Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 22 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: DUMP Pre Published Answers for the Extra  (Read 42288 times)
W9KEY
Member

Posts: 1165




Ignore
« Reply #180 on: March 08, 2010, 04:14:06 PM »

Keith, thanks for reiterating your points for me.  I am with you on the vanity thing.

Looking at how the rest of the world regulates their amateurs sounds sensible to me too.  

The devil is in the details though -- if you have a general proposed change that you could lay out in black & white for us: I am all ears.

73, K9AIM
Logged
W5ESE
Member

Posts: 550


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #181 on: March 08, 2010, 05:00:35 PM »

Looking at how the rest of the world regulates their amateurs sounds sensible to me too.  

Ask and ye shall receive.

Here's the outline of the subjects for the Amateur exams administered in the EU:

http://www.radioamateur.eu/Legge_CEPT-TR6102E.pdf

Looks comparable in scope to the old US Advanced class license, or maybe
the Extra license.

Scott W5ESE
Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #182 on: March 08, 2010, 05:05:28 PM »

KB1SF posted on 8 March 2010:

Len, K6LHA wrote:  "LEGALLY, the FCC made some regulations which - in my opinion - were in a grey area of proper law, possibly violating some of it way back a half century ago. I could care less about that PAST. I'm still looking FORWARD to the future and NOT playing honcho to rule over 'lesser beings' in USA amateur radio like so many old-timers seem to demand."

"Unfortunately, Len, the "gray area" legality of all that FCC nonsense from long ago has now become thoroughly entrenched in our Service."

I am aware of that, Keith, though I've only been observing the amateur radio scene since 1947. :-)  

KB1SF: "And it is killing the hobby."

Not quite yet, say I to that last sentence. Explanation follows...
.........................
KB1SF: "However, as I have said previously, progress toward that goal remains agonizingly slow. That's probably because many of the obsessive proponents of incentive licensing who have been buying into that particularly bogus bill of goods over the years are STILL alive and are STILL pressuring our regulators (and lobby organizations like the ARRL) to indefinitely hang onto their dying dreams of regulated snobbery."

A danger in giving Rank, Status, Title, and Privileges to some hobbyist has always been that those recipients might (erroneously) think they DESERVE it! ;-)

However, we cannot UNDO some system so entrenched with so many licensees still alive overnight...or even in a fortnight.

Consider three important milestones in USA amateur radio: The No-Code-Test Technician of 1990, the Restructuring (with many facets) of 1999, the elimination of all USA amateur code testing for licenses in 2006. That is spread over a 16-year time span. NONE of it happened overnight. But, all three succeeded even though seemingly engulfed in the ancient mindsets and radio bigotry expressed by
some in here.

For a reason of POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY, I would propose only a drastic modification of BANDPLANS. No more little segments reserved for the exclusive 'right' of Amateur Extras. Keep the TITLE of Amateur Extra since most of those took an extra set of (more) questions to achieve it. At least for a while. That is not something I would consider harmful to anyone considering there would be NO more special playground area in any band.

I would propose NO discrimination by mode and OOK CW modes would have to endure the modes of the New Millennium "riff-raff." Since OOK CW was allowed on ANY frequency (except perhaps to 60m) of all times before, it is only fair that ALL OTHER MODES by allowed to share EM space NOW. To keep the old discriminatory bandplans would be nothing more than retention of mode-discrimination in the narrow confines of HF bands.

The old-timers aren't really interested in "the world above 50 MHz," so they couldn't dispute what is already in place and appreciated by most others. There should be no problem in reatining the OOK CW mode everywhere AS LONG AS ALL OTHER MODES are given the SAME option. Options have already worked well enough in FCC regulations. So far. "Option is not a failure" to paraphrase Apollo 13 Flight Director Gene Kranz.

We can't legislate morality but we can curtail some of the radio BIGOTRY that goes on.  I see the DE-Regulation of bandplans is a positive step to both of those.

If "CW gets through where nothing else will" then there should be NO technical problem with allowing SSB voice (or whatever new mode comes along) to occupy the "lower halves" of existing HF bands.

Actually, that old pre-World-War-2 folk saying hasn't caught up with the advance of technology but there must be some appeasement to old minds that are unable to learn new things.
.........................
KB1SF: "As you I have already observed, for FAR too many of these people, ham radio has now become more like a fundamentalist religion than a hobby, complete with highly structured ranks and titles, as well as unwritten "rules" and "rituals", not to mention a whole plethora of sacred "rites of passage"."

I'm well aware of that having taken on much e-lobbying on docket 05-235 and seeing how the ancients' quasi-religion is causing so many to veer into radio bigotry and longing for days of their youth.

None of us can go back in time so we must be patient for the more-sentient beings to realize the futility of trying to be young again. The CHANGEOVER process must be slower than either of us care for...but it must come...or USA amateur radio will eventually diminish to disused EM scrap.

We cannot eradicate the false idols of years long ago, modes that are useful only for a minority of a minonority. Those will eventually die out on their own.
.........................
KB1SF: "In the horrifically narrow minds of the "faithful" in our Service, unless someone holds a 13 or 20-WPM, FCC-administered Advanced or Extra Class license, genuflects daily at the altar of Hiram
Percy Maxim, and forever pledges to strictly adhere to all the 1950s-era traditions and other "rites of passage" from THEIR Amateur Radio Service of long ago, one can never "enter into the Kingdom" and be deemed a "real ham"."

I don't consider any hobby activity to be "entering any kingdom" nor being remotely connected to any Supreme Being. Luckily my first acquantence with HF communications was at a relatively massive site long ago (before any satellites that ended dependency on the ionosphere for HF). It is high time that the ARRL enters into this new millennium and ceases their Belief System in "religion of radio of the 1920s."
...........................
KB1SF: "Unfortunately, and as we have also seen by their postings here on E-ham, our hobby still boasts a highly vocal cadre of these crusty curmudgeons who firmly believe that only people who use Morse, AM and/or SSB (vice IRLP, Winlink PSK31 and/or Echolink) are "real hams". And then we wonder why the bulk of today's youth are now routinely looking elsewhere for ways to communicate with their peers!"

