CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

T99W Help

Subject: T99W Help
From: aa2du@netcom.com (J.P. Kleinhaus)
Date: Wed Aug 21 10:56:01 1996
Greetings:

DL1QQ is indeed the manager for T99W...at least that's
what SHE told me the last time I saw her (about a year ago).
I know that she is in school studying to be a member of
the Bundeskriminalant (German FBI) but probably still takes
care of the logs.  If not, I'm sure she can still reach T99W.

73, J.P. AA2DU



>From wb7dhc@nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre)  Wed Aug 21 16:13:39 1996
From: wb7dhc@nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) (Jim Aguirre)
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.960821080841.10553B-100000@washington>

I got the same impression! No matter how hard I tried to fit my answers
into the structure of the questions posed, I could never manage to convey
how I really felt.

As someone who has constructed questionnaires professionally, I can see
just where they're headed. If this was not done intentionally (and, that
is possible...though not likely), then the ARRL needs to get someone with
experience in the field to craft an unbiased set of questions.


On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Kris Mraz, N5KM wrote:

> David L. Thompson wrote:
> > 
> > In the September 1996 QST (pages 49 and 50) there is a WRC-99 Survey where
> > you can make your opinions known on the Cw requirement.  Please cast your
> > vote and let the ARRL/IARU know how you feel about CW.  You can bet the no
> > code techs will!
> > 
> > Dave K4JRB
> > Assistant Director, SE Division
> 
> It may be just me, but the questions seem to be biased in such as way so
> as to influence the reader toward a "drop the code" opinion. I believe this is
> the answer the league is trying to force. There is an art to structuring
> these kinds of surveys so that the questions are unbiased and the reader's
> true opinion is obtained. I wonder if this survey could pass a neutrality 
> test?
> Anyone experienced in this area?
> -- 
> 
> 73
> Kris N5KM 
> mraz@aud.alcatel.com
> 


>From jfunk@adams.net (jim funk)  Wed Aug 21 16:18:16 1996
From: jfunk@adams.net (jim funk) (jim funk)
Subject: NAQP M/2's
Message-ID: <9608211518.AA26582@golden.adams.net>

W6EMS wrote:
>
>Jim:  if you used more than one name in your M2 we require you to show which
>name was used for which QSO throughout your log.  Sometimes this makes using
>one name for all contacts a somewhat easier choice, hi,
>
>73, Steve W6EMS
>merchant@silcom.com
>
>At 01:39 PM 8/20/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>Greetings!
>>        What is the rule, or the consensus, regarding what name is used in 
>>NAQP for the M/2 stations?  Settle on one name or everybody use his own?
>>                                        73, Jim N9JF

While we did not do a M/2 this time, I regard Steve's answer as the 
definitive one.  Thanks to all who replied and 73, Jim N9JF
>>
>>
>
>
>
"The cow is of the bovine ilk.  One end is moo; the other, milk.--Ogden Nash



>From aa9ax@iglou.com (Steven Sample)  Wed Aug 21 16:22:45 1996
From: aa9ax@iglou.com (Steven Sample) (Steven Sample)
Subject: Blowup
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.93.960821112024.16502A-100000@iglou>

Am I missing something or is this a mis-directed post?

Slim
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/

On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Geoff Howard wrote:

> Hope Winnepeg is/was/will be a good trip. Also hope Monday and
> Tuesday with Kris were all that you hoped they would be.
> 
> We are back at the Days Inn in Tempe, getting ready to fly out in
> the morning. We stayed at Luke Thursday night, the Hilton
> on Friday/Saturday, and at Davis/Monthan AFB on Sunday night.
> Saw a lot of neat stuff in Tucson, and then did Biosphere 2 today
> (Monday) which was GREAT!!
> 
> A warning: Cindy blew up Saturday night when she got the phone
> message from Karin. Anger first, then a lot of tears. She has had
> it with Karin, and does not ever want to see her or even talk to
> her again. She was very, VERY angry and hurt at the fact that K
> completely ignored our invitation to take you guys out for
> our anniversary dinner. She was equally mad at the way she obviously
> concealed where you guys were staying. She is VERRRRY furious, and
> Karin can consider herself permanently divorced from the Howards.
> Cindy has tried to be patient with her for a long time, as far
> back as whan Karin had her in tears in Key West, and now she has
> simply had it. And guess what? She said she thinks Karin is
> an absolute "witch" and that you should quit wasting your time and
> energy and just divorce her. Says that K is just "using" you for
> a safety net and for support. How's that for strong talk?
> 
> Be clear: Cindy has no, none, ZERO beef with you! She had a ball with
> you, likes you a LOT, more and more every time, and would very
> much like to stay in touch with you and do trips together, etc.
> But with a different partner than Karin. 
> 
> Sorry to bring you bad news, but I thought you should know about
> this before you hear about it second-hand. Not sure if she is going
> to call K, or e-mail her, or what, but my advice is to keep your
> head down. Karin is, in her opinion, irretrieveably maladjusted, 
> and she salutes you for your patience all this time. She does know
> that, to some extent, you have another gal-friend (I have only
> told her small parts) and she understands why you have taken up
> with someone else. The churchgoer in her does not approve, but the
> human in her approves completely. 
> 
> You should have HEARD the strong language she used about K.
> 
> Keep in touch!
> 
> 


