A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
Chris J. Smith (K1CJS)
on
August 15, 2003
View comments about this article!
It has been suggested many times in the articles posted here on eHam that GMRS is a service that some ham operators should have considered instead of ham radio.
It has also been stated, although some feel erroneously, that CW is a "filter" that keeps undesirable operators off the HF bands.
It seems to me that the GMRS service has an excellent "filter" already in place, and from some of the comments here concerning the differences between the ham service and the GMRS service that "filter" is working very well indeed.
The GMRS "filter" is nothing spectacular, requires no study and is readily applicable to ham radio--namely the fee for the license. The GMRS service requires a seventy-five dollar fee included with the application.
I propose the "filter" used by GMRS be applied to the ham service as well, but the price be increased to $150. Yes, One hundred and fifty dollars--you saw right. That comes out to fifteen dollars a year--pocket change for a ham that spends a grand or more for a new HF rig.
Lets eliminate the code test and toughen the theory test. When a person passes the test, they get a notice informing them that upon payment of the fee, they will receive their ham license with their choice of a call sign or just the next call sign on the list. If and when they upgrade, their license is modified, not reissued. At the same time, if the fee is implemented, present license holders will be invoiced, pro-rated depending on the date of their license renewal.
This "filter" would tend to make the people who just want to talk on a radio go and buy a CB radio or go for the GMRS license instead of the ham license. It would also let the FCC know the ham radio service is a service to be paid attention to--at $150 a pop, the 700,000 or so present ham operators would fund a good size chunk of the FCC budget even if the number of hams were to diminish, as they probably would.
What are your thoughts about this idea? I believe it is worthwhile, and would call attention to our service and the BPL problem by letting the FCC 'bosses' know about ham radio by a method successful anywhere--possible revenue (one of the same weapons being used by the pro-BPL faction).
At the same time, the fee would weed out the "gimme" crowd and insure the people who want to get a ham radio license actually want to get onto the ham radio bands for the purpose ham radio actually exists. It would also be a great start towards cleaning up the hobby and returning some order to the ham radio bands.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am told that most gmrs radio users never buy the license.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
$150 is "pocket change?" Perhaps for some. And not everyone buys that "$2000" rig every few years, or has that "$3000" amplifier.
Some, particularly those first starting out, have to scrape together enough to buy their first rig. (I, as well as many now joining our ranks started out in high school. That $150, especially if you have to pay it all at once, would be better spent on textbooks and school supplies.) And that fee would be an onerous expense for many on fixed incomes.
I fail to see how this will filter anything, short of having wealthy lids on the air waves. And the Lids and illegal operators won't bother paying the fee or remaining licensed anyway.
Another sure way to ensure the end of Amateur Radio.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by N2BSD on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
$150 for 10 years is still laughable. I propose we have a variable filter as follows:
Impose a fee schedule that is $50 per calendar year AND is an ad valorem tax on radio gear owned by the station (see table A)
Table A:
Homebrew equipment is DUTY FEE (make you own, get a break, you must demonstrate the ability to actually make this gear, my idea for the new HAM EXAM, to be monitored and TESTED for FCC compliance by the VEC)
American made gear is 10% times the value of all gear owned, per year
Imported gear is 100% times the value of all gear owned, per year.
Antennas and towers are taxes at a flat rate of 25% of the value per year (you can choose to LEASE tower space to off-set this cost)
The collected money will go toward a fund that fights the BPL initiative (or else we all lose).
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An interesting idea... perhaps a variable fee structure would be a good idea with a lower fee for Techs and under-18 hams (keep it $10), and a higher fee for Generals and above (how about $30).
I don't think the fee per se is what keeps people out of GMRS... it's the fee for a not-very-useful radio service. What will GMRS do that FRS or CB radio won't do, with the exception of repeaters? We've got people now who buy 2-meter HTs and use them without a license (the FCC busted a bunch last year). The local contractor paving our subdivision had his crew equipped with cheap FRS radios, and they did the job for him (I don't know if this usage is legal or not). Does anyone really care if someone has a GMRS license or not, enough to monitor the frequencies and get the FCC involved? Does the FCC really care about 5w or under FRS/GMRS operations (licensed or unlicensed), enough to devote enforcement resources towards it? I don't think so.
I've toyed with the idea of picking up an inexpensive ($30) GMRS base station and running it solely on FRS frequencies, to be used for contacting my family in the neighborhood. But, if I would have to pay $75 for the privilege, I'll just as soon pass... I can grab one of my FRS handhelds for a lot cheaper. I can tell you from personal experience that FRS is getting more and more crowded, and it's getting less useful at crowded venues like amusement parks because too many people have them.
Ham radio used to be primarily composed of experimenters... people who were interested in how radios worked, how to build and fix them, and in developing the total ability to build an operate a station. It seems the trend, pushed by manufacturers who want to sell gear, is towards utilitarians... people who don't really care how radios work or how to fix them but who just want to be able to buy a rig and antenna, plug everything in, and get on the air.
Will the utilitarians give a rip about BPL and saving ham radio as a service, where the price of playing is an education so that we can serve our communities when disaster strikes? I hope so... I think not.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I noticed that Wally World has FRS with GMRS included and the higher power allowded with GMRS for sale in there stores and claim a 5 mile range. Fine print on the package tells a GMRS licence is required but the cost of it is only noted inside the package, how many people do you think are going to send in the licence and money? I was watching a morning news show just the other day and they were talking about FRS radios and how handy they were and to be sure and buy the 5 miles range radios but nothing about needing a licence. I also noticed the GMRS licence costs more than two of the FRS/GMRS radios in a single package. As far as making Amateur radio a fee for licence service you can then go ahead and drop the Amateur from the title and then you should also be able to charge for service. With all the cellphones dead in the northeast today along with all the power a club could have made some money sending telegrams to friends and family across the country!
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by DOODAH on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Filters don't work. Filter out too many 'undesirables' and they'll just pirate away instead. To filter based upon financial clout is sickening too - that attitude disgusts me. Here's an idea, how about learning to share your playground, you miserable old $%&*!
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by G7VOT on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The UK has a annual fee of £15. Whether it acts as a filter though is another question. My self I doubt it.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This has nothing to do with a "filter"...it has to do with Chris (K1CJS) wanting to get on HF without having to take the code test. He has proposed this same thing in several other forums about the code requirement. Oh, and he won't talk to me, because I'm anonymous..
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by N0MLR on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ham Radio already has a filter. It is the elitist attitude of many. It puts many more people off than a fee or test could ever do. We all have came up against it. Code verses no code, Extra verses Novice etc. I am sure you can think of your own experience here.
I firmly believe that there should be only one class of License. That being Amateur Operator. Every operator has something to bring to the service. Determination and a willingness to be involved are of the most valued. After that we all go our seperate ways as to what mode or band we use anyhow. There is room for all and we should encourage the strengths of all. The weakness of all (and no mater who you are you have them) is something to build upon. Nobody knows it all or is proficient at everything when they are first licensed. It takes years and maybe a life time to even scratch the surface. Following this it makes no sense to force a mode upon anyone. They will take to it on their own if they are so inclined to. As far as the Tests go I do believe one is needed mostly on Technical issues and Rules. Operating procedure is soemthing else that must be taught but it is best learned by the example of others. For this we need to be an Elmer in all that we do.
