QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940217.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 17KB

Date: Sun, 22 May 94 04:30:17 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 #217
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Sun, 22 May 94       Volume 94 : Issue  217

Today's Topics:
                           Code test speeds
                  FCC understaffing problem (2 msgs)
                            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: Thu, 19 May 1994 19:01:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
Subject: Code test speeds
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>[e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:
>
>> [Fairly intelegent and fairly well expressed MD comments deleted]
>
>Gee Dan, a compliment. Next thing you know you'll be agreeing with me! :-)

Fasten your seat belts Michael.

>> You continue to miss the point, it is NOT that it is "too hard" it is that
>> it is NOT RELEVENT. To require effort, just for efforts sake is hazing.
>> Either admit it and quit the argueing or listen to the comments. Very few
>> have opposed the code because it is "too hard".
>
>Its always been my understanding, from even 10 years ago when my father-in-
>law and brothers-in-law wanted me to get involved in the hobby that the
>two aspects of the examinations were designed to test your ability to grasp
>theory, and test your operating abilities in one particular mode. The concept
>being that there is "theory", but there is also "in practice".

But that mode WAS relevent to the purposes AT THAT TIME. The ONE mode
needed for a 'pool of trained radio operators'. This is no longer the case
(except for ship board operations, i.e. cost to ship owners).

>Now, I'll agree with you that the code test is not relevent to those people
>who simply wish to work SSB on HF. But, what do we replace it with? A SSB
>operating test? But then people would complain that THAT test isn't
>relevent, or that its "outdated", since SSB is as almost as old as CW.

Yes, no single mode is required to be a 'good amateur'. If there was such
a mode I would agree to a test of it.

>I've stated before that I'm all for reducing the code requirements for HF,
>but only if we can insure that people coming into the hobby have a good
>grasp of theory and operation. But, even that doesn't appear good enough
>for some people, who apparently think that amateur licenses should simply
>be given away with simpleton questions, or even no examination at all - that
>the license is somehow an "entrance" level license, and thus we should
>excuse all stupidity or learning for the sake of getting people into the
>hobby. Again, quantity rather than quality.

If we are to have 5 (maybe 6) license classes (UGH!) then what is wrong
with a limited entrance exam?

>When I feel more comfortable that the theory examinations meet the
>expectation I outlined above, then I will support code reductions or
>eliminations. However, I doubt its ever going to happen. The "dumbing down"
>of the theory is only the logical progression in the hobby, since trends
>in the hobby reflect trends in american society as a whole.

Maybe we need to work together to beef up the pools. THEN reduce the the
code requirements (note I said REDUCE!).

>I anticipate that within 10 years the code requirements will be completely
>eliminated, and most of the theory examinations, if not eliminated as well,
>will be so easy that a monkey with a crayon could pass the exam.

I hope we can work together to prevent this.

> If you
>examine happenings in amateur radio, you will see that this is not too far
>from the mark - first, forces worked to get the code requirement eliminated
>for an "entry level" license; they are now working on eliminating the
>requirement altogether; and, at the same time, the theory exams get dumbed
>down - for instance, the Novice pool was rewritten for what? A 6th grade
>reading level?

Then lets change it.

>All I have to do is look back those ten years when I first started to get
>involved in the hobby. My father-in-law, who has been licensed almost
>twice as long as I've been alive (and no, he doesn't ride around in a
>geeze-mobile) introduced me to some of his ham friends in the area who
>were into computer/ham stuff (i.e. packet, rtty with a computer, etc.)
>These guys were "Extras"... Not the "Instant Extras" we have today, but
>Real Hams[tm] who really knew their stuff. These guys were huge vats of
>knowledge you could ask anything and get an answer, and they didn't mind
>sitting down with you and explaining it in detail. Maybe they did CW,
>maybe they didn't. I don't know nor do I care.
>
>Today, however, I hear "Instant Extras" on the radio talking (incorrectly)
>about how to make a dipole. The usual conclusion to the conversation is
>"I'm gonna call HRO fer sure."