>From wb7dhc@nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre)  Wed Aug 21 16:27:46 1996
From: wb7dhc@nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) (Jim Aguirre)
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.960821081925.10553D-100000@washington>

Good thoughts on CW! Unfortunately, too much has been made of CW being
"ancient technology." Hammers are ancient technology too, but try to build
something without one!

Whether CW should be a "filter" in the licensing process is open to
debate; what is not open to debate is that CW is still a very valuable
tool for weak signal work. Licensing requirements...especially for the
higher levels...should test for all the basics, including the appropriate
use of all the tools at hand. That should include CW along with all the
others.

I can support an entry-level codeless license, but in order to move up, I
believe it's important to make applicants demonstrate their knowledge of
all the fundamentals...including CW. BTW, I couldn't find a way to reach
that conclusion in the ARRL survey!


>From nt5c@easy.com (John Warren)  Wed Aug 21 16:58:01 1996
From: nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) (John Warren)
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <1371497424-8379856@BANJO.EASY.COM>

Somewhat to my surprise, I did not detect any bias in ARRL's WRC-99 Survey
(Sept QST, pp 49/50). Perhaps it was the ABSENCE of this traditional League
bias (in their direction) which disturbed several correspondents to this
Reflector?

I think the ARRL Board of Directors is to be congratulated for accepting
its leadership role for ALL amateurs in the United States, and for
specifying that the WRC Survey is to go to non-members as well as members
(Sept QST, Moved & Seconded, p67, Minute #71). Another survey of just the
minority who are members would be a waste of our subscription money - That
result is well known.

John, NT5C.



>From thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)  Wed Aug 21 16:15:55 1996
From: thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson) (David L. Thompson)
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <199608211604.MAA19859@answerman.mindspring.com>

Gang,

1. There is no reason why you cannot copy the pages for your reply.  There
is no need to tear up the QST.

2.  The survey is not biased in my opinion toward CW.   It is designed to
get the most complete answer to YES or NO.   If you have an "expert"
marketing researcher who can find bias report it to 
ARRL at once.   I have a neighbor who runs a marketing research firm and I
faxed it to him...he said it was not biased and he has no idea what Cw is
and why the fuss!

3. Boy, 30 years ago the League was labeled "CW Forever" due to the
management team and the fights with NARC and the incentive licensing
proposals.  Things have sure changed for the League to be labeled "Against
CW."    To my knowledge, the League is bending over backward to be
"unbiased."    

4.  With regards to who votes and League membership (or IARU member society
membership for our DX friends) a member is a member and each gets one full
vote!  A full member can be any class of license.

My suggestion is fill out the survey and let your opinions be known.

Dave K4JRB    


>From aa7bg@initco.net (AA7BG Matt Trott)  Wed Aug 21 17:14:03 1996
From: aa7bg@initco.net (AA7BG Matt Trott) (AA7BG Matt Trott)
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!
Message-ID: <199608211614.KAA17094@zeus.initco.net>


>  " When I get on 40 CW at night in Field Day, the entire world as I know
>    it ceases to exist. It's just me and the band ".
>
>There is something very special about CW.

That about says it. About 20 years ago there was an article in the National
Observer about a cw dxer and he described his over-the-pole cw dxing as
"....an escape from moods and pressures." I was a 16 year old novice when I
read this article and I appreciate his comment even more today than I did then.