No fees are not the answer here either. I know many who can afford to pay but honestlythey are some of the most boring people I know.
It is time for respect for all who serve in our service and above all Common Sense.
Thanks
Greg Dunn/ N0MLR
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by N4GI on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you got so much cash, cowboy, why not just pay Riley's fine when/if he catches you pig-farmering down on 3.900. Why even bother with the license?
I think the E-ham boyz should charge $150 for every WACK-O post on this website.
(Yours truly fee-exempt, of course.)
Blake N4GI
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K5DVW on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a rediculous idea. I guess you dont notice how many pirate stations will easily purchase new ham gear and amplifiers just to operate "freeband".
I pay too many taxes already, I don't need another one.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KE1MB on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Agree, this has stupid written all over it. Does the story 'Chicken Little" have any meaning here? I mean come on guys. This kind of crap makes you want to break the rules just to spite those who put it into effect. A $1000 on a radio??? HELLO!!!!!!! you know how old my radio is? And this BPL thing. Yea it is scary, but will it pass? My bet is no. It will hurt too many, it will be subject to every form of outside interference, ie solar storms, power surges, that CB'er with his 1kw blowing the BPL modems out, the military, civil air, marine, shall i keep going? I am not saying do not raise our voice. But lets not run around yelling the sky is falling. If the FCC needs to rais the fee because of processing cost then fine. But you want to inpose a fee as a filter? Guess who is working on her ticket but would never get it if we had to pay $150, MY WIFE, along with hundreds of others who will find that $150 going to feed their kids or pay a bill. This is utterly stupid. Here we are facing a threat that could shut down our hobby as we know it and you want to impose rule that will turn away thousands of potiontal hams. Realize this, BPL will suffer from interference just as much as we will. The more people using the HF spectrum the more likly BPL will be left the way it is, networking a printer in someones house.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KA5CVH on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I afraid that a fee (a TAX by another name) would not weed out the gimme crowd but only serve to promote more illegal activities on FRS, GMRS, MURS, CB / freebander. This idea is about as idiotic as making people pay a tax on every email sent to help support the Post Office, remember that story?
Just how many hams have their V/UHF dual banders "cliped" so that they can use them (illegally I might add) on FRS/GRMS/MURS? How many hams have their FT-100's IC706's and other rigs modified to use in the freeband (27.4-28.0 MHz)or other "holes" in the RF spectrum where you stumble across hams & freebanders?
I'm surprised that when you read all the brew-ha-ha this seems to be only a "ham" issue when just about every alphabet soup federal agency including all branches of the military use HF. Where is the maritime industry? While it won't effect ships at sea but what about their hf shore stations?
With the recent power grid failure in the great lakes & New England area should only help to reinforce the arguement that this is a bad idea. What if federal, state or local govermental agencies were using BPL for their internet service they'd be in deep doggie-do-do about right now wouldn't they?
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hang on a second. Last time a checked, a brand new HF is running upwards of $600. And we still have the problems that we do. My thinking is if people will fork over $600 or more for a new HF, then $150 isn't going to be much of a filter!!
Not to mention the fact that if this was put into place, it would kill any hopes of most youngsters from entering the hobby.
In short, not a good idea.
Steve, KE4MOB
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K0BG on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
According to a recent report by the Electronic Industries Association, less than 4% of the non-commercial purchasers of GMRS radios opt for the requisite license. Think about that for a minute or two. Apparently the FCC didn't foresee this problem any more than the one on 11 meters.
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KA5CVH on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve, KE4MOB, wrote
Hang on a second. Last time a checked, a brand new HF is running upwards of $600.
Mike wrote
Yes you can buy a new HF rig for that but that's probally far from "average". Besides $ $ $ has never stopped most of the freebanders. I would bet that they drop as much (if not more) on thier stations as does the average ham.
Mike
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by N8XRV on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Even thought over a period of 10 years, $150 doesn't seem like much, but alot of people, and prospective new hams will see it differently.
The hobby could lowly become very quiet, or there will be alot of unlicensed activity start poping up.
But I will agree that if the code is dropped, the tests should be more diffucult.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
DAMN GOOD IDEA!
I would suggest $100 for five years ($20 per year). That way, unused licenses would drop off sooner and we would have a better feel for the number of "active" hams.
Right now, we pay $12.00 for TEN YEARS. That's:
a) $1.20 a year; or
b)TEN CENTS PER MONTH!
That's 1/32 nd the price you ARRL members pay for ARRL membership!
DAMN GOOD IDEA! sign me up!
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
EXCEPT I WOULD ALSO KEEP THE PRESENT REQUIREMENTS!
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KG6ZZZ on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes, this will help keep the poor CBer off, but it will also keep a lot of poor hams off. The rich CBers will be able to finally get a ticket or upgrade. I have heard freebanders using FT-1000MP MVs. Perhaps the author would do better by learning the code and stop trying to buy a ticket.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KG6JEV on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think your idea of making hams 'pay their way' is good, but I take issue with the $150 Suggested Retail Price. That may've been pocket change at one time for me, but since my wife and I moved from California (where I was making around $70k/year as an electronics technician on flight simulators) to Virginia, where I am unemployed and depend on her Air Force MSgt pay to make ends meet. For me, even a used $300 radio would be a luxury right now. I love ham radio and enjoy it immensely, but if the FCC sent me a bill for $150 tomorrow, I'd have to let me license go.
73,
Steven Peterson
KG6JEV/4
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by W7WIK on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is an example of the "money equals happiness" mentality that so many people have these days. If you're not happy, just plop the cash down and buy it... What a stupid idea.
This idea if implemented, would exclude many. It would also bring to the ranks the type of people with the attitude that they have the "right" to do whatever they want since they paid for it.
Ham radio should NEVER have anything to do with money. It is and should be, a level playing field for all regardless of financial situation.
I was in Jr. High when I got my first license 26 years ago. I doubt that I would have entered the hobby if required to pay such a high price.
Every one of us "HF guys" at one time in our lives didn't have a license. Every single one of us had to take tests for our priveleges. Every one of us didn't know the code when we were born... all of us had to learn it. What is the big deal?
I think I know... laziness, sloth, something for nothing, etc..
Marco Wikstrom, W7WIK
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KG6QPS on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, lets add a $150. fee so that the hobby becomes even more expensive. While we are at it why don't we make it higher so we can make this an even more elite hobby. The cost of the equipment to participate in this hobby is a "filter" already. Maybe we should require financial statements so we can filter out the undesirables. After all they can get a CB where they probably belong anyway.
