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 2 [3] 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Tech licensees who don't want to upgrade...  (Read 48139 times)
WA8ZTZ
Member

Posts: 47




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2013, 01:32:27 AM »

Re: AA4HA

As the saying goes: Want a degree? go to college
                             Want to learn and know something? GO NAVY

And when you get there you'll find that the ones with the degrees (officers) are in charge  Grin


The officers are in "charge" but the Chiefs run the Navy.   Wink
Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1658




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2013, 11:00:17 AM »

Re: WA8ZTZ

And all these years I thought the Officers ran the Navy and the Chiefs ran the ships and shore facilities. Shocked
Logged
KD8DVR
Member

Posts: 30




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: December 08, 2013, 05:21:42 PM »

When someone says "I'm only a Technician" I say "A technician is enough".  The hobby... and it IS a hobby, has something for everyone. 
Some people only want or need what the tech license privileges offer. 

I seriously doubt the "Prepper" folks contribute little other than a negative portrayal of the hobby.  The "Whackers" dress in their obscenely gaudy uniforms and drive in their flashy-light and sign parades, while getting in the way of the trained public service personnel.

For most, "just talking on the radio" is the safest bet.
Logged

All items presented here are personal opinion only and may or may not deviate from actual fact.
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 412


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2013, 05:47:37 PM »

When someone says "I'm only a Technician" I say "A technician is enough".  The hobby... and it IS a hobby, has something for everyone.  Some people only want or need what the tech license privileges offer.

I seriously doubt the "Prepper" folks contribute little other than a negative portrayal of the hobby.  The "Whackers" dress in their obscenely gaudy uniforms and drive in their flashy-light and sign parades, while getting in the way of the trained public service personnel.

Interesting.

In one breath, you say that our Service offers "something for everyone", but in the next, you dump all over those you derisively call "Preppers" and "Whackers".

So, which is it?

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF / VA3OB
kb1sf.blogspot.ca

Logged
KD2FAR
Member

Posts: 41


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2013, 06:35:55 PM »


In one breath, you say that our Service offers "something for everyone", but in the next, you dump all over those you derisively call "Preppers" and "Whackers".

Last I checked everyone included the biased and opinionated  Wink

In any case, I've never seen a parade with a bunch of Hams, but I think I'd like to. I love a parade. We should probably get one organized. If only there was some way we could communicate in an organized manner over long distances with some sort of established protocol...

...or we could just call people who take things too seriously/not seriously enough funny names on the internet.  Grin

But seriously I think I understand the point KD8DVR was trying to make. For some people Ham radio is something that they only want to use in the most casual way, while for others it's something that provides a means to an end. That end could be preparing for an imagined doomsday, the next big disaster, or even (perish the thought) having fun. From what I can see as a (very) new Ham there is a good deal of discussion about the lack of understanding the public has for our pursuits, but very little about the lack of understanding in what amateur radio is (or should be) from one Ham to the next.
Logged

For dinner on May 27, 1844 S.F.B. Morse had mutton chop and strawberries.
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 412


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #35 on: December 09, 2013, 05:36:17 AM »

From what I can see as a (very) new Ham there is a good deal of discussion about the lack of understanding the public has for our pursuits, but very little about the lack of understanding in what amateur radio is (or should be) from one Ham to the next.

Jeffrey, I don't think it's" lack of understanding".  Rather, I think it's the lack of acceptance among some in our Service of what others want to do within it.

Indeed, over and over again in these (and other forums) we read that this or that activity (particularly if it doesn't require proficiency in Morse) isn't "real" ham radio. And the more I listen to the "Morse testing forever" crowd, the more I'm convinced their arguments have more to do with perpetually regurgitating ancient dogma than in any kind of rationality.

In fact, I’m now convinced that arguing such points with the Morse-testing-and-incentive-licensing-forever crowd is a lot like wrestling a pig in mud—after a while you begin to think they actually like it!

The truth is that requiring a Morse test for a full featured Ham license was a lot like having to know how to shoe a horse in order to get a driver's license to drive a modern day automobile.

Sadly, the Amateur Radio Service in the United States is now reaping the rewards of the ARRL’s and FCC’s decades-long underwriting of such "caste-like" garbage via their continued, highly discriminatory regulatory approaches to licensing in our Amateur Radio Service.