>I personally feel that many desired to get to the top,
>but wanted to be ferried there in helicopters and avoid going to
>rock climbing school. The allure was so great.

I'm not so sure. How great can the "allure" be if you don't even care enough
to put forth what it takes?  In the coming years maybe they'll do away with
ANY licensing requirements. I really don't think the bands will be crowded
with happy people if that happens. Or that many other people for that
matter. If more people wanted to be on HF then they would be. What we need
to do is outwardly show how much fun we're having and portray the virtues of
HF. Then once all are indeed privy to the greatest part of this hobby they'd
skip that sitcom for a month and study code. If they still won't do it, it's
cuz they don't WANT to do it. 

>America has at it's roots the concept of equal opportunity - opportunity
>towards the pursuit of happiness. For some, that pursuit requires
>a National Park. For others, a few tens of kiloHertz. I say that
>the preservation of the CW subbands is just as consistent with our
>country's goals and morals as is the preservation of large areas
>of land for the appreciation of ourselves and our children.

Well put Tony. Let's go ahead and chase the money and get rid of CW. But
let's not call it Ham Radio anymore. No, we dasn't do that. We must come up
with a new moniker. It can be similar, something that sounds equally as
meaty. How about Bologna Radio.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-        AA7BG    "Please don't drink on the reflector" --Stu Pidthred
Matt Trott
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


>From hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver)  Wed Aug 21 18:25:56 1996
From: hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Subject: CW & HF Licensing
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960821093319.18054C-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>


Here's an idea - Consider merging the no-code Tech and Novice licenses,
with HF privileges the same as General, but at a greatly reduced power
level.  VHF privileges would be the same as for current no-code Tech.

This would get the new ham "in the tent" so that he or she can see why
it's worth learning the code to get the extra privileges.  As it stands,
the Novices and Technicians are segregated in little-used or SWBC-infested
bands (with the exception of 10m SSB which is dead 5 years out of 11) 
where they don't get exposed to the full ham experience.  I know from
experience that you can do a lot with just a few watts of power and even
limited antennas.

This has the simultaneous effect of getting the entry-level ham involved
in the ham community while making "full membership" contingent on making
the effort to acquire skills.  Also, it would tend to minimize the
no-code/code frequency segregation, yet maintain the value of the
higher class ticket.  I would make the analogy of the "visual flight
rules" restriction on new pilots as a parallel situation.  Also (he said,
tongue-in-cheek) it gets me a lot more Sunday afternoon contacts during
Sweepstakes ;-) ;-) ;-)

To be clear, let's call the new Entry-Level license the "Associate":

Associate       Current Tech Exam       Current VHF privileges plus
                                        General HF privileges, 5-20W

Current Tech                            Grandfathered to Associate

Current Novice                          Grandfathered to Associate

Current Tech-Plus                       Grandfathered to new General
                                                due to having passed the
                                                higher theory/rules exam

General         7-10wpm requirement     Existing General privileges
                (13 is too big a        (no change to existing licensees)
                 step as a first
                 exam level)

Advanced        More theory & rules     Existing Advanced privileges
                                        (no change to existing licensees)

Extra           15-20wpm plus more      All Amateur privileges
                theory and rules

The FCC should like this proposal as it reduces the number of license
levels to four from the current six.  Current licensees see no reduction
in their privileges and no significant cheapening of their achievement.
Manufacturers will like it because more people will have more HF
privileges.  New licensees will like it because they get access to more
activities.  Old licensees should tolerate it because it keeps the CW
requirement and doesn't give away the HF store, yet makes the hobby more
inclusive of the new licensee.

Technicians get the biggest bonus - General Class privileges.  Existing
Novices get VHF privileges and existing no-code Techs get the
limited-power HF privileges.  Novices trade the existing 250W limit
against broader HF frequency privileges. (Get the Novices down below
7050kHz and they'll be upgrading faster than they ever imagined.)

As it is, the entry-level licensees don't have the opportunity to mix in
the the broader ham community.  "Novices - you go over there in the weeds
where we can't see you. No-code techs, you guys stay away from HF
entirely.  Techs - you can operate on HF, but only with the Novices."
Small wonder that these groups don't upgrade and don't feel a strong bond
with the traditional ham community!

I agree with K1KP entirely that there needs to be a commonality among
hams.  Yet it can't happen without *communication* within the *community*. 
It is no coincidence that the words begin with the same six letters.

