QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940212.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 16.2 KB

Date: Thu, 19 May 94 04:30:14 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #212
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Thu, 19 May 94       Volume 94 : Issue  212

Today's Topics:
                      Code test speeds (2 msgs)
      Income Opportunities from Investment Banker - Interested?
                            Theory Exams.
        What *does* the FCC think? (was Re: Code test speeds)

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: 18 May 94 13:25:48 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Code test speeds
To: [e-mail]

>Do you mean that the test session for the code contains a story that people
>listen at, and then they answer questions based on what they heard? If that's

that's exactly correct.

the test is provided on tapes from the exam coordinator (i have something like
4 different versions, i think, with another 4 due out soon) and can also be
done by hand or computer if need be.  but i like tapes because you feed the
boom box into the IR headphone distribution system and everyone listens to
code on an IR headset.  This is the only way to fly (if the other choice is a
cassette tape player blaring code into a room with smooth walls...)

the test starts with 6 Vs sent in two groups of 3 and end with the procedural
signal for end of message (people get this wrong but it's a "free" character,
you know - the V's don't count...)

You get 5-7 minutes of code that includes all the letters, numbers,
punctuation (SP?) and prosigns required for the test.

an example 5 WPM test might look like:
    VVV VVV
    KQ4XU/6 DE AD2CZ/7   (note how the calls usually have the "hard to use"
                letters and a bunch of numbers...)
    FB HANK UR RST 589 IN TROMBONE TROMBONE, FL.
    I HAVE BEEN A HAM FOR 13 YEARS AND HAVE WORKED AS A
    PEEN COUNTER IN A HAMMER FACTORY FOR 20 MONTHS bt
    I PLAY THE XYLOPHONE IN THE COMPANY BAND AND AM FIRST CHAIR bt
    I AM USING A SONY T4XB AND A DRAKE ICF2001 WITH 50 WATTS.
    MY ANT IS A WINDOM DIPOLE WITH YAGI FEED  (not like they'd do
                something so weird like this in a real test)
    SO HW COPY? BT
    KQ4XU/6 DE AD2CZ/7 sk ar

1)    what was the receiving station's callsign?
    kq4zu/1 kq4pg/7 kq4xu/6 kq4xd/6
2)    what was the sending station's callsign?
    ad2cj/7 ad2cz/7 nd2qz/7 ag2cz/7
3)    what was the receiving station's signal report?
    589 579 521 581
4)    what was the receiving station's name?
    henry jake jack hank
5)    what does the sending station do for a living?
    bean counter    peen counter   accountant  carpenter
6)    how long has the sending station worked at his job?
    20 years   20 months   10 years  10 months
7)    what type of antenna is the sending station using?
    yagi   dipole   windom   quad
8)    what position does the sending station hold in the band?
    lead singer   first chair   first trombone  conductor
9)    what type of receiver is the sending station using?
    drake   sony   sanyo  collins
10)    how long has the sending station been an amateur radio operator?
    13 years   31 years   13 months   31 months

Until recently, tests from ARRL/VEC would have been fill in the blank, but
changed to multiple choice (part of what's supposed to be a standardization
between different VECs).

You get your test and you mark up your answers and we grade for 7 of 10 and
for 1 minute of solid copy - you have 2 ways to pass.

73, bill wb9ivr

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

Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 13:17:14 GMT
From: brunix!pstc3![e-mail]
Subject: Code test speeds
To: [e-mail]

In article <2r0ds7$[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore -FT-~) writes:

|> The guy I know with Attention Deficit Disorder has been a ham for
|> 30 years and holds a commercial FCC license.  He has forgotten more
|> about radio than I will ever know. He is barred from normal HF
|> operation even though he was an AM broadcast engineer for many years.
|> He has spent hundreds of hours trying to learn to copy code. Ever try
|> to get a code waver for ADD?

Its been my experience that doctors will sign just about anything, and up
to about a year ago, the FCC let almost every waiver fly. And, although they
were supposed to have "cracked down" on code waivers, I still fail to see
why anyone with a legitimate, documentable medical history which prevents
them from copying code cannot get a waiver with minimal effort.


|> I have an Advanced ticket only because they allow me to write down
|> characters during the code test. If the code test required me to copy
|> code in my head without writing it down, I would be forced to settle
|> for a no-code license. Don't you know that "real Hams" can copy code
|> in their heads? Don't you think that should be a requirement also?