Radio Bigotry is alive and well today, it is against CB even though that was allocated for ALL 52 years ago. Bigotry is most definitely anti-intellectual, an escape from having to learn anything new.

Some closet bigots love to use modern terms even though they haven't the faintest idea of how new technology works. They use buzzwords as verbal bling, for decoration, not for intellect.
............................
KB1SF: "The primary reason removing the Morse test in 2007 didn't cause a large uptick in our ranks is probably because that action came WAY too late in the game to make any real difference.  Our potential "new blood" (along with all their fresh, new ideas) have LONG since "voted with their feet"."

Of course, but the radio-religious cannot understand that and/or refuse to believe it. Some cannot yet comprehend the three major milestones in USA amateur radio regulations changes between 1990 and 2006.  
............................
KB1SF: "And those people AREN'T coming back."

Maybe, maybe not. When I took my very first (and only) amateur radio test on 25 February 2007, we had some long pauses between elements. I was talking with a thirty-something outside of Old Firehouse 77 and he asked me what I was "going for." I said "all," adding "all the way to Extra." His remark to me was a single incredulous question, "WHY?!?" :-)

I replied "Why not?" :-)  I added, "Because I can...anyone can do it." Which I did that day. That was true. All 120 questions lumped together are FAR from "rocket science" technology.

On the other hand, I haven't heard much of anything on any "lesser" class clamoring (or even slavering) to make it up to the next "higher" class in these parts.

In truth on that NASCAR-at-Pomona AAA-sponsored race day, over half of those who showed up were doing
nothing but administrative changes, things they could have done themselves on-line at the FCC website for nothing. These were supposedly strong, mighty, (some code-muscled) heroes of already-licensed hamdom.

Me, I was a 74-year-old guy who last took an FCC test (Commercial) about 51 years before. :-)

I did watch highlights of the NASCAR race later, my wife having recorded it on our cable TV's DVR, essentially a hard disk that accepts DTV format video. [DVR NOT invented IN amateur radio][in fact, DTV was NOT invented IN amateur radio, nor was the DTV receiver invented IN amateur radio]
............................
KB1SF: "As a result, we no longer have the numbers in our ranks (nor can we point to any recently significant contributions to the advancement of communications technology) to continue justifying our
free and unfettered access to the literally BILLIONS of dollars worth of internationally allocated frequency spectrum we are currently sitting on."

Yes and no. It is true that no AMERICAN has produced anything new in HF radio as solely an amateur. But I think it is safe to say that there are FEW American businesses INTERESTED in HF spectrum applications. Only a few RFID equipments operate there now and what is there was already there 30 to 40 years ago: Government reserved frequencies for public service, Time-Frequency standards, broadcasting, CB, amateur. Electronics trade publications don't show any articles or PR squibs about "new things" operating in HF. Casual monitoring of HF shows much less activity anywhere than was there 40 to 50 years ago. The era of "Shortwave Radio" is slowly closing down.  
.........................
The YOUNGER people, not just "young people" are ALREADY up agove HF actually USING frequencies their
parents never dreamed of using. Not just cell phones, WiFi handsets, Wireless LANs at work, taking and sending images at work or at play, dozens of different kinds of electronic devices. Meanwhile QST is looking more and more like "Ham Radio for Dummies" on technical subjects and crusty curmudgeons, crumbling at their mental edges are still boosting OOK CW modes as if Maxim invented it all just a dozen years ago, AS IF it is the most efficient communications mode known. THAT is where USA amateur radio is going in its "leadership."

73, Leonard H. Anderson, K6LHA
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3926




Ignore
« Reply #183 on: March 09, 2010, 02:23:35 AM »


Here's the outline of the subjects for the Amateur exams administered in the EU:

http://www.radioamateur.eu/Legge_CEPT-TR6102E.pdf

Looks comparable in scope to the old US Advanced class license, or maybe
the Extra license.


WOW - thanks, Scott!

I'd say it looks like the old Extra - at least.

Note that it includes Morse Code testing. And some countries outside the EU are mentioned.

Are the question pools used published? Or are the tests "secret"?

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 414


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #184 on: March 09, 2010, 05:26:57 AM »

Len (K6LHA) wrote:  For a reason of POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY, I would propose only a drastic modification of BANDPLANS. No more little segments reserved for the exclusive 'right' of Amateur Extras. Keep the TITLE of Amateur Extra since most of those took an extra set of (more) questions to achieve it. At least for a while. That is not something I would consider harmful to anyone considering there would be NO more special playground area in any band.

I would propose NO discrimination by mode and OOK CW modes would have to endure the modes of the New Millennium "riff-raff." Since OOK CW was allowed on ANY frequency (except perhaps to 60m) of all times before, it is only fair that ALL OTHER MODES by allowed to share EM space NOW. To keep the old discriminatory band plans would be nothing more than retention of mode-discrimination in the narrow confines of HF bands.
-----------------------

Len, as I've said before, this is essentially how the REST of the world has been regulating THEIR Amateur Services FOR DECADES.  

And the "sky" in our Service in those other parts of the world has yet to "fall".

Unfortunately, most US hams are completely oblivious to the fact that the ITU has ALREADY established a set of band plans for our Service based on maximum emission BANDWIDTH vice license class and emission mode.  It may also come as a complete surprise to most American hams that most countries in the rest of the world LONG AGO simply embraced those bandwidth-based ITU band plans for our Service and let it go at that.  

It's only here in the USA that our bands were further carved up by 1960s-era FCC bureaucrats into smaller and smaller chunks of so-called "exclusive", artificially walled-off spectrum space based on license class and operating mode.  And, clearly, all of THAT nonsense was done so as to create the principle "incentives" with which to stroke people's egos into "upgrading", thereby forcing compliance with their so-called "incentive licensing" stupidity.