73, and let's have some discussion!

Ward N0AX


>From leduc@atla3.agfa.com (Dave LeDuc)  Wed Aug 21 16:34:10 1996
From: leduc@atla3.agfa.com (Dave LeDuc) (Dave LeDuc)
Subject: No Sept. QST
Message-ID: <9608211534.AB19719@chip.agfa.com>


Am I the only ARRL member who did not get their SEPT. issue of QST??

Dave K1EPJ


>From floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd)  Wed Aug 21 16:02:18 1996
From: floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Subject: NAQP SSB 96 Scores III
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960821150218.228fca7a@interpath.com>

NAQP 96 SSB 
Raw Scores


Compiled by
>> WA4ZXA <<
floydjr@interpath.com

Date posted: 08/21/96


CALL                   SCORE       QSO'S      MULTI
------------------------------------------------------------

SINGLE OPERATOR

N4ZZ                 244,404       1116        219
NM5M                 194,135        947        205
K0EJ                 184,625        875        211
AA8AV                184,080        885        208
KF3P                 159,964        812        197
AC10                 150,002        838        179
NA5Q                 143,592        772        186
AA0SQ                125,388        774        162
KA4RRU               123,714        711        174
N4BP                 119,250        750        159
AB5SE                111,931        647        173
AA0OB                110,840        652        170
KE2VB                105,270        605        174
N5FG  (WQ5L)         103,887        679        153
WA8YRS               103,572        548        189
KQ4HC                 99,968        568        176
W7ZRC                 98,552        776        127
WA7BNM                95,776        656        146
KB3AFT                94,114        544        173
K9BG                  93,225        565        165
KJ6HO                 92,796        703        132
N6HC                  92,400        700        132
WB5B                  91,676        559        162
WA6KUI                87,584        544        161
KR4UJ                 86,289        587        147
N6KI                  80,470        619        130
N1PBT                 77,770        505        154
K3II  (WB3ESS)        77,520        570        136
KN6DV                 76,956        636        121
W5ASP                 71,736        488        147
AB6FO                 67,298        506        133
KR4DL                 62,205        429        145
AA4UF                 61,962        449        138
N9ITX/7               60,298        511        198
K7C  (KG7TE)          60,000        455        132
KD3GC                 57,323        431        133
WQ5G                  55,440        419        131
WB0OLA                52,785        391        135
N3BDA                 49,440        412        120
KD4HA                 46,854        342        137
AE4EY                 32,336        344         94
WA4ZXA                30,492        363         84
N3ADL  (N3UHZ)        28,086        253        111
W1IHN                 26,800        268        100
WD0T                  25,935        273         95
KS4XG                 25,875        225        115
AE0M                  18,300        245         75
VE6JY                 14,430        185         78
KM9P                   4,061        131         31
KB9NMU                 1,058         46         23
WN3K                     221         17         13


MULIT-OP

NC0P                 421,022       1769        238 
WB5VZL               331,559       1423        233 
W5NN                 308,958       1326        233
KC4ZV                140,097        697        201
AC4ZO                 54,740        391        140
W5EHM                 47,151        403        117


TEAM SCORES

SCCC#1                             425,226


OPERATORS IN MULIT-OP

NC0P           NC0P,WD0GVY,WA0ETC,WA0FLS,WO0V
W5EHM          N1PVB,SQ9DDZ,KA5WSS
AC4ZO          AC4ZO,AD4ZE,KE4DRJ,KE4OQO,KF4EAH,KF4BKM,N4YTO,KT4OC
WB5VZL         AA5RB,WB5VZL
W5NN           K5GA,N5RP,KB5YVT

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY SCORES TO THE CONTEST REFLECTOR FOR ANY CONTEST!!
SEND THEM TO ME DIRECT OR TO THE 3830 REFLECTOR. 

PLEASE NO ATTACHED FILES!!! ALSO NO LOGS AS THESE NOT OFFICIAL SCORES!! 