For, in their desperate attempts to keep the “riff raff” out of the hobby, the Morse-testing-and-incentive-licensing-forever crowd has successfully lobbied their willing partners in the ARRL and the FCC over the years to continue using Part 97’s blatantly discriminatory “incentive licensing” foolishness to turn off (and then turn away) thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of newcomers…the very lifeblood of our service.

These are the newcomers who may have tried jumping through some (or all) the FCC’s stupid “incentive” hoops, but who, for many years, only managed to succeed in getting a codeless license….if that.

And what did these new folks find when (or if) they finally got on the air?

FAR too many were greeted with arrogant, condescending rants from the big-mouthed "Old Farts" in our ranks who've made it their life’s work to make absolutely certain such “lazy low life” fully understand they could NEVER be “real hams” unless and until they also passed a stupid Morse test and then “upgraded” their licenses to something that was at least comparable in class (a.k.a.“caste”) to their own.

Quite naturally, many of these new folks have responded by simply "voting with their feet", never to be heard from again.

And then there were the tens (hundreds?) of thousands more who listened to (or read) some of the vitriol spewing forth from the mouths and keyboards of this crowd and simply elected not to even try going for a license in a so-called "public" radio service whose arcane advancement requirements have, for going on nearly 60 years now, clearly enabled such blatant bigotry.

Unfortunately, we’ll never know just how many otherwise well-qualified people our resident regulatory fundamentalists managed to run off as a direct result of their arrogant, condescending rants. However, all we need do is look at the advancing age of the licensees now left in our Service to see the overall (sad) results of their handiwork.

As I've noted previously in these and other forums, several years ago (prior to such information being withheld from the public) the average licensed ham in the USA was approaching 60 years old.  It is most likely well north of that number by now. And, according to the ARRL, the average age of our newcomers these days is still up around 50.

What’s more, while the number of licensees in the FCC's database has been growing modestly as of late, my hunch is that the actual number of active Hams has been steadily shrinking.  With the possible exception of 75 Meters (or during a few contest weekends) our bands are now virtually empty from end to end.

As a result of all this, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Amateur Radio in the United States is now dying a slow death from lack of activity and youthful growth.

And, I firmly believe that a leading cause of that lack of activity is the decades-long regulatory efforts of the FCC and the ARRL to keep Amateur Radio a closed, country-club-like radio service where ordinary (spelled “non-technical”) people of average intelligence and ability need not apply.

Indeed, in the extremely small minds of our resident regulatory fundamentalists, various “hazing rituals” (like Morse tests and "incentive licensing" schemes) needed to be forever perpetuated in our Service to make absolutely certain that only "gifted" people like themselves…that is…persons who possess far-above-average intelligence and who can also regurgitate increasingly irrelevant knowledge of complex radio theory (most of which now goes well beyond what’s minimally required for safe and courteous operation in our Service)…got to be “real hams”.

But, in my mind, what is absolutely inexcusable is the fact that the ARRL and the FCC have been advocating and then underwriting all of this garbage for decades by continually falling back on their same, old, worn-out excuse that they (the ARRL and the FCC) are only advocating and then enabling ”what we Hams really want” when it comes to licensing and regulating our Service.

Unfortunately, what the FCC is hearing comes from the ARRL membership, which has traditionally been made up of only a fraction (today it's about 20-25%) of all licensed US hams. And (also unfortunately) it would now appear that both the ARRL and the FCC very conveniently forgot (back in 1967 when they crammed all that nonsense down our throats) that the Amateur Radio Service isn't just some private "country club" funded by member donations!

Rather, the Amateur Service in the United States is administered by a US Government agency (the FCC) that’s publicly funded with tax dollars!  And the frequency spectrum they administer (and which we Hams now freely use) belongs to all of us, whether we’re licensed to use it or not.

As I've said in a number of other forums, that fact also makes the FCC’s rules and regulations for our Service now subject to a whole set of 1990s-era federal equal access laws…some of which (like the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995 as amended and the Rehabilitation Act) now expressly prohibit federal agencies from perpetuating blatantly discriminatory access requirements to federally controlled resources…like the Ham bands.

Clearly, the ARRL and FCC got away with foisting all their “incentive licensing” foolishness on the Amateur Service back in the 1950s because laws granting far more open access to publicly funded services like ours to persons with multiple learning or other disabilities weren’t even on the radar screen at that point, let alone the law of the land as they are now.