As for "Lets eliminate the code test and thoughen the theory test". That is fine with me as long as all those that currently have a license have to take the new test. I am sure there are many that have been licensed for years that could not go out and take the test today and even come close to passing the current test let alone a new thougher test.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Dumb. Very dumb. About the only thing this would do is raise the numbers of pirate stations on amateur frequencies. When are people going to understand that filters are myths and only end up causing more illegal operators??
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K2ACX on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I got started in tenth grade. If it had cost $150 I wouldn't be here now.
Brian k2acx
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by W3JJH on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The assumption that a license fee would be a filter for bad behavior rests on the assumption that the rich are some how more virtuous than the poor--or at least that someone with an additional $150 in disposable income to spend on his hobby has better manners than some one without the spare cash.
This is, of course, obvious nonsense. All of us know rich jerks. We meet them on the road each day as they cut us off in traffic with their BMWs, Lincolns, etc. We know poor jerks too. Money and manners do not necessarily go together.
A rich jerk can afford to buy a license. A poor jerk can operate as a freebander.
When I was growing up, there were some things that just weren't done in polite society. Social mores have slackened, and society now suffers the consequences. Folks are no longer embarassed by their own bad manners.
The best way to suppress bad behavior is shame. Those of us who aspire to being good operators with good manners should express our scorn and contempt for the lids who cannot conduct themselves in a civil manner on the bands. At the same time, we must conduct ourselves as ladies and gentlemen, offering an good example to newcomers.
There will always be some who cannot (or will not) behave properly. These need to be weeded out by improved regulatory enforcement by the FCC and the Justice Department. I would be willing to donate to a fund to support such enforcement.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find it strange that most everybody's remarks so far have centered on the negative effects of the fee and have totally ignored the thought that the revenue from the fee would put us in the view of the comissioners of the FCC. After all, they see the income from auctions of sections of the band, a one time source, we would be a continuing source of income.
And that would hopefully have the FCC see us in a new light, then again maybe not.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To W3JJH:
While I like your idea, I think it would be ineffectual. Not only are todays younger people not embarrased by their bad behavior, they are becoming violently defiant. A shame shame shame on you today is only met with F-you, I'll Kick your A**, and absolutely no regard to their attitude, or consideration for anyone but themselves. America's youth today were raised with violent rap music and violence on TV. They emulate it and it's growing. There are many good young people, but the bad is getting worse and may outnumber the good ones someday unless some morals, ethics and values are brought back in more american families.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by W8MW on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0MLR: Ham Radio already has a filter. It is the elitist attitude of many. It puts many more people off than a fee or test could ever do.
Agreed. The snobby attitudes cut two ways. First they divide us from within. And people willing to trash fellow amateurs are probably doing the same good work toward prospective amateurs too. Along the way, some started thinking of themselves as professional amateurs, much more enlightened, worthy and valuable than plain old amateur amateurs. This is almost funny, since an amateur is indeed an amateur unless he becomes a professional in some other radio service. It doesn't matter what test you took or what areas of amateur radio you excell in, you're still an amateur. Not a professional, not a judge, not a god. Those who are so quick to position themselves high above the pack need a strong dose of reality and humility.
N0MLR: I firmly believe that there should be only one class of License. That being Amateur Operator.
I don't hold much hope that the hot shots will venture anywhere near humility, so it would be nice if the system helped them get some. Having been around before the incentive licensing fiasco of the 60's, I recall a time when nobody worried about who held what license. Without those artificial boundaries, amateur radio was more cohesive. Interesting to note the Amateur Extra license involved intensive testing but rewarded no additional operating privileges. The people who held Extras only did it for personal satisfaction and didn't find it necessary to showboat their accomplishment to belittle others. That's an example of true class.
Incentive licensing was a bad idea in the beginning that mutated into an unhealthy environment for amateur radio today. So yes, I would fully support a non-renewable Beginner's Permit and an Amateur Operator license.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At $15K, per annum, only the elite of the elite, as defined by the capacity of your checkbook, will be able to enter the ranks of Amateur Radio Operators. The FCC can hold spectrum auctions of Amateur frequencies, for those who can afford it. Wow, personal frequencies for the elite!! Also, let's require that all equipment be professionally installed and maintained. Heck, while we are at it, let's change the name to Professional Radio Operators.
As for the rest of us poor schlubs: Hurry up and buy those GMRS radios before they are in short supply and the prices go up! Dust off those CB radios and get them working again.
LICENSES? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING ELITIST LICENSES!
Dennis
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KG4NEL on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems like it's April Fools every day of the year here...
;)
73,
Jim
KG4NEL
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by N1KGH on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Every so often someone brings up the idea of increasing the license fees to bring more money towards enforcement.
There's only one problem: Fees collected by the FCC go into the general fund, and *not* directly to the FCC.
I can't see the FCC increasing fees so that the revenue could go to the ARRL or to any entity with business before the Commission; this is an obvious conflict-of-interest. I don't believe that's stopped Mr. Powell from kissing up to the utilities, but I'd rather us and the ARRL have clean hands, as we have had thus far.
If there had been a $150 fee when I renewed last year, I would be an ex-ham. Neither my income level nor my ham activity would warrant the fee. There are those would would tell me just to "work harder" or "get a better job" and I would tell *them* that the only reason I can play ham is *because* I strictly control my spending and my budgetary values, neither of which are much influenced by newsgroup discussions.
As well, if we're going to push the emergency services/9-11 meme, we need to have more people on the ground than we currently do. How many promising public safety-ham partnerships wither on the vine because no one is there, but for some bitter old men who can't be bothered.
Take care,
Dave
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KK7QI on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey all:
I admit I had been standing on the sidelines for BPL (although I did
contribute a decent amount of money to the ARRL Spectrum Defense
Fund), however, it wasn't until I saw the ARRL's Video depicting the
actual interference that BPL generates that really made my blood boil
and got me to file my comments to the FCC.
Here is a link to the shocking video (PLEASE WATCH IT):
http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-web.mpg
Here is an EASY link to let you file your comments about BPL:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/
Tick the top Docket: BPL 03-014
Then Click the Continue Button at the bottom of the page.
Then fill in the form with your comments and hit submit.
If BPL really goes through, I'll be putting almost all of my Ham
Equipment up for Sale -- although it'll probably be worthless except
for scrap metal and silicon.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by WB2GOF on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the biggest purveyor of violent filth trash films in the US today. But he's gonna run for Govenor of the Republic of Kalifornia and "clean up the state." That's a laugh! He is one of those responsible for pushing violent and rebellious attitudes on our youth today. That's why we see road rage, in you face foul-language, confrontations, and general obnoxious behavior. Hollywood puts out trash like the "Terminator" movies, or Van-Damm kickboxing violence, or Steven Segal smash ups, "Rap-Gangsta" movies and music videos, and we wonder what's wrong with our youth today. Stop wondering; Hollywood is a big part of the problem.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio... NOT!
|
|
|
by W8KQE on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
More 'fees', 'taxes', 'surcharges' (call it what you want), etc. are NOT the answer!
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How many hams have their FT-100's IC706's and other rigs modified to use in the freeband
(27.4-28.0 MHz)or other "holes" in the RF spectrum where you stumble across hams & freebanders?
