QRZ! Ham Radio 3/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 3.iso/digests/policy/930466.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-04 | 13KB

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 04:30:21 PST
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V93 #466
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Fri, 19 Nov 93       Volume 93 : Issue  466

Today's Topics:
                            No Code etc...
                           spread spectrum
     THE argument for CW requirements (was: End-It All Now, Pleas
                        This is a hobby not a
                   Why isn't Amateur Radio like CB?

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 Nov 93 16:30:48 GMT
From: brunix!maxcy2.maxcy.brown.edu![e-mail]
Subject: No Code etc...
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, Ed Ellers <[e-mail]> writes:

> All the "code-free HF" proponents are saying is that the test should be
> relevant to the privileges being granted; a Morse test is NOT relevant to the
> use of other modes.  The better way is with a stiffer written test, with heavy
> emphasis on regulations and operating procedures.

While this is an excellent idea, and one which I think that many
people would be willing to buy off on, there is one problem with it:
historically, the amateur radio written tests have been "dumbed down"
so more and more people can get into the hobby. Recent examples
include rewriting the novice and tech question pools for a 12-year-old
reading comprehension level.

I would like to see a much easier licensing scheme:

Class:  Privs:  Requirements:

Class B: VHF/UHF  Written exam, 85% or better required out
    of 100 questions. No code.

Class A: All  Class B requirements plus 8wpm code test


However, I think that the written exam needs to be extremely beefed
up, and administered similar to the SATs. No more "published" question
pools - let the exam coordinator maintain the questions themselves
based upon formulas - for instance, we all know the formula to obtain
the resonant frequency of a circuit. Well, instead of having 5
questions on this material which can be easily memorized, we should have
a generic formula which the computer then picks values for, along with
several answers. Totally random, and people HAVE to know the formula
and how it works to solve the problem.

Anyone want to write the petition with me?

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

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

Date: 18 Nov 93 19:11:17 GMT
From: idacrd.ccr-p.ida.org!idacrd![e-mail]
Subject: spread spectrum
To: [e-mail]

I would love the details on this.  Surely it was FH spread and not DSS?
How can one read about their implementations?

Bob
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier                  | [e-mail] Interests: ham radio,
Center for Communications Research | scouts, astronomy,and golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520              | ASM Troop 5700, ACM Pack 53 Hightstown

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

Date: 16 Nov 1993 14:23:13 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: THE argument for CW requirements (was: End-It All Now, Pleas
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill  N8PKV) writes:

   > Test?  How?  Can you pass a packet test by ear - at any speed?
   > Another bogus analogy.  How the hell do you "test" for FM reception?
   > It makes no sense.

   Different modes require different equipment. I could, given a little
   time, come up with a valid test for both packet and FM voice that would
   if tested across the board improve operations and spectrum conservation.
   The latter being important to the Pro-Code-Testing group.

   Now from your last paragraph, since one requires a reciever/tnc/modem
   for packet reception and you said "...a packet test by ear..." then can
   I safely assume that you get CW signals in your brain directly with out
   any type of reciever? Or are you argueing that CW can use equipment to
   recieve but not packet? And FM voice (IF you DO use a reciever) becomes
   very analogous(sp) to CW.

Arrrgh.  This is red herring.  Can you pass a packet test by ear
(i.e., listening to the audio such as from a receiver) even given a
receiver?  I can pass an FM phone test given a receiver.  So can
anyone capable of understanding spoken English.

The only analogous tests are reading and aural comprehension.  And,
no, I don't need a receiver to copy code any more than a computer
needs a receiver to copy data.  (The one I'm typing on is exchanging
data but has no receiver.)  Receivers are useful for detecting radio
signals, but you need one for any mode.  Even packet.  Of course, for
packet, you *must* have a computer terminal, of some sort, too.
That's the precise reason you don't have to understand it by ear.

I'm arguing that packet tests aren't necessary because the computer
just tells you what it says.  You don't copy it by ear.  With code,
you do.  (Need I say again that computers I've used do a far worse job
of copying code than I do, at least up to my code speed?)  And unlike
voice, we don't automatically learn it while growing up.  Operating
practice exams are a good but different idea: you're not supposed to
have to know anything about them to pass the code test.  You're only
supposed to have to know code itself.

I didn't explain all this because I thought it would be clear.  It was
inspired of you to package receivers under the term "equipment."  But,
as you seem to me to have misunderstood once again the thrust of my
argument in the part I deleted, perhaps the time has come to admit
that we're not going to communicate on this issue?

