QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940103.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 16KB

Date: Sun,  6 Mar 94 04:30:10 PST
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #103
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Sun,  6 Mar 94       Volume 94 : Issue  103

Today's Topics:
                               Andorra
                                  CW
                                CW (2)
                        Getting an US license.
                   I WANT MY EXTRA CLASS PERMIT NOW
                        Morse Whiners (3 msgs)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 94 21:26:27 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr![e-mail]
Subject: Andorra
To: [e-mail]

 Well,

 Andorra has ceased delivering any licenses, temporary or permanent.
Therefore, there won't be any new C3 indicatives.

 The situation won't change till at best next year, the governement of
Andorra seem to have little to do with hams.

 Vincent, after a phone call to the URA (Unio de Radioficiones Andorrans)

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

Date: 3 Mar 94 23:44:09 GMT
From: lerc.nasa.gov!news.uakron.edu!malgudi.oar.net!witch!ted![e-mail]
Subject: CW
To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, Maria L. Evans ([e-mail]) writes:
>
>
>However...do I think I HAVE to have that skill to be a "real" ham?
>No.  I'm a "real" ham because I know enough about radio theory to
>solder a connector, make a dipole, climb a tower.  Now, that may
>not be everyone's definition, but it's MINE...for me.
>

Ouch!  I know you were trying to be brief, but what you've described in
no way justifies our occupation of 10% of the spectrum below 1.3GHz.
The notion of us all defining for ourselves what a ham is doesn't
accomplish anything.  The only question that matters is what are we
doing with our spectrum to justify our continued occupation of it.  I
believe that technical exploration and education is the best
justification we have, followed by our ability to be a parallel
communications asset for emergencies and other unusual circumstances.

I believe CW is an asset in both of these cases.  In the first case,
specifically, I think a person can build a *useful* CW station much
easier than building a *useful* SSB station. Whether CW is enough of an
asset to be a requirement is a legitimate question to debate. When people
say "I just want to get on phone", or "other digital modes are more
reliable than CW", one follow-up question I don't hear is "At what
expense?" All this gear that people want to use instead of CW is
*expensive*. Are we going to make this exclusively a rich person's hobby?
Where does that leave the young beginner with lots of interest but not
much money? Realistically, if the CW requirement were removed for HF, the
CW portions of the bands would shrink due to pressure from the no-coders.
Anyone who doesn't believe this doesn't know the history of the band
allocations. Will this be another case of money squeezing out enthusiasm?

73,
Mike, KK6GM


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

Date: 4 Mar 94 00:31:39 GMT
From: lerc.nasa.gov!news.uakron.edu!malgudi.oar.net!witch!ted![e-mail]
Subject: CW (2)
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, kevin jessup ([e-mail]) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Muenzler, Kevin) writes:
>
>
>>I think that CW is the very basis of amateur radio
>>and should
>>always be that way.
>
>Geez!!  Why do I even bother??

Only you can answer that...

>In 30 years (probably closer to 15) CW, HF and possibly even VHF will be
>dead and buried.  They will remain only for those incapable of comprehending
>and using the computer network based multimedia systems
>that will provide both local AND global communication.

Ham radio should not strive to become some kind of parallel AT&T.  It
should be a learning ground.  Remember that the hottest military and
commercial pilots learn their fundamentals in low-tech two-seaters.

>BTW, the "basis" of amateur radio is the fact that an RF wave can be
>modulated (using a wide range of methods) so as to convey information.

We'll get back to this...

>>I don't mean to insult any of the no-code techs out
>>there,
>
>I'm not insulted or angered.  After a night of reading amateur.policy,
>my emotions range from frustration, to amazement to uncontrolable
>fits of laughter.

No argument there.


>> but I think
>>that it was a mistake for the FCC to remove CW as a requirement for a
>>license.
>
>The problem was not the elimination of the CW requirement but the "dumbing
>down" of the theory tests.  The fact that CW remained as a stop-gap measure
>is no reason for it's continued use.  The theory tests should be entirely
>reworked so at to be both tougher and to cover a wider range of disciplines
>from digital, to microprocessing, to entry level programming and data
>transfer protocols.  As they are now, passing a theory test is deserving
>of little more than a boy scout merit badge.
>
>
Amen to the "dumbing down" observation.  Does everybody out there
realize that the only formulas on the Novice/Tech test are Ohm's Law
and Wavelength/Frequency?  This is ridiculous!  Ref. the above
observation about modulating RF, that's where the test should be
stiffened up, not programming, etc.  Ham radio at it's core is about
RF, and the Novice/Tech test doesn't even contain tuned circuits!