=================================================
I must respectfully disagree. If they operate 27.4-28.0 MHz or other "holes" in the RF spectrum, with modified radios, they are NOT "Hams." Call them "freebanders" if you like, but the real name is "ILLEGAL OPERATOR," whether or not they may have an Amateur License. And the FCC seems to take a harsher stance on "Hams" that operate illegally that non-licensed individuals, because (presumably) a licensed HAM should know (and act) better.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KR4XH on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry Chris, I think it's a really bad idea...
Fees for Amateur licenses would go as far toward "filtering" Ham Radio as expensive Country Club memberships have toward "filtering" the game of golf...
"zero" is the only percentage that comes to mind.
73
don KR4XH
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by W5HTW on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We HAD a darned good filter but we got rid of it. It was called "Qualification."
ed
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by W4VR on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
HOLY MOLY. PEOPLE COMING OUT WITH THESE UNREALISTIC PROPOSALS MUST HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO OR BE WATCHING TOO MANY SCI-FI MOVIES. TOO MUCH WORRYING ABOUT NOTHING.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KE1MB on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
YES!!!!!! GO HERE!!!!!!
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/
they want to hear your comments
Forward it to everyone you know, lets flood the FCC with our thoughts!! this should be on the front page of eHam.
Forget this stupid fee, you really want to make ham radio a thing of the past.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Chris, face it, this is just another lousy idea you came up with to try and avoid the code test....if you want on HF so badly...pass the test...5 wpm is EASY !!!
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KI8DJ on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We certainly don't need a fee for ham radio,I spend much more than my wife would like me to as it is.Many young prospective hams would find it prohibitive. As far as a filter is concerned I think many of the arrogant 20wpm extras should have been filtered years ago. The worst operators who think they own frequencies are mostly extras and have been for years.Many of us came from the cb'er ranks myself included. I took pride in learning theory and rules and was eager to be a good operator. I suspect most of the cb crowd would adjust their habits as well if they are treated with respect and understanding.This shouldn't be a look how much smarter than you I am club. Lets communicate and have fun.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< And this BPL thing. Yea it is scary, but will it pass? My bet is no. >
The BPL thing is legal right now under Part 15 rules. The system in Emmaus, PA is just beginning commercial deployment. I have been there 3 times now, and each time, there are more signals.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is a great idea. This will help and keep the riff-raff off of ham radio while generating some revenue. Couple this with the elimination of CW and easier testing requirements and we will finally have a good system.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KR4XH on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why don't we just arrange to have an Extra ticket shipped-out with the coupon section in every Sunday newspaper?
It would be about the same... And worth about as much.
What are you trying to accomplish? Quantity or Quality?
You want the former, I believe we need the latter...
73
don KR4XH
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TECH2003, you have no place here...you are just a freebander...your opinion doesn't matter here...
Everyone, please check this out:
http://www.eham.net/forums/ModsAndRepairs/2382
http://www.eham.net/forums/ModsAndRepairs/2340
In both cases, TECH2003 is trying to illegal modify his radios !!! He is an ILLEGAL OPERATOR..not a ham...
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by WB2GOF on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So, RADIO123US, if you are a real Ham yourself, please reveal your call. I notice on eHam, there is no information about you either. Maybe you are a troll, or a freebander yourself. I personally discount anonymous posts, regardless of their point of view.
You are no better than TECH2003.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by BORN2TROLL on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HEY WB2GOF!!!
DON'T FORGET ME!!!
IF I AIN'T PISSIN' SOMEBODY OFF BY SHOWING HOW STUPID THEIR OPINIONS ARE ON A INSIGNIFICANT MESSAGE BOARD I NEED TO TRY HARDER!
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Apparently radio123 is a troll. He has even tried to post under my name as TECH2OO3 vice TECH2003. So we can see who the real trouble maker is.
Anyway, I applaud the original author and the W5YI group and ARRL who are doing a great job in advancing Amateur Radio. Soon we will have no code on HF with much easier exams.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
TECH2003, get real !!! So, did you get your 10 meter rig modified for 11 meters ??? None of the hams would help you..would they ??? Why ?? Because they don't want to lose their license....something you obviously don't care about. I'm really surprised you are not complaining about K1CJS's idea...because from all your previous post in other forums you have indicated that any technical standards should be eliminated. So please go away...you are NOT a ham....
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe some of the “LIDS” are quite wealthy.
During the 80s, there was a ham running 10-12KW out; Boston area? He set his station up to “RULE” a frequency he and his friends inhabited on 80 meters. I chatted with a fellow who was with the FCC when they tracked this guy down. FCC listening post in AK would hear him in broad day light. His home was set up with the same type of electrical system, and grounding system a commercial broadcast station would use.
Don’t know anything about FRS, GMRS, MURS, have never used them or been around anyone using them. As a result, I don’t have any experience with them. My CB experience is from more than 20 years ago. I hear CB has gotten much worse.
If I remember correctly, it is Congress that decide to raise funds (to reduce the budget deficit) by selling spectrum.
I also seem to remember that the fees the FCC collects aren’t part of the FCC’s budget.
I guess the biggest question is, “what evidence do you have that your proposal will help?” It could make things worse, or have no effect upon the percentage of “bad ops” that become hams.
It is like advertising. Small local business forget that they can run ads and have no impact on sales, or make sales go down! The “Big Boys” do a lot of research before making an ad. Some of them test market the ads to discover what impact the ad has, before they roll ‘em out nation wide. No Sense in running a nation wide ad campaign if it makes sales go down!
Have FUN
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
These posts are from Radio123us who is not a ham either no matter what he claims--he who won't reveal his call, because he doesn't have one:
"TECH2003, you have no place here...you are just a freebander...your opinion doesn't matter here..."
"So please go away...you are NOT a ham"
Normally I wouldn't even bother with him, he's really not even worth it, but Mr. nobody--you don't run the board. Don't try to tell others to leave unless you're prepared to volunteer to do so yourself.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KF4MKJ on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey this is a great idea. It would keep kids and poor people and most old folks off the air. Don't forget people with disabilities. Then there would be lots of room for the wide audio ssb bunch without people complaining about them using so much bandspace. :D
tongue in cheek
KF4MKJ
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KC5CQW on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And I thought it sucked when the fee went from $6.50 to $10!!!
If you want to pay $150+ for it, fine, i'm glad you've been blessed with wealth.
One of my collage books is $110. I'd have to quit ham for school, ham was what got me ready for school in electronics. What an irony.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by LNXAUTHOR on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
- sure, why not? how about:
/sarcasm on
- $150 for Technician license
- $350 for General
- $750 for Extra
- why not just have a 'pay-as-you-go' for all federal services?
/sarcasm off
- of course, i already pay taxes to support the licensing structure and salaries of FCC employees, right? so what's another $1000 or so out of my pocket? i'm sure the money will be put to good use, especially when the FCC Commission regularly meets at Sam and Harrys in downtown DC for raw oysters, steaks, and a few bottles of wine...
signed,
a clueless taxpayer
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS said "Normally I wouldn't even bother with him, he's really not even worth it, but Mr. nobody--you don't run the board. Don't try to tell others to leave unless you're prepared to volunteer to do so yourself."