-drt

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker KG2S 8P9CL                       [e-mail]|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|`Most political sermons teach the congregation nothing except         |
|what newspapers are taken at the Rectory.' -C.S. Lewis                |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 18 Nov 93 14:42:57 GMT
From: butch!zuni.litc.lockheed.com![e-mail]
Subject: This is a hobby not a
To: [e-mail]

: >     This statement s a strawman, since in actual fact there is _not_
: >that much usuage of Morse code, not in comparrision to the actuall
: >number of transmission being made the world over.

   BALONEY!! 57% of the HF operators isn't MUCH??


  >Hell, packet radio
: >quite nicely replaces Morse code, letting computers handle all the
: >coding and decoding while the human simply reads and types.

 Yeah!! If you wanna be human vegetable and not learn anything!! Let the
 Machine work for you!! MAybe it'll be able to talk for you 100% too..
 Why exert any effort.. Give me a break!!

: >Morse
: >code IS obsolete.  IE: As a needed mode.  It is a nice mode to learn
: >and play with though, but to make it a requirement for HF?  Nah, you
: >couldn't give me a decent reason to do so.

 Well,
  Like paul said in the previous post.. CW justifies itself.. And someone
  who has never operated it shouldn't base his conclusions on a lack of
  information.

        73 De N0ELV
        (Mike)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Analyst      | [e-mail]     | EX- KA0MUG
       | N0ELV@W0LJF.#NECO.CO.USA.NA       |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 15:18:44 -0700
From: orca.es.com!cnn.sim.es.com!msanders.sim.es.com![e-mail]
Subject: Why isn't Amateur Radio like CB?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(jeffrey.n.jones) wrote:

> With all the ranting and raving about Nocodes and what not here's
> food for thought. What exactly has kept Amateur Radio from turning
> into CB? Is it the written tests? The code tests? The self regulation?
> There must be something. I believe it's the combination of the code
> and the written tests. To pass both takes a fair amount of effort and
> those that are the real bane of CB don't have enough on the ball to
> study for the tests. CW has worked as a fairly good filter like it
> or not. So have the written tests.


Jeff:  I like the way you put your arguments.  A definite filter is needed
to keep those who would rather not put forth the effort out of the amateur
bands.  This has nothing to do with smarts, intelligence, or the like, but
about attitude towards self and others.  I like to think that "attitude" is
what makes amateur service difference from the citizens band, and it is a
citizens band for those who need some form of radio 2-way communication
without any extra hassel of studying, testing, etc.  My wife's folks can
barely tune the VCR much less understand Ohm's law, but they have a need
for some communication when up at their summer property with no phone
service.  It works for them.  We have also used citizens band when driving
with two cars in convoy, just to maintain communications.  Now that I have
two more hams in the family, that won't be necessary, but it still can
conserve bandwidth for short range communications.


> However the days of CW tests are
> coming to a close and it will be gone in the future. The written
> tests will be made easier and easier so perhaps the lines between CB
> and Amateur Radio will blurr. Any comments?
>

You may be right, but as long as there is a filter that requires some
effort, the filter will always be effective against some of those with a
"different" attitude.  I do both code and SSB, my boys are nocode.
Attitude and professional operation are what make the biggest difference.

>
> --
>  Jeff Jones  AB6MB         |
>  [e-mail]   | This Extra supports CW and the Nocode license!
>  Infolinc BBS 510-778-5929 |

--
=========================================================================
Milt

Opinions, thoughts, &cetera are my own (when I can remember them).
KB7MSF/AG
Utah



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

Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 17:25:40 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!mixcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>l.mu
Subject : Re: Reprinted by popular demand

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David R Tucker) writes:

>      There is SOMETHING.  The biggest difference between CB and HAM is the
>   fact that hams ALWAYS use a call sign.  It's damn near impossible for a
>   person to establish a conversation with another ham without a call sign
>   (if you want to talk to Robert, you must not have a "3" call).  I hear
>   people using autopatches that don't give their calls, and it creates
>   quite a stir on the repeater.

>Any particular reason the control op on duty doesn't terminate the
>illegal operation right away?

Indeed!  I've heard numerous complaints in amateur.policy about the
state of the 2-meter repeaters on the east coast and in LA!

Whats the problem with the control operators and the repeater
trustees over there?  We always shut down the repeaters here
in the Milwaukee area if prolonged and or repetitive violations
occur!   Get you act together.  If things have degenerated to
chaos, it's partly yout fault!

--
  /`-_       [e-mail]  |  The US Constitution defines the
 {     }/ Marquette Electronics, Inc  |  "rights" the people give to the
  \    /   Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA  |  government, not the reverse!
   |__*|  N9SQB, ARRL, Amateur Radio  |

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V93 #466
******************************
******************************