As you say, moving to a bandwidth-based (vice license class and mode based) regulatory system is going to be extremely difficult.  That's because the latter (now thoroughly entrenched) foolishness STILL forms the very heart and soul of "incentive licensing" in the United States.  It also underwrites all the regulated bigotry that you and I have been discussing.

Indeed, under our current system, once the FCC finally takes away all that exclusive bandwidth nonsense, what's going to be left (besides bragging rights) to "incentivize" people to "upgrade" all the way to Extra Class? The answer, of course, is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

So, clearly, REMOVING all that license-class and mode based, so-called "exclusive frequency" hogwash and simply regulating us all by emission bandwidth will, by default, be a major element in reforming our Service going forward.  It will have to be.  

This is what I meant when I said that the FCC has now gone just about as far as they can go with regulatory reform in our Service without doing so.  They simply can't completely dismantle the REST of their 1950s-era, systemically discriminatory, so-called "incentive licensing" system without ALSO removing those systemically discriminatory license class and mode based, "exclusive" frequency-based "incentives".

Like most other countries in the rest of the world, Canada long ago embraced those ITU bandwidth-based band plans lock, stock and barrel and codified them into its regulatory structure for our Service.  

For those interested in learning more about Canada's Ham Radio licensing and regulatory system, here is a link to Canada's "Part 97" (the Radio Information Circulars (RICs) and Regulation by Reference (RBRs) the regulatory documents that govern Amateur Radio in Canada.  Those documents can all be found at:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf05478.html

Even a cursory review of these documents (in a side-by-side comparison with their gobbledegook-laden Part 97 American counterpart) should give the reader a much better understanding as to how wonderfully simple (with the possible exception of that 100 question Basic exam!) our Canadian friends have made it to be a ham radio operator in Canada.  

Specifically, note how Part 97 is written in such a way that, unless something is specifically enabled, then it's prohibited.  Conversely, the Canadian RICs and RBRs for our Service are written in such a way that, unless something is specifically prohibited, then it's enabled.  The latter approach requires FAR less bureaucratic gobbledegook to administer than the seemingly endless "thou shalt not", and "Mother may I?" enabling eyewash that now permeates our Part 97.  

As I've also said, note the complete ABSENSE of regulated license-class and mode-based sub-band frequency nonsense that's contained in Schedule I of RBR-4.  As I have said, Canadian hams (like most others in the world) are ALREADY being "regulated by maximum bandwidth" as they have been for decades. That's because Industry Canada long ago assumed that persons who are smart enough to pass a test for a ham license are also WELL capable of figuring out for themselves "what goes where" on our ham bands.

So, instead of laying out all that frequency and mode-based nonsense in eye-watering detail in "Mother may I?" enabling regulation, Industry Canada simply tells Canadian hams to adhere to the broad (very broad) frequency and emission bandwidth requirements specified by the ITU for our Service.  

This approach has worked well for Canadian hams for decades, as, with very few exceptions, most Canadian hams are quite content to follow the voluntary IARU band plans for our Service.  

So, once again, I ask:  Why can't that same, wonderfully simple, "hands off" regulatory approach also work for us here in the United States?


73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
Logged
W5ESE
Member

Posts: 550


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #185 on: March 09, 2010, 07:14:23 AM »


Here's the outline of the subjects for the Amateur exams administered in the EU:

http://www.radioamateur.eu/Legge_CEPT-TR6102E.pdf

Looks comparable in scope to the old US Advanced class license, or maybe
the Extra license.


WOW - thanks, Scott!

I'd say it looks like the old Extra - at least.

Note that it includes Morse Code testing. And some countries outside the EU are mentioned.

Are the question pools used published? Or are the tests "secret"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

I found that the url I posted is to an out-of-date copy of the HAREC document.

There is a more up-to-date version here; revised in Vilnius in 2004:

http://www.erodocdb.dk/doks/implement_doc_adm.aspx?docid=1803

I don't know if the question pools are published or not.

Examining the HAREC syllabus leads me to conclude that the examination
requirements for a full privileges license in the United States are comparable
to those in EU.

The NCVEC and FCC haven't established any technical expectations in the
licensing process in the USA that are dramatically different than those in the
CEPT countries (Europe).

The only difference is that the license process can be approached more
incrementally in the United States. In the CEPT countries, you're sometimes
required to pass the equivalent of a single exam including the subject
matter encompassing combined Technician, General, and Extra exam
elements in one sitting. Although this varies country by country.

73
Scott W5ESE
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3926




Ignore
« Reply #186 on: March 09, 2010, 09:46:14 AM »

KE7RTV writes: While I'm predisposed to do away with the exams I have to say that the worry about amateur radio turning into another CB is very legitimate and shouldn't be tossed away as just another form of bigotry."

Consider that some folks might actually think it a Good Thing if Amateur Radio were to turn into another cb, only with more bands, more modes and higher power.

Consider that some folks might actually be working towards that result. They won't say it, of course, but their actions will.

Remember that cb did not become a mess right away, nor all at once. It took some years and was a gradual thing. But it's been a mess a very long time. And there's no sign it will ever really be cleaned up.

KE7RTV: "I don't know if the exams are what's keeping amateur radio from devolving into CB or not, but I don't think we should criticize those who worry about it happening without offering some good ideas about how to prevent it."

Thank you.  

A license to use a cb never required any form of exam, just a fee and filling out a form. The person supposedly certified that they'd read, understood and would comply with all FCC regulations concerning cb, but things didn't quite turn out that way. IOW, that approach just plain didn't work.

There was also a minimum-age requirement for a cb license. Which apparently didn't prevent childish behavior there. US amateur radio has never had a minimum-age requirement in 98 years of licensing, and to date nobody has presented any cases of problems caused by the lack of such a requirement. Not one that I have seen.

Remember that the collapse of cb into anarchy happened decades ago, when Americans had a lot more respect for rules and the federal government.

No license testing will absolutely guarantee that every single person who passes it will be a well-behaved radio amateur. That's clear just from how some folks with amateur licenses behave online.

