QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940219.txt

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

Date: Mon, 23 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 #219
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Mon, 23 May 94       Volume 94 : Issue  219

Today's Topics:
                      Code test speeds (2 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: 22 May 1994 18:58:06 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!udel!news.sprintlink.net!indirect.com![e-mail]
Subject: Code test speeds
To: [e-mail]

Hello.  I passed my extra class license when I was 12 years old.  I
worked very hard on that, thank you!  No, I didn't know Calculus then but
I did have a basic understand of the concepts involved.
Let's leave the licenses alone and go after some of the important things
like saving our frequency spectrum!  73

--
Darrell Shandrow at Arizona State University
Mentor: Internet Direct Mentorship Program!
Member: National Federation of the Blind
(The complete information access agenda - You print it you braille it too!)

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

Date: 22 May 1994 19:06:07 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!udel!news.sprintlink.net!indirect.com![e-mail]
Subject: Code test speeds
To: [e-mail]

I think I am seeing some signs of intolerance in the ham community.  It
is important to remember that there are all kinds of hams as there are
all kinds of members in the general, nonamateur radio, public.  This is
indeed a good thing.
Personally, I am glad that ham radio is no longer a bunch of techies.
Please note that we still in no way have a shortage of techies and they
do great things for the hobby.  They make it possible for many of the
rest of us to communicate.  However, it is not right to expect everyone
who wishes to be a ham op to have electrical engineering degrees, etc.

I see two sides of the issue, some of which overlap in some ways for
sure.
One camp wants to keep the code requirement.  The other camp would like
to see the code reduced but would like to increase, exponentially, the
technical requirements on the written tests.
Yes, it is a good idea to have basic electrical and radio theory
questions on a test.  For example, every ham should understand that the
resonant frequency of an antenna depends on its length among other
smaller factors.
However, it doesn't seem right that someone on the test should have to
know how to build a transmitter from the ground up or work with
integrated circuits.
On the other side, the continue code camp also would like to see ham
radio stay an exclusive hobby.  Imho, neither of these camps work these
days.  I am hearing lots of new voices on the air and think it's great.
Yes, there is some abuse here and there but this kind of thing exists in
every aspect of life and it must be dealt with.  After that, we must move
on and not cry about it.

Just my $.02.  I'm sure it will get something going here.  73

--
Darrell Shandrow at Arizona State University
Mentor: Internet Direct Mentorship Program!
Member: National Federation of the Blind
(The complete information access agenda - You print it you braille it too!)

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

Date: 22 May 1994 01:58:24 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!udel!news.sprintlink.net!indirect.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2rm331$[e-mail]>, <2rmci7$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: FCC understaffing problem

Hmmm, well, there are many who are licensed hams and have no equipment of
their own.  They get licensed to use club stations and internet to packet
gateways.  So it is not right to say that all hams are spending hundreds
of dollars on radio gear.  Many can't afford that.

Besides, the way our government works, we will then have to pay for the
license and there will be absolutely no improvement.  73

--
Darrell Shandrow at Arizona State University
Mentor: Internet Direct Mentorship Program!
Member: National Federation of the Blind
(The complete information access agenda - You print it you braille it too!)

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

Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 02:25:20 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!modem109.ucdavis.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

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

In article <2rig76$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ralph Lindberg) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Ralph Lindberg)
>Subject: Re: Code test speeds
>Date: 20 May 1994 07:07:34 -0700

>   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, it's not always "still there" Japan is one example.  The treaty says that
the only requirement regarding code is to require competency in the code OR
submit a letter to the effect that you are not going to require code.

Dan
=========================================================================
Dan Todd       [e-mail]           kc6uud@ke6lw.#nocal.ca.us.na
Charter Member: Dummies for UNIX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When radios are outlawed, only outlaws will have radios
- David R. Tucker on rec.radio.amateur.policy
==========================================================================

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

Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 00:20:57 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

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

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:
>
>There is no reason not to be proud. (All puns and jokes aside. However,
>just because you can emulate a modem does not mean that everyone can.)

More than 95% can. Practice, practice practice!

Vietnamese Proverb: If you study you will become what you wish
                    If you do not study you will never become anything.

