. . . because of your position there at ARRL!
Val
KC0MUB
Mike Coslo
Excellent post, and I suggest that we take it to heart. That is if we
care about the future of the ARS.
- Mike KB3EIA -
N2EY
In article <uajr90f...@corp.supernews.com>, "Valentine Germann"
<vger...@socket.net> writes:
>N2EY's comments are in plain type, mine are in [brackets].
I have inserted the proper number of ">"s to avoid confusion.
>[Concerning testing and the lack of new hams]:
>
>>I agree in principle, but there are many factors involved
>>besides license tests. For example, back before cheap
>>cell phone service many hams around here got licenses
>>and used the local repeaters for "honeydew" purposes.
>>That was a significant source of new hams even before the
>>Tech lost its code test. The advent of low cost family cell
>>phone plans and better coverage all but ended that source
>>of new hams.
>
>[[Yes, cell phones have been a major blow, no doubt. It sure seems as
>though they have just about vitiated the early 1980s changes, as you say. ]]
The main point is that there are all sorts of factors besides license test
requirements affecting growth. Sunspots and the economy, to name just two.
>
>[Why all the recent changes in licensing?]:
>
>>There are several concerns. One is that the FCC doesn't have
>>unlimited or even adequate resources. Thus the VE and QPC
>>systems - FCC unloads a huge burden of admin work on unpaid
>>volunteers. Another factor is the mandate for implification of rules
>>and regs. Why have six classes of license if three will do? Why
>>have highly technical tests if the problems (violations) of the
>>ARS are not primarily technical? Look at the FCC enforcement
>>letters - they are rarely about purely technical issues, and mostly
>>about operating issues. "Access" is a big thing to the FCC.
>>They would rather have all interested parties licensed rather than
>>have to chase pirate stations.
>
>[[ It's a big problem, indeed, when a volunteer group, led by a small paid
>staff, has to cooperate with an under-funded government agency, which has
>the fate of the volunteer group in its hands. That paid staff has to be
>good, doesn't it. ]]
The FCC is a "legacy" government agency that has been around for almost 70
years. Their funding is not tied to the number of services they are mandated to
regulate, nor the number of licensees in those services. Getting volunteers to
take over most of the testing function for free was a "smart" move by the FCC.
It also greatly improved access to the license process. I got my licenses back
when all hams who were not way out in the boonies had to go to an FCC office.
For me, a kid in school, that meant waiting for Christmas break or summer
vacation. For working folks it meant taking at least a half-day off work. For
folks who lived a long way from an FCC office it meant a lot of trouble and
expense just to get to the exam. That was not a good thing.
>
>[Concerning the importance of CW in the ARS]:
Actually, this paragraph is about the TEST, not the MODE):
>
>The problem is that the FCC doesn't see it that way, and hasn't
>seen it that way for a long time. FCC's attitude is that they don't
>want to do any code testing any more. So it's up to us hams to
>keep the mode alive. FCC won't do it. The ARRL BoD has strongly
>supported code testing for many years because the membership
>wanted them to. But it has become clear in the past few years that
>doing so is not going to make any difference to the FCC, nor with
>most other IARU member societies. And there are lots of other
>issues demanding ARRL resources.
>
>[[ No doubt these are all good points. However, it sure seems as though
>seismic shifts are taking place in amateur radio land, and in some respects
>the ARRL is arranging lawn chairs right atop the major fault. That is, why
>have amateur radio at all (?) if the real need for it has disappeared, as
>the dramatic advent of non-caring by the FCC seems to indicate? That is, if
>the ARS had to justify itself all over again . . . could it? ]]
>
The ARS has to justify itself every day. That's something many hams deny or
forget.
The ARRL leadership obviously thinks that fighting the code test battle now is
a
waste of resources. FCC's position is clear, and not going to be changed by
repeating the same arguments given in connection with the restructuring. Time
to move on to other issues.
For example, despite the restructuring, the growth in license numbers is about
the
same as it was before the changes took effect. Check out
and compare license totals in the 23 months preceding April 2000 and the 23
months since then. (The totals on that website are end-of-month totals, btw).Or
note that the total number of US hams peaked a year ago and has stabilized at
683K or so.
