| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 08.04.00 07:46l 191 Lines 6716 Bytes #-9520 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_93B
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/93B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0ROF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<
PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 000403/2247Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:60088 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA32139 ; Mon, 03 Apr 00 21:00:33 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00000170 ; Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:18:02 MET
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 00 18:08:07 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_93B>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/93B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> Three classes can't do it!
> Please read my post titled "Partitions for Reconsideration of New Ham
> Rules".
Never saw it. What's the URL?
> I am not alone in thinking that the basis and purpose of Ham
> Radio says that it is a TECHNICAL HOBBY. I don't expect all hams to be
> technical experts BUT I would like to think that some Hams may be more
> qualified in that direction than others. For Ham Radio to get respect
> (not just an ego boost for individual's self esteem) we need more Hams
> to be technically qualified at the higher levels of modern
> communication technology.
>
> Hams need MORE license classes.
Hobbies that depend on Taxes must be well thought out, and have more
benefit than their cost.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:23:39 -0500
From: "lak" <lak@radio.land.com>
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
After reading this post I question what benefits the government supplies to
amatuer radio? In fact, the regulatory situation arose from the fact
commerical interests in the early 1900s saw a potential to make money from
radio spectrum and the government obilged them. So who really benefits from
regualtions commerical users who make money or people who spend money to
play?
Using the logic set out in this post, the FCC should get out of the amauter
radio regulation business since we do not make a profit. They should
regulate those who do more vigorously! They did just that with CB radio many
years ago.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 01:40:18 GMT
From: Bob Wex w2ilp <w2ilp@juno.com>
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
In article <sdb93hsslul64@corp.supernews.com>,
"Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote:
> "Bob Wex w2ilp" wrote
>
> > Hams need more license classes to maintain their basis and purpose
of
> > being state of the art communicators and capable of forming a cadre
of
> > experts!
>
> OK, how about:
>
> Lower class
> Middle Class
> Upper Class
>
> What do we use to distinguish each class?
Common sense...and appropriate qualifying exams...
Three classes can't do it!
Please read my post titled "Partitions for Reconsideration of New Ham
Rules". I am not alone in thinking that the basis and purpose of Ham
Radio says that it is a TECHNICAL HOBBY. I don't expect all hams to be
technical experts BUT I would like to think that some Hams may be more
qualified in that direction than others. For Ham Radio to get respect
(not just an ego boost for individual's self esteem) we need more Hams
to be technically qualified at the higher levels of modern
communication technology.
Hams need MORE license classes,
Bob Wex w2ilp (Initiating License Philosophy)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:22:09 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
"lak" <lak@radio.land.com> wrote
> After reading this post I question what benefits the government supplies to
> amatuer radio?
They allocate spectrum.
> In fact, the regulatory situation arose from the fact
> commerical interests in the early 1900s saw a potential to make money from
> radio spectrum and the government obilged them.
So the telegraph, telephone, and radio were developed for pure socialist
reasons, and not by capitalists? I think all those inventions were invented
to make money, not for the public domain.
The role government plays, is to regulate what would otherwise be chaos.
Consider the amateur rules the FCC just changed. We had a Novice class,
and two levels of technicians. We had three levels of morse code testing.
But if you look at the charts, you see that the trend was no one wanted
to be a Novice, and General, Advanced, and Extra classes were stagnant.
The FCC doesn't wait around till chaos or dysfunction is supreme, the ARRL
incentive class system was no longer functional. It was obvious that the
solution was to delete the classes that were redundant. The system is
now set up to divide classes between below 30 MHz and above 30 MHz.
That does leave the Extra class as a redundant class, but it exists because
Americans like competition, and the Extra class is where people who
want to be known as "going the extra mile" will congregate. For that they
will have some added VEC privileges I guess.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:01:48 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
I would estimate that changes to the CFR (due to lawyers, meetings,
travel, publishing, etc) are in the hundreds of dollars per hour.
I'm just guessing, but I know it isn't free, or done by volunteers.
> > How can we have more classes and reduce government cost?
>
> Since the government doesn't write the question pool and they don't
> give the exams, how does more classes result in a significant increase
> in government costs?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:47:59 -0500
From: "Bob Lewis" <aa4pb@erols.com>
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
> How can we have more classes and reduce government cost?
Since the government doesn't write the question pool and they don't
give the exams, how does more classes result in a significant increase
in government costs?
> Why should all Americans subsidize Ham radio? What do they get?
Hopefully, they get a pool of trained operators and equipment which is
available in an emergency. If the FCC were permitted to charge a
reasonable fee and keep the money to supplement their budget, perhaps
their amateur operation could become self-supporting.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:23:18 GMT
From: "R. Makul K1XV" <k1xv@nac.net>
Subject: Dolt needs suggestions on KamPlus v.8 software
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:23:28 -0600, "Bob Fay"
<robert.fay@unisys***.com> wrote:
>Ray, I am currently running a KAM+ v 8.0 with PacTerm98 v 1.4.
(snip)
I have decided to run Pacterm 98 v 1.4 because it supports DX4WIN, my
logging software, and once you figure out how to get it going with the
Kam Plus, it seems pretty stable. The Demo only gives you a taste of
how it works, however. Thanks to all who replied.
73, the "Digital Dolt" K1XV Ray
------------------------------
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_93C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
