Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: TECH ONLY  (Read 901 times)

TMA34

  • Posts: 140
    • HomeURL
TECH ONLY
« on: October 25, 2020, 09:52:23 AM »

What if the FCC changed the rules and made the current TECH License the ONLY license?  That's it now you have everything a Extra class does.  What would it hurt?  What would it help? 
Logged

KM1H

  • Member
  • Posts: 11155
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2020, 10:00:59 AM »

For those without a license and unable to pass anything higher than Tech it would be ideal.

I would rather the Tech be two years only and renewable, that would continually cull out the dead wood and give a more accurate picture than the continuous totals posted weekly or so.
Logged

TMA34

  • Posts: 140
    • HomeURL
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2020, 10:29:44 AM »

For those without a license and unable to pass anything higher than Tech it would be ideal.

I would rather the Tech be two years only and renewable, that would continually cull out the dead wood and give a more accurate picture than the continuous totals posted weekly or so.

I tend to agree with you on this. It would be ideal.  And in the Misc forum they talk about hideous behavior on the air with no enforcement of rules now. You are right stop worrying about the numbers it doesn't matter.   
Logged

W0CKI

  • Member
  • Posts: 637
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2020, 10:50:02 AM »

Next stop, a license with a cereal box top. Oops. we're already there.
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1950
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2020, 03:38:07 PM »

  That's it now you have everything a Extra class does. 
Is that a sentence and, if so, what does it mean?

Sad to see so many involved in a communications hobby who can’t... maybe you could focus on that?
Logged

AC2EU

  • Member
  • Posts: 2793
    • McVey Electronics
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2020, 03:47:44 PM »

uh oh.. the lock is on the way...   ;D

WW5F

  • Posts: 451
    • HomeURL
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2020, 06:06:05 AM »

Why are we still calling them "ham" bands?  Heck, nobody even knows where that term came from any more and we continue to argue over whether it should be capitalized or not.

Part 97 is called the "Amateur Radio Service."  Part 97 says things like there's value, especially with respect to providing emergency communication, advance the radio art, advancing skills, trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

The ARRL keeps pushing things like ARES, NTS, SKYWARN and RACES.  Are people who participate and become proficient in these areas of emergency communication amateurs?  I don't think so.  Some are very PROFESSIONAL.

We need to start calling things like they are today.  The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.  So why even bother looking at history any more?  As in the movie Cannon Ball Run, "What's behind me, it's not important."

Aren't these frequencies allocated to the "Citizens?"  Why don't we start calling them what they *really* are?  "Citizen's Bands."

That's how change is made in a democracy--we start using different words and implying different meanings in order to make "progress."
Logged

AC2EU

  • Member
  • Posts: 2793
    • McVey Electronics
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2020, 07:23:41 AM »

Why are we still calling them "ham" bands?  Heck, nobody even knows where that term came from any more and we continue to argue over whether it should be capitalized or not.

Part 97 is called the "Amateur Radio Service."  Part 97 says things like there's value, especially with respect to providing emergency communication, advance the radio art, advancing skills, trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

The ARRL keeps pushing things like ARES, NTS, SKYWARN and RACES.  Are people who participate and become proficient in these areas of emergency communication amateurs?  I don't think so.  Some are very PROFESSIONAL.

We need to start calling things like they are today.  The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.  So why even bother looking at history any more?  As in the movie Cannon Ball Run, "What's behind me, it's not important."

Aren't these frequencies allocated to the "Citizens?"  Why don't we start calling them what they *really* are?  "Citizen's Bands."

That's how change is made in a democracy--we start using different words and implying different meanings in order to make "progress."

Before you start advocating calling the Ham bands "citizens bands", have you listened to the REAL CB bands lately? Carrier on carrier on carrier to the point where nobody gets through.  Then there's always the perennial CB game of "my linear is bigger than yours"!
I'd equate it to being in radio hell.
At least with the current status quo, we have some semblance of decorum.

With the way things are going with "newspeak" these days,  Citizens band should be renamed "the peoples band".

KM1H

  • Member
  • Posts: 11155
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2020, 09:35:30 AM »

Quote
With the way things are going with "newspeak" these days,  Citizens band should be renamed "the peoples band".

The Demokratik Republik of Loser Land
Logged

WW5F

  • Posts: 451
    • HomeURL
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2020, 10:27:24 AM »

Absolutely.  Yes, 40 channels, many are unusable because of QRM.  But have you listened to the "freebanders" above 27.405?  There's some semblance of decorum there, too.

...just as there are some "radio hell" frequencies on 40 and 20 that are unusable because of QRM.

I'm just standing back and looking at a larger picture.

Yes, "newspeak."  Orwell was right.  His prediction was just a few years early.  But if we actually make it to that point, ham radio will be made illegal for the safety of the people--too much untruth in there (and in ham radio forums).
« Last Edit: October 26, 2020, 10:30:05 AM by W5UAA »
Logged

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2020, 03:04:54 PM »

What if the FCC changed the rules and made the current TECH License the ONLY license? 

As others have pointed out, and most obviously, this would push amateur radio in the direction of citizens' band radio.

So if you're a CBer, that might be good. If you're an amateur, my guess is that it wouldn't be all that good.
Logged

TMA34

  • Posts: 140
    • HomeURL
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2020, 04:00:45 PM »

What if the FCC changed the rules and made the current TECH License the ONLY license? 

As others have pointed out, and most obviously, this would push amateur radio in the direction of citizens' band radio.

So if you're a CBer, that might be good. If you're an amateur, my guess is that it wouldn't be all that good.

Are you suggesting making the tests harder would push us in a direction away from citizens' band radio? 
Logged

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2020, 09:46:22 AM »

Are you suggesting making the tests harder would push us in a direction away from citizens' band radio?

You betcha. Seems logical.

Actually I have no way of knowing beyond pure speculation.

I do think that dumbing-down of all sorts of economically-connected activities may well result in improved commercial aspects. The internet is an example.

The effects of various licensing schemes certainly could be studied in an appropriate way, with good data collection and competent statistical analysis.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2020, 09:52:34 AM by W6MK »
Logged

AC2EU

  • Member
  • Posts: 2793
    • McVey Electronics
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2020, 10:13:50 AM »

That would exclude the OP ,TMA34, who advocates the opposite.
One only has to take listen to CB on a few channels to hear the results of a "no license required" band.
Yes, it IS radio hell.

KC6RWI

  • Member
  • Posts: 901
Re: TECH ONLY
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2020, 10:56:42 AM »

Amateur radio operators and CB operators are both people who enjoy wireless communication. They both have to assemble a station to some extent.
So what makes them different?
I can only guess that amateur operators take radio more seriously, are more inclined to know more radio theory.
There has got to more to it than that!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up