At higher speeds one must copy in their head, which is probably why I'm
not an Extra as my short-term memory is terrible. Long term memory is
fine, even short-term with repetition (for instance, I was recently
able to memorize the GROL Elements 1 and 3 question pools in a week by
repetitively reading the pools and drilling myself on the computer.)
Some people have indicated that my problem may not be short-term memory
at all, but rather "buffering" on my part.

In time, I'll probably outgrow this problem. Ten years ago when I first
got started in ham radio I couldn't copy 5 wpm at all. You could send me
a .- or a -. and it sounded the same to me. But, I think this was because
I convinced myself that it was "too hard". When I finally went back to get
licensed 2 1/2 years ago, I was convinced I was going to pass the code,
and I did. Its all mental attitude. Even now, I think that half the
problem I have with the 20wpm is mental - I've convinced myself that its
"too hard", and thus even when I do try, in the back of my mind I'm not
really.

In the interim, however, you don't see me whining about HF access;
about how the 20wpm is "too hard" and should be eliminated.

MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- RI Center For Political Incorrectness & Environment Ignorance
-- 'Have you hugged your chainsaw today?'

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

Date: 19 May 94 05:41:27 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Income Opportunities from Investment Banker - Interested?
To: [e-mail]

I have never requested any information from you nor are you among my list
of associates.

If you contact me again I will have my attorney call your attorney
concerning legal action against you.

  Sincerely,
  Roger M Kolaks

On Wed, 18 May 1994 [e-mail] wrote:

>
>
> Please send inquiries/replies to:   [e-mail]
>
>

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

Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 12:45:54 -0400
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!ftpbox!mothost!lmpsbbs!NewsWatcher![e-mail]
Subject: Theory Exams.
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, Neil D. Friedman
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Brad Killebrew N5LJV <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> >I think we should go back to that.  I have read several people in this
> >group saying that ham radio operators are getting dumber -- I believe it.
>
> Ham exams have always been at the level where a motivated high school
> student can, with reasonable attention, obtain most (if not all) operating
> privileges.  That's where they were in the 20's, the 60's, and that's
> where they are today.
>
> ..Neil, N3DF


It's just so much harder TO motivate today's high school student to develop
a serious interest in amateur radio. If anything, it should be easier today
with all the emphasis on technology, but the world's purpose for doing
things has changed in the last two decades. If you value the yuppie
opinion, now you have to work your tail off just to be "relaxed." An old
friend who has heard it all over his 96 years often reminds me, "Just
because it's new doesn't make it better!"

--
Karl Beckman, P.E.              <  Genius may have its limitations, but  >
Motorola LMPS- Analog Data      <  stupidity is not thus handicapped.    >
                                <                      - Elbert Hubbard  >
The statements and opinions expressed here are not those of Motorola Inc.
Amateur radio WA8NVW @ K8MR.NEOH.USA.NA         NavyMARS VBH @ NOGBN.NOASI

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

Date: 18 May 94 20:46:13 GMT
From: agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!koriel!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!engnews2![e-mail]
Subject: What *does* the FCC think? (was Re: Code test speeds)
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Shawn O'Donnell) writes:

>I wish they[code requirement supporters]d consider what the code obsession
>does for our image on M Street.  Honestly, have you ever heard someone from
>the FCC talk about what they think about the importance of the code?


Well, here's a quote from the most recent ARRL letter:
----
FCC TURNS DOWN PETITIONS
FOR CHANGING AMATEUR RULES

     In late April the FCC denied three petitions from
amateurs to change the licensing structure. One petitioner
would have lowered Morse code requirements and two others
would have eliminated the 5 wpm CW examination for the
Novice license. The FCC said that the current amateur
license requirements were the result of Commission
proceedings that produced thousands of comments. "The
amateur community indicated on each occasion that it
strongly desires to preserve communications by telegraphy,"
the FCC said.
----
Similar language about "the amateur community ... desires to preserve ...
telegraphy" appears on the back of the latest Form 610.