73, all,
Mike, KK6GM

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

Date: 28 Feb 94 15:27:23 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!relay1!rsvl_ns!ernie!ernie.rsvl.unisys.com![e-mail]
Subject: Getting an US license.
To: [e-mail]

In article <2kssmc$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Elendir) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Elendir)
>Subject: Getting an US license.
>Date: 28 Feb 1994 13:47:56 GMT

> Hello.

> This is just an inquiry without any real solid motivation, but I was just
>wondering if a foreigner could get an US license. Not just a reciprocal one,
>but a real callsign, like any US citizen.

> Just in case, ...

> 73, Vince (13 weeks and waiting)

>--
>.. --  .-.. . -..  ..- .--.  .-- .. - .... .-- .- .. - .. -. --.

-.-- . ... --..--  .. --. --- -  -- .. -. .  .- ..-. - . .-.  .---- .----

.-- . . -.- ...  . ...  ..  .- --   .-  -... .-. .. - .-.-.-

73, Edward AA0QG

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

Date: 4 Mar 94 21:36:05 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!apple.com!apple.com![e-mail]
Subject: I WANT MY EXTRA CLASS PERMIT NOW
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (A great x ray technician!) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>,
>Dan Pickersgill <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>I want my EXTRA class permit NOW! - I'm far too busy to work for it.
>>Don't you dare ask me to learn your CW, I'm far too important for that.
>>I've been waiting 3 years for you to change your rules to let me in, isn't
>>that long enough? Send it now and I'll stop whining to everybody.
>>Call me codeless in Ohio.

>It's not an Extra Class "permit," Dan. It's an Extra Class License.

>You've been waiting three years? WHAT have you been doing, since you
>obviously haven't been working on your upgrade. Ah...let me guess.
>You've been posting in rec.radio.amateur.policy. And whining.


Ahhh, someone was obviously fooled by the bogus posting from across
the pond!  One day, I should look through the dictionary to find the
meaning of "clueless."


Kok Chen, AA6TY                [e-mail]
Apple Computer, Inc.

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

Date: 4 Mar 1994 20:59:56 GMT
From: yale.edu!noc.near.net!transfer.stratus.com!sw.stratus.com![e-mail]
Subject: Morse Whiners
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Rev. Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> [e-mail] (Daniel T Senie) writes:
> [...]
> > Now most of these people also have spent their time upgrading to higher
> > license classes. Perhaps you only want to count those who steadfastly
> > refuse to advance their license class? We have LOTS of people who enter
> > the hobby through no-code and do advance. They are also making technical
> > contributions.
>
> I wouldn't count them, because the idea behind the nocode license was
> it was for people who "didn't" want to do the code. People to take the
> nocode license as their entry-level license test and continue to upgrade
> aren't really "no code" technicians, just as the person who entered the
> hobby via the Novice license wouldn't be considered a "novice". Its
> simply a matter of which entry-level license they chose, and most choose
> the no-code tech, because its easier to study all theory in one shot
> and then study all cw, rather than dividing your time between the two.
>
> Since the no-code license was designed for people who were never
> going to upgrade past their tech license (no interest in cw, after
> all...), then yes, I think you should limit examples to people who
> fall within that license class currently.
>

It's curious that you should consider things this way.

This past weekend, I attended ARRL Night at one of the radio club meetings in
our section.  Our Division Director (Hi Bill!), who spoke on many interesting
topics over the span of the evening, at one point asked how many people in the
room were Technicians.

Despite the fact that I've held a higher license class for two years now (and have
held a higher license class for longer than I had my Tech), I almost raised my hand.