At the same time, license tests do have an effect in that they require the person to demonstrate at least some basic knowledge of amateur radio before being allowed to go on the amateur bands.

Should we follow the example of cb? If we do, why should we expect different results?

---

A good analogy is that of real estate zoning.

Imagine a small town that was really a nice place to live. Homes were small yet expensive for their size, extremely well built and well cared for. Community spirit and being a good neighbor were very important to Podunkers. When there were problems the Podunk Valley Civic League worked hard to deal with them.

Then new folks from nearby Squeedunk (a "planned community" that didn't turn out quite as planned) began to show up in Podunk. Most adapted to Podunk's ways but some did not.

A few of the newcomers demanded changes to Podunk's zoning laws. Those few newcomers - call them "changers" - didn't try to compromise with long-time Pondunkers, nor even have a meaningful discussion. Instead, the changers derided the long-timers at every opportunity, making fun of their established ways and institutions (like the Podunk Valley Civic League), their tendency to restore and reuse old buildings rather than tearing them down and putting up new construction, their customs and traditions, etc. Some of them were fond of SHOUTING as loud as the could in public forums. The changers' slogans were all about "deregulation", "progress" and "growth".

The changers didn't stop at name-calling and personal insults, either. They'd make up statistics, misquote people, and get facts wrong. They'd use emotionally and politically charged words and phrases such as "discrimination", "Luddite", "stuck-in-the-past", "resisting progress", "exclusive", etc.

The changers would make thinly veiled claims of corruption, but never produce any real evidence.

They'd point to how some other community didn't have this rule or that rule, or didn't do what Podunkers did, so why should Podunk be any different? Never mind that those other places were very different from Podunk. Never mind that the changers had little invested in Podunk itself.

There was a process by which zoning variances could be granted, and the changers used it for a while. But it wasn't enough; they insisted the zoning laws had to change. So the zoning was changed, a little here and a little there. After each change, there would be a short while of quiet - and then the changers would demand something else.

Eventually it got to the point where they were essentially demanding the gutting of the whole zoning code, by allowing almost anyone to build almost anything almost anywhere, with little or no review, community input, or inspection.

One interesting aspect of the changers' campaign was that they sought to make changes in parts of Podunk where they owned no property, and often had never even visited. It also turned out that some of the most verbose changers weren't even residents or property owners; they only moved in after the rules were changed, and then began to demand still more changes. They were never clear about what they wanted Podunk to become, only what they wanted it to stop being.

What should the long-time Podunkers do? Warmly welcome the changers despite their behavior and the mess they were making out of Podunk? Or resist their attempts to destroy Podunk?

Some may scoff at this analogy, but note that the scoffers are almost always those who keep demanding changes to Amateur Radio rules - including bands, modes and activities they'd never used or participated in. If it was old, they didn't like it and wanted it gone.

Name almost any aspect of Amateur Radio, and I can almost certainly give you a corresponding Podunk analogy.

There is one big difference, though.

If Podunk is destroyed by bad changes, those long-term Podunkers who want the kind of life they had before can pack up and move someplace else - maybe even start New Podunk. But if Amateur Radio is destroyed by bad changes, there is no other place for hams to go.


73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #187 on: March 10, 2010, 01:56:17 PM »

KB1SF posted on 9 March 2010:

"Len (K6LHA) wrote:  For a reason of POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY, I would propose only a drastic modification of BANDPLANS. ..."

"Len, as I've said before, this is essentially how the REST of the world has been regulating THEIR Amateur Services FOR DECADES."  

"And the "sky" in our Service in those other parts of the world has yet to "fall"."

:-)
...........................
KB1SF: "Unfortunately, most US hams are completely oblivious to the fact that the ITU has ALREADY established a set of band plans for our Service based on maximum emission BANDWIDTH vice license class and emission mode.  It may also come as a complete surprise to most American hams that most countries in the rest of the world LONG AGO simply embraced those bandwidth-based ITU band plans for our Service and let it go at that."

Yes, but a professional legal firm for "THE" representative of USA radio amateurs was unable to put forth that international concept (relatively lately). Ergo, so many USA radio amateurs haven't been informed of international concepts of regulation. This "League" organization we have doesn't want to tackle big, broad concepts of radio regulation, would rather do chit-chat of things IT thinks is "important" (read newsworthy in the gossip areas).
...........................
KB1SF: "As you say, moving to a bandwidth-based (vice license class and mode based) regulatory system is going to be extremely difficult.  That's because the latter (now thoroughly entrenched) foolishness STILL forms the very heart and soul of "incentive licensing" in the United States.  It also underwrites all the regulated bigotry that you and I have been discussing."

Agreed, but all that regulated bigotry IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. It cannot be abolished jawing about it on amateur radio "discussion" venues. It must be FORCED INTO BEING by Petitions to the FCC. By individuals acting in concert, not by some lackadasical law clerks at a professional law firm.
............................
KB1SF: "Indeed, under our current system, once the FCC finally takes away all that exclusive bandwidth nonsense, what's going to be left (besides bragging rights) to "incentivize" people to "upgrade" all the way to Extra Class? The answer, of course, is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!"

That is counterproductive to the ARRL that DEPENDS on all those "incentive" and "upgrade" publication sales for PROFIT that allows top paid staffers to earn 6-figure incomes.
............................
KB1SF: "So, clearly, REMOVING all that license-class and mode based, so-called "exclusive frequency" hogwash and simply regulating us all by emission bandwidth will, by default, be a major element in reforming our Service going forward.  It will have to be."

Yes, but it will see bitter opposition from the ARRL itself...and the ARRL has the distinct ADVANTAGE of THEIR own little old-fashioned ideas in CONTROLLING information dissemination. In simpler words, the ARRL has and has had the "BIG LIE" propaganda technique going for decades. It will be a tough job to overcome but it CAN be done.  The enactment of FCC 06-178 is proof that it CAN be done.  
............................
KB1SF: "This is what I meant when I said that the FCC has now gone just about as far as they can go with regulatory reform in our Service without doing so."