And the dirty little secret (which I'm sure the FCC's lawyers would rather we not discuss in public) is that the application of these laws has since become a mandatory federal requirement that must now be reflected in the rules that regulate all federal activities…including those rules that regulate our Amateur Radio Service.

By now, those same FCC lawyers are probably well aware that even a mediocre class-action law firm could make an open-and-shut case that the thoroughly entrenched way the FCC still regulates and grants access to frequencies in our Service (by license class and operating mode) has now become patently illegal under these new laws.

Specifically, those class action lawyers would (I believe successfully) argue that the entire 1950’s-era FCC "incentive licensing" system for the Amateur Service is now legally systemically discriminatory because it forces all applicants (disabled or otherwise) who desire even minimal access to the mainstream (HF) frequencies and modes of our ITU allotted spectrum to demonstrate skills and knowledge that are either long since outdated or that go well beyond the minimal required knowledge (as spelled out by the ITU) for safety or courteous operation in a Service...a Service whose licensees now almost exclusively use commercially built equipment of modern, 21st Century technical design.

That is, continuing to test for complex electronic construction theory simply to “keep the standards up” (or the "riff-raff" out) has now become legally discriminatory under the US Code.  That’s because, under these new laws, there has to be an absolutely clear and demonstrable operational need  for every single test question placed on every single exam.

And, because of this requirement, I also believe that leaving it all up to unpaid (and therefore “uncontrolled”) volunteers (i.e. the VECs) to collectively decide what gets put on which FCC Amateur Radio Service exam (and what doesn’t) isn’t going to fly any longer in the face of these new anti-discriminatory laws either.  

So, as I've said, unless and until these things quickly change, I believe those pesky class-action lawyers will also be able to (successfully) argue that the current way the FCC allows such discriminatory written theory examinations for full and equal access to all of our publicly-owned spectrum are anything BUT fair and equally applied across the board.

Again, this is something these new US equal access laws also now clearly require.

Needless to say, I remain hopeful that when the most vocal of the "Morse-testing-and-incentive-licensing-forever" crowd finally die off, and/or the FCC does an immediate overhaul of their current incentive licensing structure (or someone with deep enough pockets finally successfully brings a long-overdue class-action lawsuit against the FCC’s arcane and clearly discriminatory licensing practices for the Amateur Service) perhaps things will change.

But, regardless, I fear these long-overdue changes (if they do, in fact, come) will be far too little and way too late to amount to much because the mortal damage to the growth of our Service over the years at the hands of these self-serving regulatory fundamentalists has already been largely done.

Indeed, the FCC’s former Special Counsel for Enforcement, Riley Hollingsworth, speaking at a recent Dayton Hamvention put it most succinctly when he stated, “If there’s a downfall in Amateur Radio, it won’t be caused by the no-code Technicians or codeless anything else,” he said.  “It will be caused by the microphone---no doubt in my mind.”

And, unfortunately, there are still far too many self-serving, arrogant, FCC-enabled, "exclusive clubbers" in our ranks who, via their microphones (and keyboards), have all too frequently managed to drive away thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of budding young Hams with their arrogant and condescending vitriol.

That's because, such persons STILL firmly believe that people who…for any reason…were (or are) unable to pass a stupid Morse test or regurgitate reams of obscure (and therefore largely irrelevant) facts about complex radio theory are all “lazy low life” and certainly not worthy of full and complete access to their ostensibly “private” little slice of the public's radio spectrum.

Sadly, as a direct result of the all-too successful work of such persons (and their willing accomplices in the ARRL and the FCC over the years) it would now appear we are well on our way to “exclusive clubbing” ourselves right out of existence.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF / VA3OB
kb1sf.blogspot.ca
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 05:43:06 AM by KB1SF » Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1658




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: December 09, 2013, 06:47:29 AM »

WOW, I can now look forward to being a pirate station where I can operate where, when and how I want and add some excitement back into the hobby.
Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 412


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #37 on: December 09, 2013, 09:48:38 AM »

WOW, I can now look forward to being a pirate station where I can operate  and add some excitement back into the hobby.

Indeed, there's a goodly number of "regulatory fundamentalist" Ham Radio Operators in the USA who have (also) repeatedly opined in various forums that letting 700,000+ US Hams “loose” to operate anywhere on the HF Bands (and in whatever mode they so choose) would lead to anarchy in our Service.

