QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940335.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 19KB

Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 04:30:13 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 #335
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Fri, 29 Jul 94       Volume 94 : Issue  335

Today's Topics:
                        Digital Spectrum Offer
                              short cuts
                         What is wrong with h
                What is wrong with ham radio (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: Thu, 28 Jul 94 11:09:02 -0500
From: news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: Digital Spectrum Offer
To: [e-mail]



After reading many posts regarding the unfairness of
the code requirement and the elitism of CW ops, and
superiority of one mode over another, I suggest an
alternative.

First:
A) It is a given that the ARRL will not support ths and
i honestly hope that i am wrong.

B) An influx of new hams is taking place and many of these
operators are interested in digital modes.

C) The future of amateur radio is getting licensed now.

with that said, here 'tis.

The usenet r.r.a.?? newsgroups constitute a watershed of
hams with a de-facto interest in digital communications
and radio-theory.  The opinion of these participants vary
widely (as evidenced by the constant bickering!).  These
factors combine to provide a forum for the development
of a proposal for the modifications of the current state
of HF spectrum management.

Proposed Alterations:

1) Novice Priv's to include digital-specific allocations, for
example: 7075-7100; 14075-14100; similar allocations on one
or more WARC bands.

2) Generation of an additional written exam, specific
to the theory, implementation, and practice of digital modes.
Coverage of data types, data rates, modulation techniques,
bandwidth, hardware, on-air protocols, Propagation, RFI. and
FCC regulations is expected.

I believe that the resulting impact would be to avail a large
number of hams of spectrum prioritized for digital modes.  This
would be in keeping with the "technology infusion" theme of the
no-code.  No-code Techs are REAL hams with strengths that have
nothing to do with triodes and air-variables.

WARNING! Flame Bait Ahead....

Q. How valid is a technology that is undergoing a spare-parts shortage?

ASIC's and microprocessors are cheap, reliable, versatile, and were
developed to REPLACE tubes, crystals, hartley oscillators, and
the like.  Forcing 75 year old technology to be the yardstick for
amateur radio places the future of the hobby in jeopardy.

Ahem....

If the energy of the Usenet participants was directed to change, the
potential exists for a shift forward in the status of Ham Radio.

Any Takers???

pete brunelli, N1QDQ
[e-mail]








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

Date: 27 Jul 1994 23:28:37 -0400
From: news.pipeline.com![e-mail]
Subject: short cuts
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Stan Olochwoszcz N2AYJ) wrote:


>
>:8{)> - Poster has mustache, beard, and wears
>half-height reading glasses.


Damn, that looks like V.I. Lenin!

N2KS

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jul 94 17:34:00 -0400
From: news.sprintlink.net!coyote.channel1.com!channel1![e-mail]
Subject: What is wrong with h
To: [e-mail]

%f>CW is ham radio's golden calf and just about as useful as the
%f>original.
%f>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (Definitely not speaking for Intel)


Here, here....goodo!

If you could write a test for each major mode, what would they look
like, how would they test.

Maybe each mode that you want to operate on needs a test.......


I like that, yesy indeed.

Stay tuned.

Alan Wilensky, N1SSO
General Manager
Interactive Workplace Division
Vicom, LTD.
Phone: Edmonton Office
11603 165 St.
[e-mail]
---
■ CmpQwk #UNREG■ UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY

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

Date: 28 Jul 1994 11:30:37 -0400
From: news1.digex.net!digex.net![e-mail]
Subject: What is wrong with ham radio
To: [e-mail]

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

> If the problem in learning code is motivation, which I'm not doubting,
> people who think widespread knowledge of code is a good thing need to think
> about the effectiveness of various motivating techniques.  "You can't have
> your dessert until you finish your spinach" has never been one of the better
> ones. "Look at those people over there having a ball! Don't you wish you
> could do that?" is a pretty good one.
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rich McAllister ([e-mail])

The only benefit learning a minimal amount of code is to prevent folks
from using their computers from reading perfectly humanly copyable code
and keep sending requests to resend everything. I 'really' like a
computer CW op that gives me a 599 report and asks me to repeat half
the transmission because his CW reader fouled up...

Andy

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

Date: 28 Jul 1994 11:30:52 -0400
From: news1.digex.net!digex.net![e-mail]
Subject: What is wrong with ham radio
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, kevin jessup  wrote:
>.....