.73,
Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 00:18:01 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

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

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:
>
>"I" did/can to it so that PROVES other people with different problems and
>abilities can. (How is that again?)

Phooey. I go away for 2 months and return and still see the same weak arguments
against the code. Thus, I will give the same strong arguments for code:

Coast Guard Radioman School took in folks who had no backround in code or
radio. After 5 months 95% of these people graduated as USCG Radiomen with
a code speed of 22 wpm. The 5% failure rate was due to:
* disipline problems (military life isn't for everyone)
* repeatedly failing a particular block exam (radio fundamentals, code, etc)

So MORE THAN 95% were able to learn code.

Prospective hams who can't learn the code should either put more effort
into it, get the no-code license, or choose another aspect of the
radio hobby (11M or 1750M, or shortwave listening), or just choose another
hobby.

It seems that up until the invention of the radio newsgroups on USENET
no one complained about learning the code to get a license. I can't recall
reading ANY letters to the editor in QST in the 60's or 70's about anyone
whinning about the code.

What is it about USENET that makes people so mentally and physically lazy?

>You can, I can, does NOT mean EVERYONE can.

More than 95% can.

I wanted to be a commercial pilot but I couldn't pass the eye exam; I took
up sailing instead. Should I petition the FAA to delete the eye exam?
Certainly not. Just accept your weaknesses and do something else.

>Gully, I can pretend to be half as good as a computer modem, I am special.

Computers can translate so why do we still see people learning foreign
languages? You probably see that as a waste of time.

.73,
Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: 23 May 1994 10:42:24 +0300
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!pipex!sunic!news.funet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!proffa.cc.tut.fi![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

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


Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) wrote:

>                              I suggest that, like the Bar exam,
> there only need be *one* class of amateur license. That exam needs
> to stress things *all* amateurs need to know in order to conduct
> their amateur experimentation safely and without causing undue
> interference to other services. None of the current license classes
> really directly address these issues. They're more concerned with
> steering a particular career ladder.

The only problem with a single license class is that you have to set
these requirements quite high. If we want youngsters (say 6th or 9th
graders) into this hobby, it might be too hard to teach all the basics
needed to understand these requirements (and not just memorize the
questions).

In addition to the full license, there should be an easier entrance
class with very limited privileges (low power (5-30 W), limited bands,
type accepted transmitters or at least checked by a full license ham).
By keeping the power levels low, low voltage (or even battery powered)
solid state equipment would be used and there would not be many electric
safety issues to worry about. The risk for EMC problems would also be
small. The Novice license in the U.K. was created using similar guide-
lines.

The U.S. Tech license is a strange creature, requirements suitable for
an entrance license but full privileges above 30 MHz. You are allowed
to build 1.5 kW transmitters using a few kV of plate voltage or spew
out a few megawatts of e.r.p. in the microwave bands. The Tech question
pool (at least the previous one that I have seen) is clearly inadequate
for these privileges.

In Europe there is a strong desire to harmonize the license requirements
for a full privilege license (CEPT recomendation T/R 61-02 HAREC). This
has been going on for a few years. Now they are trying to harmonize
the entrance class requirements, but unfortunately the opinions about
the requirements and privileges are very different in different countries
and I haven't heard what the outcome was from the last conference this
month.

There are currently two variants of the full HAREC license, HAREC B
is for full privileges above 30 MHz and HAREC A requires in addition
a 12 WPM test for full privileges on all bands.

My guess is that the ITU will remove the CW requirement within the
next decade and that the the initiative comes from inside the ITU
and not from the conservative IARU (Internation Amateur Radio Union).
Within a decade after that, even the most conservative nations will
drop the CW requirement. Then we will have a single full license
(and hopefully a common entrance license) in Europe. I hope that
by that time the U.S. license structure would be simplified, so that
we could get rid of the reciprocal licenses when traveling across
the Pond.


                        Paul OH3LWR


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone   : [phone]
X.400   : G=Paul S=Keinanen O=Kotiposti A=ELISA C=FI
Internet: [e-mail]
Telex   : 58-100 1825 (ATTN: Keinanen Paul)
Mail    : Hameenpuisto 42 A 26
          FIN-33200 TAMPERE
          FINLAND

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #219
******************************