The truth is that there are ALREADY roughly 70,000 Hams from Canada who are regulated by emission bandwidth (vice by license class and operating mode) and who have been quite regularly “running loose" to operate (as you say) "where, when and how they want" for years (gasp!).  What's more, they are doing so RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the USA with all of its regulated sub-band (and sub-sub band) nonsense..

And the "sky" has yet to "fall".

Now, granted, the numbers of Hams in Canada are much smaller in comparison to those in the USA. However, I think the fact that because nothing horrible has happened on the North American bands as a result of the way Hams have been regulated in Canada, it speaks volumes about the absolute baselessness of the “paranoia factor” in the debates now raging south of the border over such issues.

As I have also noted in various other forums, I've come to believe that a lot of the regulatory issues US Hams are now grappling with are a direct result of the FCC’s decision (with the encouragement of the ARRL) to carve up our bands into smaller and smaller segments based on their myopic “Incentive Licensing” foolishness back in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

To my knowledge, nowhere else in the world are the Ham Bands as carved up as they now are in the USA.  And nowhere else in the world is operating spectrum meted out based on such a complex and confusing system of license “classes” based on an examination system of ever more comprehensive “achievement tests”.  It’s a licensing approach that now looks more like a college degree program designed by (and for) RF engineers than a simple certification system to help insure that a group of “amateurs” will not be a hazard to themselves or their neighbors, or become a nuisance to other Hams on the bands.

So, with this as a backdrop, my hunch is that both the FCC and the ARRL have now begun to (finally) see the error of their ways (spelled “overkill") from long ago.  And, they are probably now trying, ever so slowly, to start backing away from the mess they, themselves, created with Incentive Licensing.

Unfortunately, the system they created back in the 1950s (along with its accumulated changes and “changes to the changes” ever since) has now become so convoluted and inflexible (not to mention thoroughly entrenched) that I believe it’s going to be quite difficult (if not impossible) to fix it without scrapping the whole sorry mess that is Part 97 and starting over.

But, they need to do so with one basic difference.

Part 97 is currently written in such a way that, unless some particular mode or frequency of operation is specifically enabled, then it’s prohibited.  By contrast, the regulations in Canada (as well as in many other parts of the world) are written in such a way that unless some form of operation is specifically prohibited, then it’s enabled.  I think the FCC needs to take a good, long, hard look at the simple way other governments in the rest world regulate their Hams to see if some simplification (or removal) of a lot of the “thou-shalt-not” eyewash in Part 97 might be a more productive (not to mention far simpler!) way to regulate.

I invite those who have never looked at the way another country regulates its Hams to point your browsers to:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf05478e.html

There, you’ll find PDF files of the Canadian Radio Information Circulars…the RICs...and Regulation by References....RBRs. Together, these 7 documents (two of which contain the question pools for Canada’s two Ham certifications) comprise ALL of Industry Canada’s “Part 97”. I think even a cursory reading of these documents and then comparing their refreshing simplicity to all of the regulatory gobbledygook now contained in Part 97 will prove my point beyond any shadow of doubt.

What’s more, I strongly believe the obvious, stark differences between these two approaches to regulating are at the very heart of the current “regulating by bandwidth” mess that regulators (and organizations like the ARRL) the USA have tried (and have so far failed) to grapple with in the past.

This is also why, unless radical changes are now made to Part 97, I believe US Hams will forever be stuck with a 1950s-era regulatory and licensing structure that has now long outlived its usefulness....if it ever had any to start with.

Over the years, US Hams (via the ARRL) have gotten so used to playing “Mother May I?” with the FCC for even minor changes to the rules that when major changes are needed, other diverse (but firmly entrenched) interests in Ham Radio who see their "turf" in any way threatened simply trot out “the rules” and successfully use them as a barrier to sorely needed progress.

Sadly, to many in our Service who are absolutely terrified of change, complex government regulations (like Part 97) simply make it easier for a relatively small group of people to have a far bigger (and far more negative) impact on needed change than their numbers would otherwise justify.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF / VA3OB
kb1sf.blogspot.ca
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 10:28:12 AM by KB1SF » Logged
KD8TUT
Member

Posts: 59




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: December 09, 2013, 10:55:15 AM »

From what I can see as a (very) new Ham there is a good deal of discussion about the lack of understanding the public has for our pursuits, but very little about the lack of understanding in what amateur radio is (or should be) from one Ham to the next.