73's Jim
           ********************************************************** 
           * Jimmy R. Floyd  (Jim)   Thomasville, NC                *
           *                                                        *
           * Amateur Call:              >> WA4ZXA <<                *
           * Packet Node:               >> N4ZC <<                  *
           * Internet Address:          >> floydjr@interpath.com << *
           **********************************************************


>From floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd)  Wed Aug 21 16:02:21 1996
From: floydjr@Interpath.com (Jimmy R. Floyd) (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Subject: SARTG RTTY 96 Scores III
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960821150221.228fe908@interpath.com>

SARTG 96 RTTY
RAW SCORES

Compiled by
>>WA4ZXA<<
floydjr@interpath.com


Date Posted: 08/21/96


CALL                   SCORES       QSO'S      PTS     DIST     DX
------------------------------------------------------------------------


SINGLE OP/ALL BAND

9H0A                1,589,180        779      8780          181
SM3KOR              1,289,610        659      7245      28      150
YL2KF               1,169,520        624      6645      30      146
OH2BP               1,066,725        583      6495      26      139
SM5FUG              1,059,520        563      6160      27      145
OH2GI                 850,680        501      5560      21      132
PA3ERC                726,440        434      5080      26      117
OH2LU                 570,240        411      4455      18      110
IK7APK  (IK0HBN)      478,020        366      3855      23      101
SM3LBN                289,945        252      2815     103       87
SM5EIT                185,500        207
G3YJQ                 124,605        164      1755      11       60
PJ8MI                  88,440        137      2010      14       13
CE8SFG                 83,490        127      1815      13       33
PA3EWP                 47,730        122      1290       6       31

AB5KD               1,039,700        663      7025          148
NO2T                  736,440        458      5415      47       89
N1RCT                 693,750        482      5550      49       76
KQ4GC                 547,995        409      4605      57       62
NF6L                  520,840        414      4490      66       50
WA4VQD                417,450        353      3795      49       61
VE6KRR                304,870        329      3545      46       40
WF1B                  280,840        333      4130      16       52
WA0ACI                229,900        292      3025      42       34
KE1FO                 212,000        224      2650      29       51
WA4ZXA                181,335        215      2355      33       44
KE7GH                 178,640        314      3190      34       22
NA2M                  155,520        202      2160      34       38
KA2CYN                153,375        177      2045      35       40
KD8FS                 152,130        217      2305      36       30
KA2CYN                150,000        177      2000      35       40
KC4HW                 137,280        189      2080      34       32
K0RC                  111,910        183      1805      38       24
AA9RR                 111,825        163      1775      39       24
W6/G0AZT              108,160        159      1690      36       28
K0BX                  101,500        159      1750      28       30
KF3P                   83,260        152      1810      17       29
K8UNP                  76,950        123      1425      21       33
W7RSJ                  66,005        152      1535      24       19
VE7QO                  65,095        126      1385      25       22
N2CQ                   56,240
AC6DR                  52,750        111      1055      33       17
W2JGR/0                52,080        107      1085      29       19
NS1Z                   46,320         83       965      26       22
KC4ZHQ                 46,295         97       985      27       20
KA1IXG                  9,430         38       410      14        9


SINGLE OP/SINGLE BAND

40M
W2UP                  108,100        192      2300      15       32
KF3P                   83,260        152      1810      17       29
KF4BU                  41,700        143      1390      14       16

20M
SM5AAY                 84,870        168      1845      14       32

WA4JQS                110,414        190      2165      17       34
N2CQ                   48,960        


MULTI SINGLE

PI4CC                 823,200        489      5600      32      115

AA5AU                 775,520        462      5240      73       75
AF4Z                  362,780        337      3740      41       56
VE3FJB                244,900        262      3100      31       48

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY SCORES FOR ANY CONTEST TO THE CONTEST REFLECTOR!!
SEND THE RTTY SCORES TO WF1B REFLECTOR OR TO ME DIRECT!!!

Please no attached files or logs!! Also remember these scores are not 
official!!!

73's Jim
           ********************************************************** 
           * Jimmy R. Floyd  (Jim)   Thomasville, NC                *
           *                                                        *
           * Amateur Call:              >> WA4ZXA <<                *
           * Packet Node:               >> N4ZC <<                  *
           * Internet Address:          >> floydjr@interpath.com << *
           **********************************************************


>From edwoods@pbsac01.isp.PacBell.COM (edwoods)  Wed Aug 21 19:34:00 1996
From: edwoods@pbsac01.isp.PacBell.COM (edwoods) (edwoods)
Subject: CW as a necessary option
Message-ID: <9608211736.AA29731@gw3.pacbell.com>


Oh lordy:

I just returned from the weekly NSEP (National Security and Emergency 
Preparedness) HF net  exercise for the telephone entities in California.  We 
use a commercial HF radio (100W) to inverted vee's cut for 4 and 7 MHz, 
using a tuner to match the impedance on the emergency frequencies.