Yup...go ahead and defend TECH2003 who is trying to get information on how to illegally modify his radios.
I guess that's ok as long as he agrees with your views.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KB9YKG on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Geez....can't we all just get along? Bottom line: Not everyone who is truly interested in ham radio can afford new fees or taxes. It would be a terrible shame to tell someone who is really interested in radio that they can't take part because they are not able to come up with the money. Get rid of CW, sadly it is an aging art. Make the written tests harder - NO MULTIPLE CHOICE - This would get rid of those who are not willing to study, but the study time would be spent on radio theory instead of CW. A monkey pass the current amateur theory exams. ABCD...just memorize the answer...don't bother to actually learn the theory. Make the tests the real deal and those who aren't really interested won't take the time. Just my two cents.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9YKG
A really good point about testing, and it probably would work better than a fee, too.
Sadly, the FCC probably wouldn't go along with it because they want the testing kept too simple.
_________
I can see that the idea wouldn't work, too many of us DO want something for nothing since that is the way it is now set up. The FCC should go back to a license fee for all radio licenses, though, instead of having everything subsidized by the general fund. That way Joe Shmoe down the street doesn't pay for a radio license if he doesn't have one.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by THEWISEONE on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
BORN2TROLL I guess you got tired of posting with your callsign after getting your ass whipped at all the debates so far. It didn't take much effort to figure out who you are. The least you could do is change your style a little
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps K1CJS should start another thread about the uselessness of all this SeeDubbaYou debating and make endless post about it himself.
I guess it's easier to whine and cry that you can't/won't learn CW then it is to actually learn it. The CW filter has kept him off of HF so it is obviously working.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by BUCK on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is the most rediculous proposal. The best filter for those abusing ham radio is the FINE and PRISON issued to those who blatently violate the law.
Just enforce what we have already and let people be themselves.
Buck
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by NE0P on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
But why toughen the written test? It seems that the money alone will serve as a filter. Why do we need a written test filter also?
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey people, lighten up! This was just an idea and has about as much chance of coming to pass as the code test speed has of going back to 20 WPM! :-))
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by WX3K on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Somehow I do agree with some of what was written concerning boring people, having an elitist attitude etc.....I think overall it has alot to do with being a human being here. Learning to share yourself with others, being positive about change and helping others. These are things that some people still need to learn in life and perhaps could care less about. There are many "attitudes" in Amateur Radio....You hear these amongst the contesters, the CW devotees, and if I can coin a phrase from a AM QSO I had on 2 meters years ago, "the push button boys up the band". Amateur Radio is a microcosm of life, you find all types of people, all types of attitudes and all types of as*holes. If you cant find something positive to do with ham radio, then perhaps the real issue is you dont have a clue about life.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
CW is a much better filter then money. It's also a free filter and it works beautifully. Chris, how long have you been licensed? How long have you been on HF? It works, case closed!
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by DOO-DAH on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Utterly assinine idea. N4ZOU has it right. We are not allowed to charge fees for our services. Therefore it is unfair that we should be charged for performing same. What is the author of this article trying to do here? Cut down on the number of hams? That certainly serves no-one's best interest, not ours, neither his own, not even the government's. If a fee is charged i will VERY seriously consider let my own Extra class license lapse. But I love radio so i wonder what i will do with all that equipment?????
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Mr. Doo-Dah, the author has only his own interests in mind. He wants to eliminate CW from the exams because he doesn't want to learn it. He would rather pay a little fee like in GMRS than to go thru all the trouble of learning CW at a very easy 5wpm. In other words he would rather buy a ticket than actually earn it.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Perhaps you OLD FARTS and DOOH-DAHS should shut your pie holes. Paying a fee is a better filter than having to take an exam on an outdated useless mode or to have to study the uselss theroy to get a license. Times are changeing and we are progressing. Get on board with us new hams or fade away.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by AA1OF on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
i suspect that a lot of gmrs radio buyers never bother with the license
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To AA1OF,
You're correct, but there is really no way of knowing. The first 7 FRS frequencies are the same as the first 7 GMRS frequencies. But with GMRS you can use 4 watts output and talk with FRS, who can only use 500mw. So, who is really going to know? Do you think the FCC is going to track down some 4 watt GMRS users who bough their little radios at Radio Shack to talk to each other on family vacation? They want more range than the FRS so a few extra bucks and they buy GMRS radios and no on is the wiser or really cares for that matter.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by RFSOAKED on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pay for GMRS?? Yeah right... There is hundreds, make that thousands of owners that purchased the combo GMRS and FRS radios. Ask the FCC how many people paid for a license along with them? Yep, not many.
73,
David
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
Reply
by K1CJS on August 17, 2003
Mail this to a friend!
Hey people, lighten up! This was just an idea and has about as much chance of coming to pass as the code test speed has of
going back to 20 WPM! :-))
---------------------------------------------------
If you feel that way, what was the point of the original post???
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KA5CVH on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How many hams have their FT-100's IC706's and other rigs modified to use in the freeband
(27.4-28.0 MHz)or other "holes" in the RF spectrum where you stumble across hams & freebanders?
=================================================
I must respectfully disagree. If they operate 27.4-28.0 MHz or other "holes" in the RF spectrum, with modified radios, they are NOT "Hams." Call them "freebanders" if you like, but the real name is "ILLEGAL OPERATOR," whether or not they may have an Amateur License. And the FCC seems to take a harsher stance on "Hams" that operate illegally that non-licensed individuals, because (presumably) a licensed HAM should know (and act) better.
Mike wrote
You are correct and I agree, I probally should have chosen my words a little better. But lets face it some hams are freebanders too!
Also I'd like to know what the "licence class" or which bands the ham operates on, or passing a CW exam has to do with the "Class of Operator" the individual ham is. I like the idea of re-testing for license renewal. In order to fully support the concept I would require the option of doing continuing education in lieu of the testing requirements.
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA9SVD wrote:
"If you feel that way, what was the point of the original post???"
To see what people thought about the idea, of course. It seems it is about as popular as morse code is to some! :-))
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>by WA9SVD on August 18, 2003
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
Reply
by K1CJS on August 17, 2003
Mail this to a friend!
Hey people, lighten up! This was just an idea and has about as much chance of coming to pass as the code test speed has of
going back to 20 WPM! :-))
---------------------------------------------------
"If you feel that way, what was the point of the original post???"<<<<<
It's the same as his other threads and posts. He is just TROLLING!
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>KA5CVH on August 18, 2003
Also I'd like to know what the "licence class" or which bands the ham operates on, or passing a CW exam has to do with the "Class of Operator" the individual ham is.<<<
It shows the dedication that one has to become a ham. Some of todays new hams just want a free ride without haveing to work for it. It is only a mere 5wpm. If you didn't know it used to be 13wpm and 20wpm. Also the test are very easy these days.