Jeffrey, I don't think it's" lack of understanding".  Rather, I think it's the lack of acceptance among some in our Service of what others want to do within it.

Keith, I snipped for brevity.

As a new ham, I can confirm some of what you have said. I've not had the "mean old ham" experience on the radio itself (outside of some politically related sort of shenanigans). But I've seen a lot of it on ham related internet forums.

There is a bit of frustration on my part, since several expectations that the greater ham community was forward looking and open minded have been busted apart over the last year. But at the same time I've found hams involved with AMSAT, the new "simulated modes", and for the most part on HF to be exactly the sort I was expecting. There are bad spots of course.

CW, for anyone capable of passing the General or Extra exams was a mere inconvenience. Most of the new guys I know feel it's useless because most of us can type far more than 20 words a minute. Glad it's gone. It's outmoded and superseded by digital modes like jt65 (better cps by far I believe). And many of these digital modes are as reliable as CW (my assumption).

But at the same time, a "gated community" approach, or incentive licensing, doesn't bother me. There should be a technical gateway for working with the technology we deal with. Perhaps your mention of the Canadian system is a better alternative.

That all being said, my observations are the following:

This community is dragging it's feet on the evolution of technology. We need to absorb all of it... "hamify it"... with the *basis* being in radio. If we do that, it means we have to accept non radio "network layers" found in things like Echoink, CQ100, VOIP, and a very many other applications.

If we fail to do that, yes the hobby will die. But I do not think it will. There's a small(ish) part of the hobby that is advancing new ideas, applications, ways to interface with IP, ways to put IP on the air, and many other weird and interesting twists to moving information on a radio wave.

It's not over.

In a way, the open source software movement seems to be to be more analogous to what we should be doing as hams. There's lots of politics in that community and "tech ego" but it does move forward. And does so because anyone is welcome to contribute. Current ham culture, in some places, is not open enough to let new people take a lead. So they either walk away, or go "do it anyway". If it's a success... people naturally pick up on it. But that's one heck of a slow way to move things forward.

So those are my thoughts.
Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1658




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: December 09, 2013, 11:20:36 AM »

Most folks are aware of the priorities of the U.S Govt. as a whole and it's sub entities (FCC for one) and that is the justification of its continual existence via the  steady production line of legislation, regulations and enforcement of such (job security at it's finest) the possible benefits  good or bad of those to be regulated is of minor concern.If you take the FCC as a whole the little cubby hole office of it's service to amateur radio is just a pimple on an elephant's a double s with the ARRL just an irritating ingrown hair in the pimple.Thinking that the FCC's service to amateur radio is going to become efficient and practical as those of other countries any time soon is the stuff that dreams are made of.
Logged
KD8DVR
Member

Posts: 30




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: December 09, 2013, 11:44:45 AM »

Actually my point was that someone had implied technicians cannot properly contribute to the hobby in a positive manner.

I pointed out the "whackers" and "preppers" are out there, who contribute to the hobby in a negative manner.... many of these are generals and extras.  Making amateurs look like weirdos and crazies to the public is NOT contribution.
Logged

All items presented here are personal opinion only and may or may not deviate from actual fact.
KD0WZW
Member

Posts: 35




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: December 09, 2013, 12:02:27 PM »

Actually my point was that someone had implied technicians cannot properly contribute to the hobby in a positive manner.

I pointed out the "whackers" and "preppers" are out there, who contribute to the hobby in a negative manner.... many of these are generals and extras.  Making amateurs look like weirdos and crazies to the public is NOT contribution.

there are idiots in every bunch.  I'm sure there is a large group of "whackers" and "preppers" out there that use ham radio to learn about everything to do with it, and nobody knows any different.  Everybody has their own reasons for being involved in, and enjoying, the hobby.  Stereotyping them isn't going to help.  Just because a persons justification for having a license doesn't fit a certain criteria set by you doesn't mean they are contributing in a negative manner.  We should be welcoming all of these kinds of people instead of driving them away.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 12:11:19 PM by KD0WZW » Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 412


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #42 on: December 09, 2013, 08:11:12 PM »

As a new ham, I can confirm some of what you have said. I've not had the "mean old ham" experience on the radio itself (outside of some politically related sort of shenanigans). But I've seen a lot of it on ham related internet forums.

As have I...which is exactly why I'm (again) posting my thoughts here.  

I call it "equal time".

Quote
CW, for anyone capable of passing the General or Extra exams was a mere inconvenience.