I disagree with that. I say the FCC can go ONE STEP FURTHER: Going to the bandplans without discrimination. This would be the support, the underpinning of further reform in regulations that will eventually come about. I don't see that really happening until all those holding fast to out-dated concepts of "incentivism" and "class-distinction" just quietly die out. But, we need to set things up for all of that in the NEARER future.

However, thinking of all those overly-proud-but-licensed-under-old-outdated-concepts licensees who still exist, I say that some things MUST REMAIN for political expediency. That is why I would retain the Amateur Extra class. We can't go whole-hog one way or the other. We MUST allow AT LEAST an "Extra" class to mollify (slightly) the egos of those old-timers. If nothing else, think of it as a sort of "humanitarian gesture."

The Technician Plus class was created sort of after-the-fact of the no-code-test Technician class became law in 1991. For Restructuring of mid-2000, Technician Plus was already doomed to close down by June of this year (as I and another identified by name and call in a previous posting). NO NEW Novice or Advanced class licensees would be granted after mid-2000 but those could renew their old licenses (a political gift, apparently) as long as they lived. As to the latter, Novice class has been expiring at a rate of about 8 per day, Advanced class expiring about 11 per day according to Hamdata information. If the FCC can allow a political expediency ruling of allowing Novice and Advanced classes to renew, then it can also allow a political expediency of reforming the bandplans for the FUTURE growth of the hobby in the USA.

NO ONE granted a USA amateur radio license in the early 1960s, or early 1970s, or any time after has any LIFETIME GRANT to an amateur radio license. It isn't a ROYAL title yet. Nor does it have any sort of supreme importance over and above anyone yet to become an amateur licensee. That license GRANT does NOT carry any sort of "entitlement-for-life" regardless of how some old-timers posture, preen, and pish off others with their self-defined CLAIMED wonderfulness.

Whatever old-timers want to keep "forever," is NOT THEIRS to claim. It is a fact of life that everyone will, eventually DIE. Few have the courage to admit that. LAW, once established, does not disappear until OTHER Laws replace it. Law that exists now is not immortal but it can be longer-lived than humans' natural spans. Witness a dispute the United States of America had with the English back a couple centuries or so. The USA has survived over two centuries and has GROWN.

Since only the code-tested claim prescience (ability to foretell everything), none of us know what actually will happen in the future. The future is NOT that of the past, but rather a planning for those who come after us. To expect that all in the future will "follow us" in ALL things is supremely selfish, an ego condition run amuck within the heads of those who would rule all. WE must keep the FUTURE open and flexible for others coming after, make allowances for change for THEM, not selfishly just for us in the present. Bandplans without internal discrimination, just the extreme ends as internationally allocated, seems to be a better condition for such a FUTURE.
.......................
KB1SF: "Like most other countries in the rest of the world, Canada long ago embraced those ITU bandwidth-based band plans lock, stock and barrel and codified them into its regulatory structure for our Service."

...and which country has prospered more in general?  I don't have dual citizenship and have no desire to do so. Back on 13 March 1952 I raised my right hand and swore an oath "..to defend the Nation and the Constitution of the United States with my life if needs be." That wasn't an idle statement. Not all in here have done that...but those who want to go alpha-male against me about anything but haven't done that should be advised of it in regards to high-level promises made.  
.......................
KB1SF: "Even a cursory review of these documents (in a side-by-side comparison with their gobbledegook-laden Part 97 American counterpart) should give the reader a much better understanding as to how wonderfully simple (with the possible exception of that 100 question Basic exam!) our Canadian friends have made it to be a ham radio operator in Canada."

It has been a while since I saw a copy of Industry Canada's applicable regulations on Canadian amateur radio. While not an attorney, I did NOT see anything that was "wonderful" or "simple" back then (in comparison) before the USA amateur radio Restructuring. Since I am a citizen of the United States of America, I think that US here can figure out something on a much simpler legislation such as amateur radio regulations. Down here US figured out - in the midst of a lot of colonial politicking, personal animosity, and general wrangling that a "simple" document here was the basis for a WHOLE NATION, one that was yet to be built, begining around 1776. You are treading dangerous ground if you start in on NATIONAL politics comparison. Let's also note that Canadian governmental politics are NOT pristine or immune

As to politics, slicing up the EM spectrum as to who gets what and where, the ITU does that by a governmental agreement (with democratic-principled debate and voting) at a United Nations body. WE, the USA owes NO allegiance to any crown and COULD disagree with ITU if the USA wanted to. Our only allegiance is our own word in a "gentleman's agreement."

WE, down here, have NO, absolutely NONE of any "allegiance" to a private membership organization and publisher in a suburb of Hartford, CT. NONE of us took any oath to defend the Constitution of the ARRL with our lives. Some old-time hammes seem to think they did...
.........................
KB1SF: "So, once again, I ask:  Why can't that same, wonderfully simple, "hands off" regulatory approach also work for us here in the United States?"

Because there are way too many CONTROL FREAKS in USA amateur radio that WANT IT THAT WAY. It existed when they first got licensed and they think they swore some life-betting oath on them all? Or they have this supreme EGO that they want to "tell us what is good for us." AS IF. Those ego-driven types only WANT IT that way because it THEIR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

73, Len K6LHA
Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #188 on: March 10, 2010, 01:59:03 PM »

N2EY - fearless Leader of old-time hams - wrote on 9 March 2010:

"Name almost any aspect of Amateur Radio, and I can almost certainly give you a corresponding Podunk analogy."

You mean you can MANUFACTURE an idiotic analogy, Beaver Cleaver?  :-)

Or are you "Mr. Peabody?"

You must have a "Wonderful Life." [but stay away from bridges in the wintertime...]
Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 414


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #189 on: March 10, 2010, 04:45:01 PM »

Len (K6LHA) wrote:  "Agreed, but all that regulated bigotry IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. It cannot be abolished jawing about it on amateur radio "discussion" venues. It must be FORCED INTO BEING by Petitions to the FCC."
-------------------------
Len, unfortunately, simply filing "petitions to the FCC" on these issues isn't going to change a damn thing.