The fact is that I hear all these groups that want to eliminate the code but don't want tougher exams. Quit the opposite, they want easier exams. I have not heard one vocal group petition for tougher exams. But they are still trying for easier exams. If the entrance into ham radio is any easier than it is now it is useless. I say that we need to keep the super easy 5wpm exam that we now have. It's not perfect but it is perhaps the best filter that we have. Given the point of how easy the exams are it may be the only filter. It is better to earn the way in than to buy your way in.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seems to me the article was tongue-in-cheek, and without having time to read all the reply comments, maybe others thought so, too.
But I propose "filters" that are unrelated to CW and don't cost anything, and would be far more effective:
-At a VE session, demonstrate the ability to assemble a station from components, and make a contact on the air, within 30 minutes. Boy, that would be more effective than any sort of written exam, and be a lot more fun, too.
-Licenses should be free (or perhaps a small administrative fee could apply, like $4 annually or something) but have a term of one year, renewable only if the operator can provide verification of having actually operated on the ham bands and successfully made contacts during the license period. A grace period allowing the operator to hold onto his callsign might be extended four times, for example, to allow someone to complete college or some other activity which might prohibit routine operation, with verification of cause.
(My feeling on this one is, "What's the purpose of an Amateur Radio *Operators* license, if the operator never operates?" No one needs a license to do research.)
I'd gladly welcome any new ham who can assemble a station from components and make a contact with it, whether he or she ever passed a written exam, or not.
If international regulations require knowledge of rules and regulations, perhaps pertinent questions on those alone could comprise the entire examination.
Any ham who can throw a station together from bits and pieces in 30 minutes is a real ham and deserves air time. Too many hams can pass dozens of written exams and don't know which end of their radio connects to the antenna....
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by N0KLU on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This thread sounds like a re-run of the Bush/Gore electoral in Florida! What a good laugh, Bush and Gore had me rolling on the floor, what idiot's. Lets just do away with ham radio altogether and give it to the BPL's and the Cell Phones and the Cordless junk dealers....BTW while everyone was fussing about code/no-code the FCC Gave away all your bands to BPL's....
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on August 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We need a fee for amateur licensing like we need a hole in the head! Isnt the government making enough money off the citizens of this country without finding more ways to get in our pockets? Want a good filter for ham radio? Thats easy, get the FCC to bring back nationwide monitoring stations and bust all the idiots jamming, qrming, bootlegging, and causing mayhem on the bands, then fine the crap out of em! Want another good filter for ham radio? Quit dumbing down the testing requirements and making it so easy that a retarded chicken can get a ticket. Need another one? Stop truck stops all over the country from selling ham gear.(or so called "export" rigs) Have weigh stations confiscate illegal gear on the spot and heavily fine bootleggers caught running 10 meter gear in their rigs. They already confiscate radar detectors in states where they arent legal, so why not illegal CB junk? Want another? How about permanantly revoking the license of ANY amateur caught creating willful and malicious interference? I could go further, but its pretty much a waste of time.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on August 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve makes a few good points: (tongue in cheek!) But I'd add : A General Operator MUST know how and when to use a VOM/DVM/Test meter.
A while back, there was a question from an EXTRA Class licensee as how to determine the polarity from a "wall wart" plug-in battery charger/eliminator, asking for the info based on the R-S part number. OK, that's almost ALWAYS indicated SOMEWHERE on the 'plug-in" unit itself, and it would take a LOT less time to check it with even the least expensive (CHEAPEST!) voltmeter/multimeter than to even pose the question on this (or any other) forum. Is this EXTEREME laziness or fundamental lack of comprehension of basic electronics? I can't answer that. I would have been ashamed to ask the question in the first place. (I'd have pulled out a multimeter and had the answer in ten seconds...) I shudder to consider the answer.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4ZHN said:
"Have weigh stations confiscate illegal gear on the spot and heavily fine bootleggers caught running 10 meter gear in their rigs. They already confiscate radar detectors in states where they arent legal, so why not illegal CB junk?"
It may be a good idea, but 'confiscation' of radar detectors has been ruled illegal. In one state a few years ago where radar detectors used to actually be illegal, a state trooper stopped a car for speeding, ticketed the driver, then demanded the driver hand over the radar detector that was mounted on the dashboard. The trooper took it into the woods alongside the road and put a bullet through it, then returned it to the driver. The driver sued the state and the trooper claiming destruction of personal property and unlawful regulation of a radio receiver--he claimed successfully that was all the radar detector was--and WON!!
One creative solution tried once in a southern state was to force the trucker/driver to ship the offending device to their home address via UPS or parcel post. Seems that took up too much of the officers time.
I shudder to think about what may be done if confiscation of a transceiver--illegal or not--is even attempted nowadays. First, the official has to be able to tell the difference. A ham could, but a trooper or a weigh station inspector? Doubtful. Then think of the clogged up court system being clogged up even more. The driver would probably just go get another radio anyway. So, in the end, people would just get around it any way they could.
That is the result of these times.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KD5DFM on August 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
thats all we need " elitist ham radio " . to me its the rich spoiled operators with there 2000 watt amps and HIFI audio radios who cause most of the problums . I thought ham radio was for all , rich and poor . why is it that most consider the poor to be bad in every situation . I guess Jesus was a bad operator also as he was poor . Well i guess i'll just have to qso with jesus cause i'm poor and still proud and still try very hard to be a good operator . i think this is the dumbest ideal i've heard yet . Hold on the next economic plan is comming up . let me guess , maybe i should give all my bandwith to the rich radio operator and some of it will trickle down to me lol ;-)
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by WA9JBM on August 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W9whe, u a BPL plant or friend? stock or money frm utility? pse xplain. , tnx, john
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KG4EFA on August 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
My HAM license cost me $6.25. I earned it, and I respect the privilege to be able to talk on the HAM bands. I'm also a GMRS licensee, which costs $85.00 dollars to obtain, and is good for 5 years. I also still talk on the CB,FRS,and MURS. I agree with the people who say charging a fee is stupid. That ain't going to happen. Rick KG4EFA KAF8755.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KB8LFA on August 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We want to attract people to our hobby, not deter them.
Attract them, use good training techniques and then, by all means, *you* operate in accordance to the strictest rule of amateur radio. That's what will keep our bands clean, effective and keep our hobby alive.
No way would I think about voting for a cost for a license. Why even discuss such a thing?
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KB8LFA on August 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh, also, besides. In today's society, I would rather pay a fee than sit down and "waste" my time studying for a licensing test. I'm not suggesting that you are saying a fee instead of the test, but what I am saying, is if they spent the time to learn and take the test, even if it was just memorization of ansewers, then the money would be no big deal either. I would much rather drop a little cash in today's instant society than spend time studying for something I don't care about (speaking from the point of view of those people who you wish to "filter" out).