To the contrary, that stupid Morse requirement kept generations of people out of the mainstream of our Service.  

And I also believe that keeping such an arcane and systemically discriminatory licensing requirement firmly in place for over half a century after it had outlived any semblance of usefulness may someday prove to have been a major contributor to the demise of our Service, primarily from a lack of sustainable growth.

As an Accredited Examiner (in both the USA and Canada) as well as an Amateur Radio instructor who has helped introduce Ham Radio to hundreds of future Hams for more than 30 years, I learned long ago that, for some people, learning Morse is a "snap".  

But, for others, it was days, weeks, or even years of absolute frustration, resulting in failure after failure.  And the amount of “extra effort” expended by such folk seldom, if ever, made any real difference in the outcome.  In fact, there are any number of widely recognized, certifiable medical conditions that can make learning Morse nigh on impossible for some otherwise “ordinary” people.

That's because proficiency in Morse is an inherent, complex, human psycho-motor skill.

This means it involves a whole host of both psychological (mental) as well as physiological (motor) skills and abilities, some of which can be "learned", but most of which are NOT AT ALL "learnable".  That is, we are either born with these abilities to learn those skills or we aren't.  And that ability to learn those skills can also be impaired by accident or disease.

Now, certainly, listening for the dots and dashes (or the entire "sound") of a Morse character is a part of that activity.  But, then there's the mental interpretation part of what those sounds mean, as well as the brain's ability to send the proper neural messages to one's hands and fingers to write down the letters and words on a piece of paper or a typewriter.  The latter activity also involves one's ability to see as well as to hear…not to mention one's ability to properly form recognizable characters on a page and/or finding the correct key to depress on a typewriter.  At least ONE of those additional skills are required in order to pass such skill tests.

And, much like those things that can interfere with an RF signal traveling down a piece of coax (like broken shielding, water in the cable, bad connectors, or a mismatched antenna), there are any number of psycho-motor issues that can distort or even prevent the sound of the Morse character from being properly heard, interpreted and then correctly written down at the other end of that process.

So, as I said, because it IS such a complex, human activity, the ease of learning Morse varies widely throughout the population based on that long list of inherently human factors, many of which are completely beyond our control.  My guess is that these two facts (along with the fact that there is no longer an international requirement that they do so) were probably among the most compelling reasons why the FCC finally dropped Morse testing entirely.  

Call it genetics, the “way we are born" or what have you, but the simple truth is that we are NOT all put together exactly alike.  But, unfortunately, since learning Morse is a singular activity, it is very easy to view another person's ability to learn it using a sample size of one…that is, our own experiences.

Or, to put it another way, those who arrogantly declared that, "I learned it and so can you" were simply basing their assertions on a sample size of one.

Now, clearly, there ARE many people in our hobby who are just too lazy to get up off their finals to learn Morse. And that is certainly their choice.

But, for the “Morse testing forever” crowd to lay that same judgment on folks who absolutely couldn't  (or can't) learn Morse no matter how much "extra effort" they put into doing so is disingenuous at best and downright discriminatory at worst.  

The bottom line here is that, as much as the left-brained, engineer-types in our hobby obsessively seem to believe otherwise, we humans AREN’T all put together like our Amateur Radio transceivers that come off the assembly line with the same parts list, the same knobs on our “front panels” or the exact same genetic programming (psycho-motor skills and abilities) uploaded into our “boot ROMs”.

Quote
This community is dragging it's feet on the evolution of technology. We need to absorb all of it... "hamify it"... with the *basis* being in radio. If we do that, it means we have to accept non radio "network layers" found in things like Echoink, CQ100, VOIP, and a very many other applications.

If we fail to do that, yes the hobby will die. But I do not think it will. There's a small(ish) part of the hobby that is advancing new ideas, applications, ways to interface with IP, ways to put IP on the air, and many other weird and interesting twists to moving information on a radio wave.

....and the increasing use of all of this "modern stuff" is now scaring the heck out of the "Morse-Testing-And-Incentive-Licensing-Forever" crowd.

Unfortunately, there are still far too many such "crusty curmudgeons" remaining in our ranks who would keep the "liturgy" of our licensing system EXACTLY the same for our Service as it was "way back when".  To them, ham radio has now become akin to a religion, complete with all of its ever-more fanatical (spelled "intolerant") sacred rituals and other such pious nonsense…including, I might add…actively blocking the introduction of new communications technologies into our Service and deliberately refraining from (helpfully) assisting youthful newcomers.