Since we're trying to cover all of W6 on those frequencies at this time of 
year and this place in the sunspot cycle, we're having trouble hearing all 
the stations attempting to check in.  Low signals, noise, etc.  Same old 
story, right?

When the NCS called the Bay Area station (about 100 miles away from Sac), 
all he heard was a wisp of an ESP type signal and the NCS ignored him.  A 
minute later, a very clear cw signal was heard from the same station.  Too 
bad the NCS was not a contester (or a ham).

A few minutes later, on the 4 MHz net, when we called the same Bay Area 
station, we again barely heard his USB signal.  Just enough to tell he was 
attempting to check in.  Since he knew I was NCS on 4 MHz, he then checked 
in on CW.  no pain - no strain.

Let's see - emergency radio net, only cw works from a station in the Bay 
Area.

Says something about that mode, I hope.

Our Rohn 65 tower should arrive this week for our new Hy-Gain 6-20 LPA.  I 
can hardly wait to test it out on SprINT.  (contest reflector qualifying 
statement).  Hope the contracted antenna company doesn't drop it.

73 all,

Eric, NV6O
edwoods@pacbell.com

>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills)  Wed Aug 21 18:37:26 1996
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: YOU TOO CAN VOTE on CW!!

        >>Somewhat to my surprise, I did not detect any bias in ARRL's 
        >>WRC-99 Survey (Sept QST, pp 49/50). Perhaps it was the ABSENCE 
        >>of this traditional League bias (in their direction) which 
        >>disturbed several correspondents to this Reflector?  [NT5C]

Since John is known to detest CW, this is additional proof that the
questionnaire is biassed - I had the same impression as others here.
In fact it was so obvious that I immediately filled mine out and sent
it off.   At least I can cancel John's!   

Naughty thought - can we send photocopies of the survey? (because, er,
it spoils the mag to tear a page out, ya know).

Derek "early and often" AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu

>From wb7dhc@nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre)  Wed Aug 21 19:17:02 1996
From: wb7dhc@nwlink.com (Jim Aguirre) (Jim Aguirre)
Subject: CW & HF Licensing
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.960821105947.15708B-100000@washington>

Some good thoughts on restructuring the license classes and integrating
new hams into the full spectrum of amateur radio; however, I don't think
the power limitation is practical. The FCC won't go after CBers running a
full gallon, why would they bother with an "Associate" ham licensee? With
most modern ham gear running 100-150 watts, it's hard to believe folks
would willingly turn down the power until they upgraded.

While I know some would scream at the suggestion, why not reduce the
license classes to three:

General...Merge all Novices and Techs (both flavors) and give them the
current General Class priviledges. No code. This would bring all the
entry-level folks into the fold and should upset any of the involved
classes as everyone gets expanded priviledges.

Advanced...Merge current Advanced and General classes and give them the
current Advanced Class priviledges. 10 WPM code. This might disturb some
current Advanced Class license holders, but shouldn't really create many
problems. (I an Advanced Class, so feel I can make this suggestion)

Extra...Keep the priviledges the same as they are now, but stiffen the
exams regarding good operating practices, exotic modes, and practical
theory; maybe reduce the code requirement to 15 WPM (I don't care if they
keep it at 20 WPM; I'm about to take the current upgrade test anyway). If
anything, the consolidation of the Advanced and General classes might
encourage more folks to move up to the Extra just for the prestige and
extra CW/SSB band allocations. Since the Extras won't be losing anything,
they shouldn't be too upset about this change.

Just a thought!