To me, asking for a licensing fee is crazy.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nearly everybody who want to retain code crys about the no-coders getting "something for nothing", but just suggest returning the fee that used to be charged to ham applicants years ago and those very same people are the ones who are the most vocal about not paying that fee. In other words, they would want 'something for nothing'. If the fee were to be reinstated, they would probably drop their ham license in a minute.
Is it any wonder why it is obvious to some that such a license fee would make an 'effective' filter, just like some claim morse code makes an 'effective' filter? One is just as much of a filter as the other.
Anyway, don't worry. The Fickle Crapout Corp in Washington wouldn't bring any fees back for the same reasons they'll probably drop the code requirement. To make things easier for themselves.
This article has served its purpose, to see who among us really wants something for nothing.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To K1CJS, if you want to pay a fee and not take a test get a GMRS license. That is the way you want it. That coupled with your CB and MURS radio gives you HF, VHF and UHF. And you don't even need to put forth any effort. I can see why you don't want to learn anything or show any dedication to earn the privliges. You just want to pay a fee and talk. I get it.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by THEWISEONE on August 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Future sign of the times. CQ CQ CQ de ..... listening please no lids, kids, space cadets or no-coders real hams only. What a bunch of lazy good for nothing no code coping losers on here.
|
| |
|
THERE IS NO FILTER.
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on August 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
THERE IS NO FILTER.
There is no amount of $ money anyone has ever conceived that will filter undesirables.
Only the enertia of good operators continuing to provide peer support and spreading goodwill in the amateur community can have that effect.
The morse test has been touted as an undesirable "filter". That too, failed.
FACT:
99% of the most undesirable amateur operators anyone has ever encountered on the HF bands passed the morse test. Some of them passed it at 20WPM, along with a highly complex technical test. Many of them spent thousands of dollar$ on amateur radio.
Bonnie KQ6XA
|
| |
|
RE: THERE IS NO FILTER.
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on August 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I would not mind paying a small fee if it would help. But I see no need for CW testing. It is outdated and uselss. As bonnie pointed out the harder exams aren't a good filter either and should also be made easier.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KG4PXX on August 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why don't we all spend a little more time operating, and a little less time crying. Why don't we spend more time on air, and try to get more invovled with our hobby. If an increased license fee was imposed, this would be the coming of the end for ham radio. People talk about all the cber's coming to ham radio. I invite all to just do some listening. We already have bad problems. Why not focus our attentions on enforcement of the rules, rather than filters.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by K3ZXP on August 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have just found this page and I read most of it. I Cannot belive what Is written here. How many of you belive that any "fee" will stay as it is purposed here. How many belive that you will get something in return for this cost?.
You should look at other countries that charge a Lic. fee for ham radio operators. Australia is a good place to start. The fee there is AUS$ 53.00 per year. Thats all classes. I have had a Lic. there for 25 years. It Started out at AUS$ 15.00 and jumped to over $ 40.00 in one year. The next year if inched up to the present.
So don't fool your self that a fee is a "fix all". I surely does not work in VK. It will not work here.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by N2MG on August 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KQ6XA wrote:
<<FACT:
99% of the most undesirable amateur operators anyone has ever encountered on the HF bands passed the morse test. Some of them passed it at 20WPM, along with a highly complex technical test.
>>
Um, let's see, ALL operators on HF have passed the Morse test. Therefore 100% of all undesirable amateur operators encountered on HF know the code.
Are you suggesting that since morons can still obtain a license even after Morse and hard technical exams that these exams should be eliminated?
That's faulty logic but par for the course in this discussion.
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KR4XH on August 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote>> KQ6XA on August 21, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
.
THERE IS NO FILTER.
There is no amount of $ money anyone has ever conceived that will filter undesirables.
Only the enertia of good operators continuing to provide peer support and spreading goodwill in the amateur community can have that effect. <<
Now this is an accurate(dare I say "profound"!) observation.
And I agree 100%, FWIW...
Like picking sides for a football game, you're presented with a typical cross-section of the population; a few winners, and a bunch of losers. Ham Radio is fortunate that our ranks don't typically represent the usual cross-section of the population. By the technical nature of the hobby, a substantial portion of the losers don't even show-up for the game.
Like anything else, a few undesireables make the team.
Some are even good at the game... So now it's back to coaching(Elmering) and inertia of the "good" players.
I, for one, would prefer to continue on the well-beaten path that we currently have. The system seems to be working.
Perhaps a bit over-simplified for the Amateur Radio scene, but it's the way I see it.
73
don KR4XH
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by N1YRK on August 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is a horrible idea. Ham Radio isn't for just for the rich you know. This sounds like something cooked up by someone on the George Bush administration.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on August 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This idea only makes sense. Great idea chris. All the old farts have been talking about needing filters so that we don't get all them CBers in ham radio. I think that a fee for a license would do the job. We would no longer need CW exams and we could do away with the useless theory exams also. This would definately keep the CBers off of the band and we would only have the hams on that really want to earn a license by paying the fee.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KB7KUT on August 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Beyond the shadow of any doubt this is this the worst idea I have read in a very long time. Effectively a "new" tax on the public. Never mind that it costs more to collect this tax and track it than to keep amateurs as amateurs! If the tax were made to also pay for its collection it would likely be in the range of or in excess of $1000/year... especially if it were to cover all the enforcement some folks are constantly calling for. It isn't necessary to filter new members to the Ham community. There are only so many people interested in radio in the first place. The goals of the hobby are so badly understood and the idea that CB'ers are automatically LIDs is and always has been absurd!!
As an amateur endeavor the gathering of the necessary equipment to make a station work and the license process is already an expensive proposition both in dollars and in time. Most Hams have stations that are in constant revision and change. It isn't sensible to many of us to impose additional restrictions on this hobby when it is a consuming interest and difficult (at times) just to stay on the air. Whether from Home Owner Association rules working against the average Ham or more fees or a station that just keeps breaking or needing upgrades it amazes me that anyone is able to stay on the air at all.
Concern yourself with how to attract more Hams to the public service aspect of the hobby or how to make contests more functional or how to make nets more useful. Quit wasting time on how to "filter" potential operators out of the use of radio. The expansion of the hobby is a difficult thing as it is. With all the new modes, with all the exciting things interconnecting digital, TV, internet, and on and on, why focus on the exclusionary tactics of the past? Thinking it all through a little further would help too.
73;
Chris
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on August 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve,
Great article in the September CQ mag.
73
Frank
KL7IPV
|
| |
|
Pointless and counterproductive.
|
|
|
by WB1HKU on August 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are already several filters in place.
1. Even with no-code, the technical and part-97 exam aspects filter out those unwilling to put some effort into studying for a license.
2. The equipment is not cheap or immediately available. You can't take a credit-card into your local Thrifty, Safeway or Walmart and come out with an HF rig, much less a full station. The situation with VHF/UHF is a little better, thanks to places like Radio Shack, but you still have to put some effort and some substantial bucks into either buying your rig or building it. (Even QRPp CW costs money. Those little toroids aren't exactly free; priced an HF power transistor lately? Those things add up quick, even with a good surplus house like AllElectronics nearby for the common parts.)