I tried to find the actual order on ftp.fcc.gov, but I couldn't.  I did find
a reference to it in a Daily Digest, it's DA 97-387, issued April 20.

I may be reading too much into this, but it appears to me that the FCC
thinks that the no-code tech is enough change for now, and they see no
reason to go beyond what they see as the opinion of a majority of hams.
They're not unaffected by politics -- why should they stir up trouble.

Even though I believe the current licensing structure overemphasizes code
proficiency, I also find the argument that the no-code Tech is doing its job
so no further changes are needed right now has some merit.

I do think the emphasis on code is bad, but no longer fatal.  As I've talked
to people (bright, energetic people who'd be contributors) about ham radio,
I find they lose a lot of interest when they find out they're still walled
off from a lot of the hobby unless they learn the code. But I think that
enough people are being brought in by the no-code Tech that the downward
trend has been reversed; in a few years, enough active hams will have been
no-coders that it should be possible to convince the FCC that amateurs in
the main no longer value the preservation of telegraphy so highly.

The worst effect of the code requirements now is the mis-application of
resources it causes.  Whether incentive licensing is or was ever a good idea
or not, I think it's clear it does work as an incentive.  People who
otherwise would never have spent time acquiring and improving their Morse
skills are doing so.  Since most people have only a limited amount of time
and energy to put into a hobby, by rewarding people for studying code, we're
penalizing them for spending time doing other things -- experimenting with
new modes, setting up high speed/high reliability networks, etc.  I think
the hobby would be better off if hams spent more time on those other things
and less time on practicing code.

A message here seems to be that those of us who favor the de-emphasis of
code should be spending our time attempting to convince other hams, and in
getting new hams in through the no-code paths, not in petitioning the FCC.

Rich




--
Rich McAllister ([e-mail])

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

Date: 18 May 94 18:41:17 GMT
From: darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!tali.hsc.colorado.edu!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2rb72p$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>u
Subject : Re: Code test speeds

The same arguments you give against advance classes of ham license apply
equally to advanced college degrees, just as arguments made for irrelevant
course requirements in college apply equally to the code requirement in ham
radio. A PhD is fully as meaningless as you claim the Extra to be. There are
no true requirements for advanced degrees to do things in the real world,
either. If you support one, you must support the other in order to be
consistent.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]   | adequately be explained by stupidity.
To Sarah Brady, Howard Metzenbaum, Dianne Feinstein, and Charles Schumer:
Thanks. Without you, I would be neither a gun owner nor an NRA life member.

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

Date: 18 May 94 10:05:15 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!emory!kd4nc!ke4zv![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2rb72p$[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject : Re: Code test speeds

In article <2rb72p$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>Gary Coffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>Just as
>>we abhor different entrance requirements to college for blacks and whites,
>>or different hiring criteria for men and women, we should abhor a caste
>>system in amateur radio. There need only be *one* class of amateur, those
>>willing and able to engage in a lifelong pursuit of learning about radio
>>communications.
>
>So, are you willing to do away with master's and doctorate degrees, too? After
>all, they're the same thing: more recognition, and more privileges, for
>passing more tests.

Are master's and doctorates *entrance* requirements to a learning environment?
I suspect they are, but most of those receiving them aren't immediately
aware of that. Be that as it may, there's no value to amateur radio having
government sanctioned graduate degrees unless there's some particular reason
a higher standard must be adhered to in order to do certain things. Since
the Extra gets to do no extra things that any other licensee could not do
on a different frequency, except be a VE for high speed Morse exams, and be
the trustee for a space station (a requirement regularly waived by the FCC)
there's no real reason for the Extra exam (or for that matter the Advanced
exam). The only real difference between an Extra or Advanced licensee and
a General licensee is the arbitrary segregation of HF spectrum. Since the
General does the same things on the spectrum where he is allowed as the
Extra or Advanced does on his exclusive spectrum, this is simple segregation
for no reason other than artificial measures of status.

The courts have ruled that access to education or jobs must be judged
on criteria relevant to the tasks at hand, not on arbitrary criteria.
Since there is no modulation method or mode the General is prohibited
from doing that the Extra or Advanced is allowed to do, the segregation
by frequency is purely arbitrary and unsupportable.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #212
******************************