>[[Concerning VHF-type FM voice on HF. I said, Where would the WORLD hide
>from the U.S. generated noise!]]
>
>Exactly . . . the end result would probably just be chaos.
>
>[[ Ouch. Is this where we could be headed? Not soon, but someday? ]]
The example was given to counter the idea of "free market of modes" and "mode
welfare" that are sometimes seen here.
>[Concerning the importance, or not, of the ham equipment market, and the
>fact that the economic factor in rule making is not mentioned]:
>
>It's not spoken because it's just not that much money. Start arguing
>that ham radio is important because 683,000 US hams spend a
>half-billion per year and others services will point to having more
>users spending many times that.
Go to a Circuit City or Best Buy or whatever consumer electronic chain
is in your area. Stand by the checkout and watch how many dollars of
electronic merchandise a single store sells. Multiply that by the number of
stores of that type in the USA. Half a billion is pocket change in that
market.
>
>[[ What I meant here is that the U.S. businesses with a cut of the ham
>market, even if they are only dealers, DO, most likely, have a say in rule
>making, one way or another. I can hardly believe that they remain
>silent. ]]
>
Sure they have a say - Kenwood was repeatedly quoted by the FCC in the
R&O. All interested parties have a say. Their say is "make the licenses more
accessible".
>
>[ Concerning the Big Problem in Ham Radio]:
>
>I think the big concern is that relative lack of growth compared to other
>services could mean big trouble holding on to frequency allocations.
>
>[[ Yes, and so could the recruitment of a whole lot of people who can't help
>you, if they're combined with a serious loss of prestige for the ARS. ]]
Sure. So how do we attract the "right" sort of people?
It has been my experience that the biggest barrier to recruitment is simple
lack of good publicity. People just don't know ham radio even exists, or they
confuse it with cb, or they think it disappeared years ago. This is not a new
problem, either.
Two recent films had ham radio in their plots. I haven't seen "Frequency" yet,
so I
won't comment on its plot. "Contact" showed amateur radio in a very positive
light,
but the words "ham radio" or "amateur radio" were NEVER mentioned in the film!
>[[ Concerning the future of the written tests ]]:
>
>All the way to a simple multiple choice exam on the basic regs and one class
>of
>license.
The pre-restructuring written exams for an Extra consisted of 5 tests totalling
190
questions. The post restructuring exams for the same license consist of 3 tests
totalling 120 questions. FCC obviously thinks that's enough.
>
>[[ Well, you have to hope it doesn't come to THAT And if the ARS needs to
>UPGRADE in this market, not DOWNGRADE? But that's REALLY pushing water
>uphill these days, no doubt. And then there's the issue of RE-testing,
>which would be the ultimate "upgrade" in the service, in my view anyway. Do
>you have a view on that? ]]
Sure. The way we "upgrade" is by example. Hams who do things, and make
their accomplishments known, inspire and attract others to do the same.
>[[ Concerning how many 'active' hams there are on HF ]]:
>
>No easy way to tell. Many factors involved, such as propagation, time zones
>and
>how much a particular ham transmits. How much time on the air is needed to
>be
>considered "active"?
>
>[[ What would you think might be a starting place here? ]]
>
Simple. Get away from the computer and get on the air. Fill the bands with QSOs
so that nobody with a receiver doubts that the ham allocations are being used.
Learn new things and put the knowledge to use. Build a rig, antenna, nd/or
accessory and use it, rather than simply buying whatever Yaecomwood is
pushing.
Congrats again. See you on the bands.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dick Carroll
KAY-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO wrote:
>
> Which is precisely why we need to stop squandering our energy on meaningless
> squabbles about internal issues like how fast we can beep
If you hadn't noticed, the point isn't "how fast one can beep" at all,
rather whether or not one can "beep" at all.
Valentine Germann
Valentine Germann wrote:
>"Radio Frequency Interference"
I mean this in a GOOD way. That is, your work
includes finding ways to ameliorate interference
problems, I think?
Val
Valentine Germann
KAY-ZERO-HOTEL-BRAVO wrote::
>Four simple steps:
>
>Step 1) Open the FCC rules to paragraph 97.1.