I could not agree more! (Do you need 911 now Michael?)

>Then I look at the licensing system, and say to myself: "this is what its
>given us." Great.

But we, as amateurs are responsible for that. Lets work together to
correct it an FIX what is so obviously broken.

>MD
>--
>-- Michael P. Deignan
>-- Amalgamated Baby Seal Poachers Union, Local 101
>-- "Get 'The Club'... Endorsed by Baby Seal poachers everywhere..."

Dan N8PKV
--
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.  The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
                                         -Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: 21 May 94 20:17:00 GMT
From: agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!ledge![e-mail]
Subject: FCC understaffing problem
To: [e-mail]

Hello all!  I have now been waiting for 7 weeks for my first
license to arrive in the mail.  Having read all the horror stories
on the nets regarding waiting times, I decided to call the FCC in
Gettysburg and find out what the REAL problem is myself.  I spoke
to a very nice woman who told me that it is now taking from 12 to
14 weeks to process application forms because there is only ONE PERSON
keying in the information to the computer.  Also, she said that
the "new computer" that people have talked about on the nets is not
online yet.  (Hmm...it only took me a couple of hours to set up my
latest 486 box!).  At any rate, this ONE PERSON evidently has
thousands of licenses to process.  The woman told me that she had
not heard of any offers from the ARRL regarding local volunteers in
the Gettysburg area coming in to help out with the backlog and
enter data into the computer.  I told her that since we have
volunteers doing license testing, at no charge to the Federal
government via the VEC program, it seems that we could have
volunteer personnel to perform data entry! She also told me that
the Gettysburg office has requested additional help several times from the
Managing Director of the FCC in Washington, D.C., but the man
refuses to give them any more employees, for even a short period of
time, to clear up the backlog of license applications.  I have
called my local Congressman, Representative Anthony Beilenson, and
told one of his staff about the problem.  I asked if the
Congressman could contact the Managing Director and ask for some
additional staffing in Gettysburg, at least on a temporary basis,
to get the backlog of amateur radio applications (Form 610)
processed.  Perhaps if everyone told their respective Congressman
about the problem, we could get some help!  Here is the name,
address, and phone number of the FCC Managing Director who will not
let Gettysburg have any additional people to help get rid of the
backlog:       Andrew Fishel
               Managing Director
               FCC
               1919 M Street, N.W.
               Washington, DC
               [phone]

Just as an aside, I decided to get my amateur license because of
the problems associated with the January 17 earthquake here. The
American Red Cross had a severe shortage of qualified amateur radio
operators to handle emergency traffic after the earthquake. So, I
decided, as a citizen of the community, that I would get my
license, so that I might get involved in disaster communications,
and be ready to assist, if needed.  But, as of right now, I can not
participate in any emergency networks until my license arrives!!

Also, I am routing a copy of the above information to President
Clinton and Vice President Gore.  I understand that Vice President
Gore is very interested in information processing and bottlenecks
in those areas of the government that are having problems
processing data.

I am open to discussing this with anyone on the net, but if you
want to work for the improvement of this problem, please call or
write to Mr. Fishel and your elected federal government officials
in Congress and The White House.

Sincerely,
Darryl Linkow (no callsign after 7 weeks and don't expect to see
one for another 5 to 7 weeks!)
---
 ~ OLX 2.2 ~ Darryl Linkow [phone]  9 am - 5 pm PDT

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

Date: 21 May 94 22:48:01 GMT
From: agate!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!ccnet.com![e-mail]
Subject: FCC understaffing problem
To: [e-mail]

Darryl Linkow ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Just as an aside, I decided to get my amateur license because of
: the problems associated with the January 17 earthquake here. The
: American Red Cross had a severe shortage of qualified amateur radio
: operators to handle emergency traffic after the earthquake. So, I
: decided, as a citizen of the community, that I would get my
: license, so that I might get involved in disaster communications,
: and be ready to assist, if needed.  But, as of right now, I can not
: participate in any emergency networks until my license arrives!!