> I believe the above are fundamental questions that have NEVER been
> answered by the pro-CW crowd in r.r.a.p.  Care to take a crack at
> them?
>
> --
>  [e-mail]  |  Vote Libertarian!
>                           |
>                           |  Call 1-800-682-1776
>                           |  for more information.
>
I've always been an advocate of reduced CW and better theory tests. You're
not the norm, though. Like you, I'm interested in utilizing higher bandwidths
that are only achieved on the higher UHF frequencies (and microwaves, while
we still have them). I was thrilled w/the nocode license idea. The problem
is the personal attacks by the no-code group who make claims that can't
even be substantiated by the FCC/ARRL. CW is a mode only. Learning a
minimal speed is just an added incentive.

Andy

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

Date: 28 Jul 1994 11:30:22 -0400
From: news1.digex.net!digex.net![e-mail]
Subject: What is wrong with ham radio
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, Richard McAllister wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Domonkos) writes:
>
> >I went from 0 to 15 wpm in 30 days.
>
> Some people have the talent. It took me about 6 months of 30-60 minutes a
> day, which is a large portion of my free time.  I think I'm more typical.
> Others have tried for years and never cracked the 10 WPM barrier.  It's hard
> to tell ahead of time how long it will take a given person to learn.
>
> Please explain this "deal" to me.  In particular, we're one USENET.  Part
> of the "deal" here is if you say something dumb, you're likely to
> get toasted.
>
>
.......
>
> Rich
>
> --
> Rich McAllister ([e-mail])

Rich and All,

I'm not attacking anyone here. I posted a response addressing the general
theme carried on here the past several months. You have a valid point
about the spare time issue. I favor a reduced CW (10WPM) test and a
tougher theoretical test. No one ever said the process was easy, that's
probably why on the whole the amateur bands work out pretty well. There
are cases of misuse/abuse but the good outshines the bad. You'll never
filter out bad personalites, you've got intelligent individuals in every
personality category.

What it comes down to is how much effort a person is willing to use
to achieve a priviledge. I suspect that if it weren't for commercially
available radio gear we wouldn't see a rush to the electronics stores
to build kits to get on the air.

Andy

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

Date: 28 Jul 1994 11:30:00 -0400
From: news1.digex.net!digex.net![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <3162ko$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

In article <3162ko$[e-mail]>, Cecil_A_Moore@ccm.h wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]>,
> Andy Domonkos <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >You knew what the deal was when you became a member of the community and
> >instead of making helpful suggestions you do nothing but attack your
> >fellow amateurs.
>
> You aren't attacking your fellow amateurs, are you?
>
> >How can anyone muster support in the ARRL when you do nothing but foster
> >opposition?
>
> You aren't fostering opposition, are you?
>
> >... I would vote to keep
> >things status quo until there was a serious attitude adjustment. Andy
>
> You want changes before allowing things to change?
> Gee, Andy, I wish you wouldn't complain so much. :-)
>
> 73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (Not speaking for Intel)

Who's attacking who?

Andy

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

Date: 28 Jul 1994 16:29:41 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!isuvax.iastate.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail]
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy Domonkos) writes:
>Funny how the attitude of most folks who upgrade take
>on a pro-code attitude later.

Funny how all folks who upgrade had to take a code test.
Funny how most "pro-code" attitudes seem to be more
"I had to do it, so you should, too" attitudes.

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

Date: 28 Jul 1994 14:05:04 -0600
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <318of3$[e-mail]>■╖
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

In article <318of3$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>The filter is working to keep some of the brightest people out of ham radio.
>Why should a spread spectrum expert with a PHD degree in electronics
>have to learn Morse code? Nobody makes the CW people learn spread
>spectrum. Is CW more important than all other modes combined?

Because it's a requirement. We, as a society, have gotten away from meeting
requirements in order to get privileges, and toward lowering requirements
instead.

Yours is the same argument that was raised three years ago to cram the no-code
Tech down our throats. Your PhD scpread spectrum expert can now get a codeless
Tech and make his contributions to the state of the amateur art. We were
promised that we'd see lots of that kind of thing from all of the newly
licensed techical experts just as soon as we did away with the nasty evil code
requirement. Well, where is it?

Before I'll even consider any further relaxation of the entry standards into
ham radio, I'm going to insist on seeing the promised technical innovations
from the no-code Techs.

Used to be that f someone wanted something badly enough, he'd do what it took
to get it. Now he just whines about "relevance" and tris to get standards
lowered until he can get in with no work.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]   | adequately be explained by stupidity.
   "From now on, when someone asks you where you're from, you tell 'em
           'Houston, city of champions!'" -- Rudy Tomjanovich

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

Date: 28 Jul 1994 17:04:35 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!gopher.sdsc.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!scorpion.ch.intel.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>com
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

In article <[e-mail]>,
Roger Buffington <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Something was wrong with your study approach.

Roger, please understand that not everyone's brain is capable of functioning
as a modem. Some very bright people cannot learn Morse code. I'm beginning
to believe it takes an idiot savant, based on some of these postings.