>
>Step 2) Decide which of the 5 items (a, b, c, d, or e) is an
>area where you can make a real contribution which increases
>the PICON value of amateur radio.
>
>Step 3) Focus on that purpose. Brainstorm. Write an article.
>Put on a program at your club. Whatever, just GO FOR IT!
>
>Step 4) When you burn out, return to Step 1.
>
>With all kind wishes,
>
>de Hans, K0HB
I certainly intend to do something very much like this, in
part, as an amateur radio license holder. That is, I am now,
and have been, very much aware of the public policy dimension
to the ARS and the need to keep that in mind.
Val
Valentine Germann
N2EY wrote, a lot of interesting material, including:
>The ARS has to justify itself every day. That's something
>many hams deny or forget.
Very true, on both counts, and justifiably so!
>The ARRL leadership obviously thinks that fighting the code
> test battle now is a waste of resources. FCC's position is
>clear, and not going to be changed by repeating the same
>arguments given in connection with the restructuring. Time
>to move on to other issues.
In the interests of peace in the valley, I will let the subject
drop.
>Sure they have a say - Kenwood was repeatedly quoted by
>the FCC in the R&O. All interested parties have a say. Their
>say is "make the licenses more accessible".
Exactly.
>Sure. So how do we attract the "right" sort of people?
Let's not go there now since the goal is to move on.
>It has been my experience that the biggest barrier to recruitment
>is simple lack of good publicity. People just don't know ham radio
>even exists, or they confuse it with cb, or they think it disappeared
>years ago. This is not a new problem, either.
No, it's not, and that publicity lack is real, without a doubt.
>Congrats again. See you on the bands.
Soon, I hope!
Val
W1RFI
>>"Radio Frequency Interference"
>
>
>I mean this in a GOOD way. That is, your work
>includes finding ways to ameliorate interference
>problems, I think?
Yes, it does, Val. That is why I got the call. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
KC8PMX
--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF/MFR
REMOVE "NOSPAM" in email address to reply.
"W1RFI" <w1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020402174209...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Len Over 21
<vger...@socket.net> writes:
Had you been reading this newsgroup since '98 as claimed,
you would have long since known that Ed Hare picked that
specific callsign under the Vanity system. He said so in
plain English. :-)
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21)
>Date: 04/03/02 15:13 Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020403151344...@mb-bk.aol.com>
>Had you been reading this newsgroup since '98 as claimed,
>you would have long since known that Ed Hare picked that
>specific callsign under the Vanity system. He said so in
>plain English.
Perhaps, unlike you, Val has a life ouside of RRAP and missed that?
One CAN "read" something over a period of time and NOT have memorized
every page or detail.
Anything ELSE you'd care to be insulting about?
Valentine Germann
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote, concerning my missing
Mr. Hare's description of the origin of his call sign:
> One CAN "read" something over a period of time
>and NOT have memorized every page or detail.
I read this group very closely for several months in
1997 and 1998, and then from time to time until just
a few weeks ago, when I began reading it closely
again. I still have a notebook from the spring of '98,
and some messages saved from other periods,
if they looked particularly interesting.
But, somehow, gee, I simply missed Mr. Hare's
account of the origin of his call sign! How could
that EVER have happened? Wow!
Val
KC0MUB
Larry Roll K3LT
<vger...@socket.net> writes:
>
>But, somehow, gee, I simply missed Mr. Hare's
>account of the origin of his call sign! How could
>that EVER have happened? Wow!
>
>Val
>KC0MUB
Val:
Ed picked his call sign because he is the ARRL's resident expert
on Radio Frequency Interference. His call sign is both clever and
meaningful -- unlike another particular call sign which gets a lot
of attention on this newsgroup! (No, Cecil, I don't mean mine!)
73 de Larry, K3LT
Brian P Burke
"Valentine Germann" <vger...@socket.net> wrote in message
news:ual72q7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> N2EY wrote, a lot of interesting material, including:
> > test battle now is a waste of resources. FCC's position is
> >clear, and not going to be changed by repeating the same
> >arguments given in connection with the restructuring. Time
> >to move on to other issues.
>
> In the interests of peace in the valley, I will let the subject
> drop.
Oh thank God!