I would hope that while you are waiting for your licence to arrive you are
participating in all the weeks of training necessary to be a fully
qualified disaster service worker. There is no shortage of licenced
amateur operaters in Southern California. Hopefully you will join a group
that can provide you the training and the resources required. The ARES or
RACES programs are always willing to take on committed amateurs such as
yourself.

The Amateur radio service licence has always taken about ten weeks, even
in the sixties when I started. Broadcast applications can take a year or
more. Amateur Radio should never be thought of as instant gratification.
Most of us have taken years to achieve our goals.

What you should be asking is - why does the Red Cross still have a severe
shortage of qualified amateur radio disaster service workers in your area?


Bob


--
     Bob Wilkins                     work    [e-mail]
 Berkeley, California                home    [e-mail]
     94701-0710                      play    n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam

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

Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 15:12:18 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ent-img.com!wb6hqk![e-mail]
Subject: Theory Exams.
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Mike White <whitemp@hemp> wrote:
>: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad
>YES!!!  What we need is a Noice..Extra  >text<  book!  The 'Now You're
>Talking' book is pretty good.

An excellent textbook for the theory and practice of radio is:

_Electronic Communications_ by Robert L. Schrader

I didn't discover it until I already had an Advanced but used it to learn
the theory and practice required for my second class radiotelephone
license.  That was nearly 25 years ago but the book has been kept up with
at least 2 new editions and I strongly recommend it.  I have bought
subsequent editions and given them away to ham hopefuls, two of which
did get their tickets.  It's written as a trade school or junior college
textbook and doesn't require a mathematical capability beyond high school
algebra.  The book is written as a text for both the amateur and commercial
radio licenses and has questions at the end of each chapter relevant to
the various licensing examinations.  The goal of the text is a first
class radiotelephone and telegraph license with stopping points along the
way for the lower commercial and amateur grades.

For me it set the hook......

bart   wb6hqk

[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 13:28:18 GMT
From: brunix!maxcy2.maxcy.brown.edu![e-mail]
Subject: What *does* the FCC think? (was Re: Code test speeds)
To: [e-mail]

kevin jessup <[e-mail]> writes:

[stuff]

Many good comments. I agree with most of what you said, if not all in
principle.

MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Amalgamated Baby Seal Poachers Union, Local 101
-- "Get 'The Club'... Endorsed by Baby Seal poachers everywhere..."

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

Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 19:31:00 EST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2rig76$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Code test speeds

[e-mail] (Ralph Lindberg) writes:

>   If someone else has posted this, sorry my servies news server was down
>and we missed somethings.
>   The code requirement for HF transmission cannot be removed, it's in the
>international treatys that control Ham radio. Some counties water it down
>so much that it's hardly there, BUT IT'S STILL THERE.

No, not quite. That has been discussed before. Other countries have opted
out of that part of the treaty, notably Japan (Who has 5 or 6 TIMES the
number of amateurs that the US has).

Dan N8PKV
--
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.  The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
                                         -Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: 20 May 1994 19:53:02 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!umd5.umd.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>â
Subject : Re: What *does* the FCC think? (was Re: Code test speeds)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Richard McAllister <[e-mail]> wrote:

>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.

That's me back in the 70's.  I didn't pursue a license because of the code.
Remember that this was a period when you needed pretty fast morse code
in order to transmit NTSC video.  *You* tell *me* the connection :)

I recently found out about the no-code license.  Now, I'm studying
radio again after forgetting about it for 15 years.

Mark S.

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

Date: 19 May 94 14:04:05 GMT
From: yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

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

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <2rdngd$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>The same arguments you give against advance classes of ham license apply
>>equally to advanced college degrees ...

>No, you're still confusing *exit* requirements with entrance requirements.

Err, ah, Gary, ever think about why they graduation ceremonies
_commencement_ exercises?  Could it be because the education is
only a _preparation_ for life, not an end-all, be-all?

Regards,
Doug Hamilton    KD1UJ    [e-mail]    Ph 508-358-5715
Hamilton Laboratories, 13 Old Farm Road, Wayland, MA  01778-3117, USA

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #217
******************************