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Ward Silver wrote:

> 
> Here's an idea - Consider merging the no-code Tech and Novice licenses,
> with HF privileges the same as General, but at a greatly reduced power
> level.  VHF privileges would be the same as for current no-code Tech.
> 
> This would get the new ham "in the tent" so that he or she can see why
> it's worth learning the code to get the extra privileges.  As it stands,
> the Novices and Technicians are segregated in little-used or SWBC-infested
> bands (with the exception of 10m SSB which is dead 5 years out of 11) 
> where they don't get exposed to the full ham experience.  I know from
> experience that you can do a lot with just a few watts of power and even
> limited antennas.
> 
> This has the simultaneous effect of getting the entry-level ham involved
> in the ham community while making "full membership" contingent on making
> the effort to acquire skills.  Also, it would tend to minimize the
> no-code/code frequency segregation, yet maintain the value of the
> higher class ticket.  I would make the analogy of the "visual flight
> rules" restriction on new pilots as a parallel situation.  Also (he said,
> tongue-in-cheek) it gets me a lot more Sunday afternoon contacts during
> Sweepstakes ;-) ;-) ;-)
> 
> To be clear, let's call the new Entry-Level license the "Associate":
> 
> Associate     Current Tech Exam       Current VHF privileges plus
>                                       General HF privileges, 5-20W
> 
> Current Tech                          Grandfathered to Associate
> 
> Current Novice                                Grandfathered to Associate
> 
> Current Tech-Plus                     Grandfathered to new General
>                                               due to having passed the
>                                               higher theory/rules exam
> 
> General               7-10wpm requirement     Existing General privileges
>               (13 is too big a        (no change to existing licensees)
>                step as a first
>                exam level)
> 
> Advanced      More theory & rules     Existing Advanced privileges
>                                       (no change to existing licensees)
> 
> Extra         15-20wpm plus more      All Amateur privileges
>               theory and rules
> 
> The FCC should like this proposal as it reduces the number of license
> levels to four from the current six.  Current licensees see no reduction
> in their privileges and no significant cheapening of their achievement.
> Manufacturers will like it because more people will have more HF
> privileges.  New licensees will like it because they get access to more
> activities.  Old licensees should tolerate it because it keeps the CW
> requirement and doesn't give away the HF store, yet makes the hobby more
> inclusive of the new licensee.
> 
> Technicians get the biggest bonus - General Class privileges.  Existing
> Novices get VHF privileges and existing no-code Techs get the
> limited-power HF privileges.  Novices trade the existing 250W limit
> against broader HF frequency privileges. (Get the Novices down below
> 7050kHz and they'll be upgrading faster than they ever imagined.)
> 
> As it is, the entry-level licensees don't have the opportunity to mix in
> the the broader ham community.  "Novices - you go over there in the weeds
> where we can't see you. No-code techs, you guys stay away from HF
> entirely.  Techs - you can operate on HF, but only with the Novices."
> Small wonder that these groups don't upgrade and don't feel a strong bond
> with the traditional ham community!
> 
> I agree with K1KP entirely that there needs to be a commonality among
> hams.  Yet it can't happen without *communication* within the *community*. 
> It is no coincidence that the words begin with the same six letters.
> 
> 73, and let's have some discussion!
> 
> Ward N0AX
> 
> 


>From k7fd@teleport.com (John Nicholson)  Wed Aug 21 19:52:24 1996
From: k7fd@teleport.com (John Nicholson) (John Nicholson)
Subject: Shack-on-a-belt'isms
Message-ID: <199608211852.LAA11348@desiree.teleport.com>

This one takes the cake. A newbie on the local repeater referred to his
potty break as 'taking a QRP'. 

All I can say is the end must be near.

John K7FD


>From nt5c@easy.com (John Warren)  Wed Aug 21 20:32:22 1996
From: nt5c@easy.com (John Warren) (John Warren)
Subject: Misrepresentation by AA5BT
Message-ID: <1371484563-9153449@BANJO.EASY.COM>

Derek AA5BT wrote:

    >Since John is known to detest CW, this is additional
    >proof that the questionnaire is biassed (sic)

I wouldn't normally bother the Reflector with this, but since Derek chose
to misrepresent my views publicly, I feel obliged to correct him the same
way.

I absolutely do NOT detest CW, which is a wonderful tradition in amateur
radio. I have many friends who are expert CW operators, and whose skills
and successes with that mode I admire. I strongly support dedicated band
segments for their use. The wonderful thing about this hobby is the variety
it offers. What I do detest, because I find it totally illogical, is
MANDATORY code testing for those of us who have quite different interests,
and who never intend to use it. There are far more appropriate tests for
the higher grades of license.

A private apology will be sufficient Derek.

John, NT5C.

P.S. Can't we put this futile, endless argument to rest - FOR KEEPS?
     Whatever happened to live-and-let-live?



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • T99W Help, J.P. Kleinhaus <=