Just like it took a federal lawsuit filed by the ARRL to get the FCC to comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act over BPL, NOTHING is going to fundamentally change in our systemically discriminatory FCC regulatory and licensing structure unless and until someone (or some organization) with deep enough pockets actually files a similar federal lawsuit against the FCC and/or initiates a Congressional inquiry into the matter.

That's because to correct this now horrifically entrenched regulated bigotry will require sweeping SYSTEMIC change.  Which means that taking their 1950s-era, ARRL-inspired "incentive licensing" nonsense apart will, of necessity, require FAR more potentially disruptive changes to the way we are currently licensed and regulated than simply implementing a handful of minor rule changes in Part 97.  

Indeed, any way you cut it, the truly sweeping regulatory changes that will be required to bring the administration of our Service back into compliance with the rest of federal equal access law will require an absolutely MASSIVE overhaul of Part 97.

That's because, these issues WILL, of necessity, have to ultimately be settled based on whether (or not) the entire regulatory and examination SYSTEM for our Service is still in legal compliance with the rest of the US Federal Code.  

Right now, it very clearly isn't.

But, since the FCC now seems clearly content to continue with the status quo, ANY such changes will need to be forced on them by some EXTERNAL government agency, Congressional pressure…or (most likely) a federal court order.  

Or, to put it another way, the "fox" in this case is ALSO the one now guarding the "hen house".

As I noted earlier, lots of people "wanted" to keep racially segregated schools, drinking fountains, bathrooms and hotels firmly in place in our country back in the 1960s.  But a rising tide of disgust for such blatantly discriminatory practices in the form of sweeping civil rights legislation eventually trumped all those "wants".  Today, those changes have since become an accepted part of both the government as well as the rest of society we live in as more and more of the racist bigots who reacted with violent opposition to such change are now dying off in ever increasing numbers.  

But, as you correctly point out, while those changes all had to be FORCED into law, its also taken several generations for them to ALSO become an accepted part of the fabric of our society.

The noted physicist, Max Planck probably illustrated this social phenomenon best when he said that,  "An important… innovation rarely makes its way by rapidly winning over and converting its opponents…  Rather, what DOES happen is that its opponents gradually die out and the growing generation is familiarized with the new idea from the beginning."

Thankfully, our highly vocal (mostly older) generation of rabid obstructionists to such long-needed change to our licensing and regulatory system are now aging and dying in ever-increasing numbers.  

But, sadly, the licensing system they and their brethren have so staunchly advocated all these many years for our Service still remains chockablock full of "unnecessary regulatory barriers" (to use the FCC's own words when they dropped all forms of Morse testing) to full access to our Service (an Extra Class license) that are nothing but totally unnecessarily (spelled: "ego stroking") regulatory holdovers from a bygone era.  

By any measure, the clearly excessive licensing requirements for full access (i.e. an Extra Class license) to our Service remain WAY out of proportion to any operational or regulatory NEED when compared to the ITU's minimalist licensing guidelines as well as the strict, equal access legal requirements now levied on federal agencies contained in a whole plethora of 1990s-era federal equal access laws.

So, as I said, the only question now remaining is what, if anything, our FCC is going to DO about this issue…and when they are ultimately going to be FORCED into doing it.

And while I certainly can't afford to bring such a lawsuit against the FCC myself, I can sure as hell pester my Congresspersons about it. Indeed, I (and a number of others) have (and will continue) to do so.  But only time will tell if we will eventually be successful in that regard

In the meantime, I'm going to leave you gents to your ongoing "kabuki dances" on the subject.

For, I also well realize that all of the indignant, line by line questions and continual outrage being directed at me from the likes of N2EY and his like-thinking obstructionist buddies for even DARING to keep asking these very disturbing (to them!) questions are simply more abortive attempts to change the subject and discredit the messenger.  

You and I both know it's nothing but a smokescreen so as to avoid serious discussion on what has now become a VERY inconvenient truth among our (thankfully!) ever-shrinking cadre of "incentive licensing forever" Luddites.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
Logged
KE7RTV
Member

Posts: 35




Ignore
« Reply #190 on: March 11, 2010, 08:02:52 AM »

Keith,

There's plenty of agreement with you that the current
exam structure is not the best, so why do you keep
saying it over and over? I've been in a few other
countries myself and I think that changing our system
because of what other people think should be the last
reason we should change.

I've made this point before but the threat posed by CB
is real and worrying about the possibility of  amateur
radio turning into another CB does NOT make someone
a bigot.

Instead of telling us again what's wrong with the exam
why don't you tell us what you would do to prevent
amateur radio from turning into another CB.

Steve KE7RTV
Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 414


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #191 on: March 11, 2010, 08:44:42 AM »

Steve (KE7RTV) wrote:  "Instead of telling us again what's wrong with the exam
why don't you tell us what you would do to prevent amateur radio from turning into another CB.
----------------------
It's not a matter of "what I would do", Steve.  

It's a matter of what is ALREADY HAPPENING and must CONTINUE to happen if our license and regulatory structure is to be brought back into compliance with the rest of the federal Code.

I've already outlined a few of those things in my response to K9AIM back on page 18 of this thread.

First of all, I well realize that UNDOING all our "incentive licensing" nonsense in the USA and again underpinning our licensing and regulatory system with operational (vice simply ego-stroking "exclusivity") won't be easy.  

Indeed, when (not if) the FCC is finally forced into finally ditching the last vestiges of incentive licensing, I suspect one of the FIRST things we'll see is a switch to regulating us all by emission BANDWIDTH rather than by license class and emission mode.  This means DITCHING all of that artificially walled-off sub band (and sub-sub bands) nonsense based on such increasingly irrelevant (and legally unsupportable) criteria as one's license class and operating mode.  ALL of that nonsense will most certainly GO.

Next, I suspect we'll probably see a MORE comprehensive exam for beginners introduced (possibly a combined Tech and General written test) with just a handful of specific, operationally based privileges withheld from those Tech/General operators.