3. The BIG one: who do you want to talk to once you're on the air?
This is the reason that the CB bands at 27 MHz aren't still a hot topic like they were '76-'79. At the height of the CB boom, over 10 percent of the American public owned CB radios. That faded as the sunspot level rose, turning CB channels into skipland swamps where, unless you running a kW and a Moonraker, you couldn't get through. The folks who were doing that were generally not fun to talk to, because they were either pompous bores or powermike pottymouths, in either case using their strong signal as an excuse for an elitist attitude, so a lot of people hung up their mikes, turned off their radios and never looked back.
The folks who aren't willing to put in the work involved in becoming competent amateurs won't get along with most of the folks on the airwaves; they've got little in common with them. The easily intimidated will be kept QRT by the elitist attitude displayed by the post that started this thread; they won't feel welcome.
If a lot of repeaters seldom break a squelch, it's likely because of the kind of people who already populate them.
W2NSD/1 used to rail regularly about the "pull up the ladder" attitude he discerned in Newington, blaming it for the steady decline in ham population. I've been off the air for a while (too busy with single-parenthood to put up wire), so I might've missed something, but at this point don't we desperately need more hams to help pull the load and justify our spectrum holdings? If so, the last thing we need to do is pull up the ladder some more.
|
| |
|
My Two Cents
|
|
|
by KB1EVZ on August 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I really think this is a so-so idea. Personally, like many have stated, paying $150 up-front would scare off many newcomers; myself, I got my license in 6th grade, and I certainly wouldn't have spent $150 to do it. However, charging an annual fee of $10-$20 is very reasonable; I wouldn't mind paying it, and it would give the FCC a really good idea of how many hams are active. A monthly fee would require more paperwork than it's worth, and is too easily forgotten, but a yearly fee would also help the FCC fix the problem of having to keep data and a callsign for people who are long disinterested in the hobby.
I wouldn't suggest this as a "filter"; the only way to do that would be to have some type of "moderation" system, which is almost impossible on a radio. Maybe a new digital radio system invented in the future would have an "ignore" option, where people on a repeater/channel/whatever could vote to drop a certain lid's signal. There's really no way to do it; people are willing to pay whatever price to be a jerk or get their message out.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KD5YDC on August 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before now, I've only known 1 Ham radio operator in my life. That was many years ago, when I was in high school. I became interested, but was unable to do anything about it at the time, as soon after meeting him, I was inducted into the army.
Over the years, one excuse or another kept me from becoming a Ham, but, now that I am retired, I have run out of excuses.
Since I didn't know any Hams around here, I went to the local library and obtained some books on the subject. After studying these and practicing the Morse code, I was almost ready to start off with a General ticket, when I found a Ham operator who told me I only needed 5 words per minute.
I promptly obtained my Tech with code license. A few weeks later, I went ahead and passed the exam for General, as well.
I was amazed at the simplicity of both of the "general knowledge" exams, as well as the code exam. I cannot understand why people fight so hard against any of these exams. Actually, if the code test had been 13 words per minute, I would have passed that, also.
After all--isn't that what Ham is all about? Learning and putting it into practice? It is for me, anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by NN6EE on August 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nah it's just Chris/K1CJS trolling again OB!!!
He even told the "WEBMASTER" that he does'nt want to POST on Eham anymore because it does'nt conform to his anal standards!!!
So it's up-ward and onwards!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The real filter should not be GMRS, FRS, $150 -$200 -$2000 bucks. It should be us. If the intention of the FCC is to promote self monitoring of the bands, then lets start taking responsibility for our own actions.
If HF is all going to go to hell without CW as a requirement as many have suggested, then why haven't you done your part to maintain order in your QSO'ing with such individuals?
Peer pressure is the best filter around. No amount of theory, CW, or money is going to work here.
When a potty mouth, or other undesired form of operation is on the air, then the corrective action is simple. End the transmission with the individual and sign off! Maybe they will get the message and clean up their act.
If they cannot conduct themselves appropriately on the air, then the solution is simple isn't it. No CW, No Theory, No Increased License Fees is required.
I don't understand all the paranoia about this filtering out potential badguys mentality.
Believe me, if a CB'er (freebander) want's to get on Amateur HF and create havoc they are going to do it with or without CW as a requirement or even a license for that matter anyways.
If on the other hand, a recently licensed individual with CW as a requirement ends up on HF with a license and conducts themselves inappropriately then they will end up filtering out themselves anyways.
Simply put, if they don't act and conduct themselves appropriately on HF, then they are disiplined or we don't talk to them.
Doesn't matter if the individual is proficient in CW, are an electronics guru engineer, or if they have no idea about radio at all. The self monitoring system works the same in each case and with any individual.
Soon enough, and if we do our part correctly, these individuals will be weeded out without any problem.
...But,
Somehow, I sense that this common sense approach to things will mean the end of the CW war as we know it. Go figure...
Some individuals would probobly be saddened and want to keep playing CW war despite the fact that a simple and viable solution is right in front of them.
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone said,
"Personally, like many have stated, paying $150 up-front would scare off many newcomers;"
Reply,
Ok I am confused, are we trying to encourage more people to become involved in ham radio, or are we trying to scare them away???
Or.. are we trying to encourage anyone to join the "ranks", unless and as long as they are not CB operators.
:)
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KB5DOH on December 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have read several postins on this and I can not help but chuckel and also get just a little put out, I am now retired due to a job related injury Im on a very low social security monthly income I have to hunt really hard to get radio gear I can afford after months of saving. To give you a idea I get 600. a month and there is me and my two sons, Raising the fee or even req'ing a fee would kill many licen ham's and as for the test well all I have to say on that is how many do their own repairs there are a lot of us that can not see as good and our habds are not as steady as they once were and the new radios Im refering to the non-tube radios a person will have to go out and spend how much money for the equipment to work on the radio get real use some common sence so far most of what I have read reads like a death certificate of Amateyr Radio.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KO6LG on May 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Great Idea! I remember when I was a kid just getting started in radio- and I had TONS of spare cash to spend on ham gear, shoot, just in HF gear alone I had invested $80 US Dollars! That HW-16 ( you probably have no clue ) taught me how to be an Amateur Radio Operator, and guess what, I enjoyed CW, still do. Maybe if you got a little motivated to be a real ham, CW wouldn't be that difficult for you. I think that everyone that is so damn opposed to CW is just too lazy to learn something worthwile. Typical American attitude, I want it now, and I would rather pay for something than earn it.
|
| |
|
A Proposed 'Filter' for Ham Radio
|
|
|
by KI4FNV on July 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It seems to me that the only ones this fee would filter would be the Law abiding Ham operators and would promote illegal atcivity from unlicensed operators.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
VECs Process Mountain of Paperwork
Experimental License, BPL Court Challenge on Executive Committee Agenda:
Washing Machine RFI Cured
OK, You Have Your License. Now What?
A License Structure for the 21st Century
Other Opinion Articles
How Social Networking Can Help Ham Radio
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
|