>In other words, the filter is working.

The filter is working to keep some of the brightest people out of ham radio.
Why should a spread spectrum expert with a PHD degree in electronics
have to learn Morse code? Nobody makes the CW people learn spread
spectrum. Is CW more important than all other modes combined?

>We're getting all the new hams for all license classes that we need.

We are getting quantity at the expense of quality. The best Rf engineers
I know are not hams because they can't be bothered with the triviality
of Morse code. A lot of competent engineers think ham radio is a big
joke because of the CW cub-scout mentality. (nothing against cub-scouts
but in general, they are a little immature)

FYI, most of my HF contacts are CW. I like it but I don't worship it or
try to cram it down anyone else's throat.

CW is ham radio's golden calf and just about as useful as the original.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (Definitely not speaking for Intel)

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 08:28:35
From: ncar!gatech!udel!news.sprintlink.net!indirect.com!s146.phxslip.indirect.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <3113tg$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>in
Subject : Re: Isn't Amateur Radio a Hobby?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tony Pelliccio) writes:
>Path: indirect.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.umbc.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!adis-204.adis.brown.edu!user
>From: [e-mail] (Tony Pelliccio)
>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
>Subject: Re: Isn't Amateur Radio a Hobby?
>Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.policy
>Date: 26 Jul 1994 15:33:46 GMT
>Organization: Brown University ADIR
>Lines: 18
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>References: <3113tg$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: adis-204.adis.brown.edu


>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Silva) wrote:

>> Has anyone here argued that all hams must be technical experts?  (Well,
>> maybe one person...)  There's a vast area between technical
>> illiterate and technical expert, and that's where most hams reside.
>> One of the purposes of incentive licensing is to move folks away from
>> the technical-illiterate starting line, but if a person is satisfied
>> with the privileges of one of the entry-level licenses then what?
>> Limited-duration entry-level licenses, anyone?

>I agree with having a limited duration for both the novice, tech+, and tech
>licensees. Say 2 years.

Does that mean we should penalize those who are no-code techs, get on
2m, have fun for about 3 months, then by elmering (remember elmering?),
learn about packet, get on packet, enjoy that for about 6 months, then find
out that ATV is fun and learn about it and get on ATV for a length of time,
then find out about AMSAT and become active in satellite work, then go
on to moonbounce, etc.; should they LOSE their license because they
don't take another test? Just wondering...
73, Len, KB7LPW
>

>--
>== Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR
>== [e-mail], Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone]
>== The opinions above are my own and not those of my employer.

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

Date: 28 Jul 1994 11:29:48 -0400
From: news1.digex.net!digex.net![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

In article <[e-mail]>, Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
> What a wonderfully written article! I think I'll save it and repost
> it once per month during this monthly code debate; hope you don't
> mind, Andy.
>
> 73,
> Jeff NH6IL
> [e-mail]
>

Be my guest Jeff. Funny how the attitude of most folks who upgrade take
on a pro-code attitude later. Guess we have to give folks the time to
learn. I think a lot of people out there should investigate the GMRS
Radio system since it gives them repeater access to talk to their
families, since that what many new hams are doing. No technical test
and they buy a license. Radio Shack should stres that more than the
ham gear their selling.

Andy

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

Date: 28 Jul 94 22:25:50 GMT
From: biosci!headwall.Stanford.EDU!abercrombie.Stanford.EDU![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

[e-mail] (Richard McAllister) writes:

>If the problem in learning code is motivation, which I'm not doubting,
>people who think widespread knowledge of code is a good thing need to think
>about the effectiveness of various motivating techniques.  "You can't have
>your dessert until you finish your spinach" has never been one of the better
>ones. "Look at those people over there having a ball! Don't you wish you
>could do that?" is a pretty good one.

I couldn't agree more.  I cringe whenever I see the Aged Flatuletia spout
off about tradition and whining and CB and whatever-ad-hominem.  The utility
of a skill should be in line with the effort required to acquire it, as a
general principle.  That means that not only do you need to demonstrate utility
(hey, skill "N" is used by "X" amateurs) but you also need to show that it's
not going to take forever to acquire (and that you don't lose it overnight
having acquired it).

As an aside, my current feeling of the consensus of .policy is that just about
everyone would like to the current license structure changed, to one which
has only two or three licenses, with the HF classes requiring 5 wpm or 5 and
10-13 wpm.  Folks who want to maintain the current structure or nuke CW
entirely are generally a tiny minority.  It's important to keep in mind that
this is therefore *not* an all-or-nothing issue.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX |        "The Enemy of the Good is the Better."
->[e-mail]   |         -- Gen. William "Wild Bill" Donovan

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #335
******************************