I mentioned this to a few other former Techs after the meeting, and we all agreed
that, despite the fact that we have upgraded, we still think of ourselves as
Technicians.  In fact, we all still think of ourselves as Codeless Technicians.
I passed the code long before my license ever arrived, but I still think of
myself that way.  I still have intentions of upgrading to Extra someday, but
even then, I suspect I'll still think of myself as a Tech.

My personal feeling on the topic in question is that the no-code Technician
license was put into place to bring in those people who were not interested
in learning the code in order to come into the hobby, the hope being that some
good technical people would come in as part of that crowd.  If these people then
decide to move up the amateur ranks, why should we discount their accomplishments?
Sounds like reverse discrimination to me -- you don't like codeless Techs unless
they accomplish something, but they'd better not upgrade before they accomplish
it, or else it doesn't count...


73 de Faith N1JIT
--
Faith M. Senie            InterNet: [e-mail]
Stratus Computer, Inc.    InterNet: [e-mail]
55 Fairbanks Blvd.       Pkt Radio: [e-mail]
Marlboro, MA 01752           Phone: [phone]

Curiosity doesn't flourish among the burned-out...

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

Date: 4 Mar 94 21:41:08 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!mvb.saic.com!unogate!news.service.uci.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!@
Subject: Morse Whiners
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
    Rick Aldom <[e-mail]> writes:

|> BTW Mike you asked me for technical innovations a couple weeks ago, and I
|> don't have the answer.  But before you claim victory, I think I would
|> like to hear about the innovations that have been made in the CW
|> subbands.

Don't worry, I can't quote any either. Unless, of course, I wanted to
spend my time researching the matter, which I don't. However, its safe
to assume that all technological innovations through Feb 1991 were
implemented by coded hams.


|> What does grippe me is when someone like Robert Coyle or you looks down
|> their nose because I'm just a no clue.

I don't look down on non-coded techs. There are many non-coded techs in
the area that I treat like I would any other Extra, Advanced, or Novice.
I look down at CB transplants who get on the two meter good-buddy box
and make comments like "I've gotta back on outta here and get off the
super-slab to pick up some motion lotion".

|> Of course armed with your pretty
|> government issued serial number (read extra class license) you now can
|> claim to be better than someone else.

Actually, I'm only an Advanced class. I have neither the time nor
inkling to bother to upgrade to Extra when all it buys me is a few
kc's of bandwidth. I don't like code that much :-)

|> I expect that you will
|> maintain that status until the requirement for high speed code is dropped
|> and then you will be just another fish in the pond.

Actually, I'll always know I'm better, because I can do one thing that
they can't: copy code.

|> Just so I'm not miss quoted,  I would like to see the requirement for
|> high speed code dropped.  I would like to see a meaningful test that
|> tests for operations knowledge and technical knowledge.
|> see an emphases on emergency operations.

Then we are pretty much in agreement, as I want to see reduced code
requirements (but still keep them) and a two-tiered licensing system
with a single, comprehensive theory examination which covers everything
the 5 theory exams cover today, plus more.



MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Population Studies & Training Center
-- Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI  02912
-- [phone]

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

Date: 5 Mar 94 07:06:42 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu![e-mail]
Subject: Morse Whiners
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey D. Angus) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>  > Is the following `bragging'? -----+
>  >                                   |
>  >                                   |
>  >                                  \|/     <- body part?
>  >

I bet you look at tall buildings with admiration, Jeff#2.

>  No, I see nothing in there to get all fired up about. Bragging implies that
>  you've done something worth noting.

Tell that to the other fellow - he's the one who said I was bragging.

>  By the way, congratulations on exceeding the established usenet guidelines
>  for civilized .sig files.

By the way, congratulations on exceeding the established usenet guidelines
for uncivilized articles.

I've seen much worse sigs than mine. Besides, as you know, I usually use just:

Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: 4 Mar 94 21:21:17 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!swrinde!sgiblab!brunix!pstc3![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2l210g$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2l6af8$[e-mail]>»
Subject : Re: CW

In article <2l6af8$[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (A great x ray technician!) writes:

|> By the way, this is the reason why those who have claimed "handicap waivers"
|> cannot be VEs.

Is this actually codified in Part 97? I could swear that I know of at least
one handicap-waiver no-code Extra who is a VE.

--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Population Studies & Training Center
-- Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI  02912
-- [phone]

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #103
******************************