I have often said that it may very well take another generation or two before the people who perpetuate such baseless dogma to completely disappear from the ranks of our Service...along with all the licensing and regulatory overkill that STILL underwrites their ever-more out-of-touch, elitist blather.

That's because, as Professor Doctor Max Planck, winner of the Nobel Prize for physics and one of the greatest physicists of the early 20th Century once said, “Innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents.  What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and the growing generation is familiarized with the innovative ideas from the beginning.”

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF / VA3OB
kb1sf@blogspot.ca
Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 412


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #43 on: December 09, 2013, 08:30:33 PM »

Thinking that the FCC's service to amateur radio is going to become efficient and practical as those of other countries any time soon is the stuff that dreams are made of.

Perhaps.

Clearly, the lazy bureaucrats at the FCC aren't now doing the job we taxpayers pay them to do...which is to fully comply with the ITU regulations and changes in the the US Federal Code.  

Rather, the continue to hide behind the worn out excuse that the status quo is "what we hams want".  Obviously, what they interpret as "what most hams want" is what the ARRL TELLS them "most hams want", even though the League's membership constitutes only about 25% of all licensed US hams.  

25% isn't "most".

But, even so, if I had perpetuated such "half-baked" bureaucratic excuses as my and my office's sole reason for non-compliance with the rest of the Federal Code at any time during my 20 years as a US Government comptroller professional, I would have been fired on the spot.  In my estimation, such bureaucratic laziness now goes well beyond simple regulatory malfeasance to the point of being blatant, benign neglect of a duly authorized Federal Radio Service.

Any way you cut it, that's criminal.

This becomes particularly true when the FCC could very quickly (and, I believe, very easily) get rid of a HUGE part of the blatant systemic discrimination in our licensing system and all without changing anyone's license class or reissuing anyone's license.

In fact, if they really wanted to, they could do it all with just a simple stoke of a pen.

All the FCC would need to need do is simply REMOVE all the artificially regulated sub-bands (and sub-sub bands) on HF and then grant anyone holding a General, Advanced or Extra Class license identical operating privileges.  At the same time, ANYONE could apply for ANY available call sign under their so-called "vanity" call sign system. It would strictly be "first come, first served".

This approach would allow all] of our bands to revert back to their underlying ITU maximum emission bandwidth criteria, which is, as I've said, the way most other countries on the planet (like Canada) already regulate their amateur services.

Under this scenario, NOBODY would "lose" their current operating privileges.  In fact, this approach would (finally) recognize the fact that there IS no fundamental difference between the operating privileges now granted to a General Class licensee and those of Advanced and Extra Class licensee in our Service in the United States today.

Indeed, does it REALLY require that I take and pass yet ANOTHER 50-question examination to insure that I will safely and courteously operate my station at 14.024 MHz when, with a General Class license, I can ALREADY operate my statioin at 14.026 MHz?  What is so FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT about those two activities that it requires I successfully memorize (and then regurgitate) all that "extra" knowledge contained in a 600-page Extra Class license manual?

And, of course, once they made the operating privileges for General, Advanced and Extra Class licenses the same, that would also mean that it would be left up to we hams to decide "what goes where" on our HF bands just like we do on our VHF and above bands...something we have, by the way, ALREADY been doing….for decades.  And THAT "sky" has yet to "fall", either.

The only thing the remaining Advanced and Extra class license holders would now have under this new system would be "bragging rights", which, from a legal and regulatory standpoint, are largely irrelevant anyway...except, of course, in the narrow little minds of those who have been using their Advanced and Extra Class licenses as US Government permission to look down their upturned noses at everyone else in our Service. Under this new plan, all of THAT snobbery would now lose its US Government sanctioned underpinnings.

But, operationally, all three licenses would now become virtually identical…which, in reality, is what they already are.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF / VA3OB
kb1sf@blogspot.ca
« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 08:33:46 PM by KB1SF » Logged
KD8TUT
Member

Posts: 59




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: December 10, 2013, 06:04:02 AM »


To the contrary, that stupid Morse requirement kept generations of people out of the mainstream of our Service.  

Keith,

I suspect, we do not disagree that much. Although I feel there was a time when the Morse requirement was relevant. In my mind that ended about 1980.

Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 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!