Those withheld privileges might include restrictions on high power operation, and building transmitters and/or amplifiers "from scratch", holding the license for a repeater or club station, and/or giving exams.. Those SPECIFIC privileges will require a more advanced license with an equally more comprehensive test to match.

But, unlike the FCC's current "education for education's sake" Extra Class exam, those advanced exams will ONLY test candidates on the SPECIFIC skills and knowledge that are relevant, related, and NEEDED to safely and courteously exercise those added privileges…and nothing more.

Clearly, this approach will also require a lot of "grandfathering" of current licensees, very much like what is now being done for Advanced and Novice class license holders.  And, while it will be difficult to do, it certainly isn't as "impossible" as our increasingly frantic Luddite contingent would like you and I to believe.

Indeed, Canada "grandfathered" a whole bunch of its current "VHF and above" licensees by "drawing a date line in the sand" when they made their Morse exam optional back in 2005.  Essentially, Industry Canada said anyone who held a "no-code Basic" Certificate prior to April, 2000 had ALREADY demonstrated (by their "time in grade") that they were well capable of operating with "Basic with Honours" privileges.  As a result, Industry Canada immediately granted those already licensed "VHF and above" hams with full and immediate access to HF.

And the "sky" north of the border didn't "fall".

It certainly didn't turn into anything CLOSE to your continued (baseless) concerns about our Service "turning into CB".

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
Logged
KE7RTV
Member

Posts: 35




Ignore
« Reply #192 on: March 11, 2010, 09:44:40 AM »

Keith, my concerns about amateur radio turning into CB
may very well be baseless, I don't know... but, neither do you. I'm only suggesting that we understand
what we're doing before we make changes because it's certainly a cat which can't be put back into the bag.

CB has become somewhat of a synonym for crude behavior
and given the cultural nosedive in which we find our-
selves, I don't think the concern about the rot working its way into amateur radio should be brushed
off as simple bigotry.


Steve KE7RTV
Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 414


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #193 on: March 11, 2010, 02:35:36 PM »

Steve (KE7RTV) wrote:  "Keith, my concerns about amateur radio turning into CB may very well be baseless, I don't know... but neither do you. I'm only suggesting that we understand what we're doing before we make changes because it's certainly a cat which can't be put back into the bag.  CB has become somewhat of a synonym for crude behavior and given the cultural nosedive in which we find our- selves, I don't think the concern about the rot working its way into amateur radio should be brushed off as simple bigotry."

---------------------

I was wondering when the use of "we'll turn into nothing more than CB" paranoia as lame support for indefinitely continuing the FCC's institutionalized snobbery would once again rare its ugly head.  

As I've said, such scare tactics STILL form the oft-cited underpinnings for yet another 1950s-era, elitist holdover for FAR too many in our Service who remain absolutely petrified of regulatory progress and change.  

The truth is that NONE OF IT has EVER been proven true.

I've already told you that some form of licensing in our Service WILL continue to be a part of amateur radio because the ITU has deemed it so.  THAT particular international requirement is not about to go away anytime soon.  Therefore, the chances of our Service turning into a vast UNLICENSED radio service (like FRS or CB) are slim to none.  

What's more, those who continue to regurgitate such utterly baseless bunkum obviously haven’t been listening across the CB Bands lately.  With the possible exception of its use by long-haul truckers, the CB Radio Service is dying...right along with ours…and for many of the same reasons.

But, even so, there are hundreds of thousands of newcomers from that (other) radio service who have joined our ranks over the years and who continue to play by the rules while contributing richly to our hobby.  

On the other hand, actual published statistics HAVE shown that there's been a preponderance of crusty, old 20 WPM (as in "FCC Field Office examined") Extras who earned a fair-sized chunk of Mr. Hollingsworth's enforcement salary before he retired.  Indeed, my own (albeit anecdotal) research a few years back showed that it was those same 20 WPM, FCC-office examined EXTRA CLASS operators who were the ones most likely to show up on Mr. Hollongworth's "scofflaw list".  

The bottom line here is that, over the years, NO amount of testing (incentive or otherwise) has kept such "riff-raff" out of our hobby.  And it absolutely never will.

Indeed, the FCC said as much when they dropped all forms of Morse testing back in 2007.  In their report and order that implemented that decision, they noted that,  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct," the FCC observed. "As a result, we concur with the observation that maintaining the code requirement does NOT (emphasis mine) purge Amateur Radio of bad operators."

Yet, unfortunately, despite the absolutely MASSIVE social and technological changes going on all around them, some within our hobby still fervently believe that Ham Radio must forever remain a closed "religion" where only those who think, act, and genuflect EXACTLY as those who judge themselves already "saved" need apply.

Sadly, it's those same, horrifically entrenched, government underwritten "exclusivity" attitudes that are now helping to kill what's left of our wonderfully hobby.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #194 on: March 12, 2010, 03:02:42 PM »

KB1SF wrote on 10 March 2010:

"Len (K6LHA) wrote:  "Agreed, but all that regulated bigotry IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. It cannot be abolished jawing about it on amateur radio "discussion" venues. It must be FORCED INTO BEING by Petitions to the FCC."
-------------------------
Len, unfortunately, simply filing "petitions to the FCC" on these issues isn't going to change a damn thing."

Really? Then how did all those PREVIOUS NPRMs get up there in front of everyone?

"Just like it took a federal lawsuit filed by the ARRL to get the FCC to comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act over BPL, NOTHING is going to fundamentally change in our systemically discriminatory FCC regulatory and licensing structure unless and until someone (or some organization) with deep enough pockets actually files a similar federal lawsuit against the FCC and/or initiates a Congressional inquiry into the matter."

The ARRL has a few millions of dollars to pay legal fees. The rest of us don't. If the ARRL wants to go whole-hog against a LOSING concept like Broadband Over Powerlines and NOT do anything else, then it is up to the League. Good PR. ARRL has the lock on the propaganda machine conveyor in the USA and they are running the RARE BPL "fight" to the limits. At the same time they aren't doing much of anything for their membership except printing all those publications sold for profit.

Can anyone say "ein Reich, ein volk?" :-)

Three pinciple actions that managed to get into regulations in the last two decades: No-code-test Technician class activated in 1991; Restructuring activated in 2000; Elimination of all license code testing in 2007. Somehow, I just don't think those were put there by "deep enough pockets."

SPECULATION might justify some weird thinking by some to say that "manufacturers" did all three actions but there just insn't any PROOF of that...anywhere except in feverish fantasizers paranoid imaginations. ALL of them began slowly and got the FCC interested enough to release separate NPRMs: 90-53, 98-143, 05-235 respectively.

Let's face it. CHANGING BANDPLANS is NOT, repeat NOT some historic, contentious THING that would bring "deep pocket money" into a fight on EITHER side. All it would do is start a SMALL-scale fight among the already-licensed, especially the old-timers against EVERY change (nothing new there).

But, if a non-discriminatory-by-class "bandplan" were to be implemented, besides aligning the USA closer to the rest of the amateur radio world, it can be a START of FUTURE changes.
..................
KB1SF: "That's because to correct this now horrifically entrenched regulated bigotry will require sweeping SYSTEMIC change.  Which means that taking their 1950s-era, ARRL-inspired "incentive..."

There is a limit of how many times you can "cry wolf" in small forums like this, Keith. Eventually most will simply tune out.

You aren't going to get "MASSIVE overhaul" of regulations for a HOBBY radio service. Face it some more, hobby radio isn't even a Post-It note on the FCC agenda bulletin board. Sorry to deflate all you others, but that's just the way it is. The public doesn't have much of interest in hobby radios, Congress doesn't have any (Lobbyists can't cough up enough perqs for them), and Ham Radio just doesn't have anything positive for "Homeland Security" reasons to the American PEOPLE.
..........................
KB1SF: "But, since the FCC now seems clearly content to continue with the status quo, ANY such changes will need to be forced on them by some EXTERNAL government agency, Congressional pressure…or (most likely) a federal court order."

Keith, you and all USA-licensed hams ought to consider that the FCC has a LIMIT on its own legal task assignments. Really and truly, the FCC does not exist to JUST regulate amateur radio. They have a rather large task in regulating ALL THE OTHER CIVIL RADIO SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES. (amazing but true). The entire Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations was already printed in FIVE VOLUMES back in 1997 and Part 97 was a small piece of the last volume. AMATEUR radio was NEVER a BIG thing in FCC history. Don't forget that wired and interstate and international communications make up their workload besides radio. FDR's original proposal was to have WIRED interstate communications part of the new FCC toward the end of 1933...which Congress passed in 1934.
...........................
KB1SF: "As I noted earlier, lots of people "wanted" to keep racially segregated schools, drinking fountains, bathrooms and hotels firmly in place in our country back in the 1960s.  But a rising tide of disgust for such blatantly discriminatory practices in the form of sweeping civil rights legislation eventually trumped all those "wants".  Today, those changes have since become an accepted part of both the government as well as the rest of society we live in as more and more of the racist bigots who reacted with violent opposition to such change are now dying off in ever increasing numbers."

Somehow I don't think disputes about HAM RADIO were part of that, nor would ham radio ever effect that many in OUR nation (at least in mine). A HOBBY radio activity is just NOT on the scale of affecting nearly every citizen in the small nation south of Canada.  
.....................
KB1SF: "But, as you correctly point out, while those changes all had to be FORCED into law, its also taken several generations for them to ALSO become an accepted part of the fabric of our society."

In the case of CB (allocated 1958) the BIGOTRY is firmly entrenched into the amateur radio "community (invisible to the public)." The (evil) FCC once TOOK AWAY an HF ham band and those bigoted amateurs just can't seem to undertand that they are OUTNUMBERED by (evil) CB users. Yes, "took away" some 52 years ago! Oh, the ham-agony can't rest until the last CB-er is dead! :-)
...................
KB1SF: "The noted physicist, Max Planck probably illustrated this social phenomenon best when he said that,  "An important… innovation rarely makes its way by rapidly winning over and converting its opponents…  Rather, what DOES happen is that its opponents gradually die out and the growing generation is familiarized with the new idea from the beginning.""

Very few reading this forum knows ANY important scientific person unless they have an amateur radio license. Don't waste words on those who can't understand.
...................
KB1SF: "Thankfully, our highly vocal (mostly older) generation of rabid obstructionists to such long-needed change to our licensing and regulatory system are now aging and dying in ever-increasing numbers."

Keith, WE are all due to pass on sooner or later. [even morseites are not immortal even though they think so, poor delusional victims] It is statistically probable that, at 77, I will go sooner than most...except that, on both sides of my ancestry, we were all long-lived folk. :-)

Try to remember the TIME PERIOD of the three actions that I mentioned. It was only in the last two decades that those occurred. Plenty of time to get newcomers - of any age - into amateur radio and have them get acquainted, THEN choose whether or not to split.
.......................
KB1SF: "So, as I said, the only question now remaining is what, if anything, our FCC is going to DO about this issue…and when they are ultimately going to be FORCED into doing it."

The FCC does NOT have to initiate any action by itself. It is an independent REGULATORY agency, not the two-headed Janus that makes up the ARRL (one face, the one making the money, hiding behind the self-described "representative" pseudo-agency face). As I said, there just isn't that much of an effect on the general population of a HOBBY radio activity affecting the PEOPLE of the country.
........................
KB1SF: "For, I also well realize that all of the indignant, line by line questions and continual outrage being directed at me from the likes of N2EY and his like-thinking obstructionist buddies for even DARING to keep asking these very disturbing (to them!) questions are simply more abortive attempts to change the subject and discredit the messenger."

Jimmy is a verbal PAPER TIGER. Like so many verbose fantasizers, he doesn't do anything but parrot certain organizations...without ever becoming an officer-guru within it or even serving his country whether as a civilian or military person.

73, Len K6LHA
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 22 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!