RadioBanter - View Single Post

November 21st 03, 11:45 AM

Alun wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote in
. net:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net...
Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents
on public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the
change, and how many want to keep the code.

Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there
was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long
as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the
bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet
licensed.

But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The big
bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their no-code
Tech ticket and executing a vote.

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To
give those "yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the
process.) and send a ballot out to all those licensed "of record."
Makes too much sense and requires some effort. IOW, against the
contemporary trend.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are
just as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I.

Sure - nobody is saying that should change.

However, note that there has been an amateur radio license with no code
test available here in the USA for almost 13 years now. That license
gives full VHF/UHF operating privileges and requires only a 35 question
written test.

A code test is only required for access to the HF/MF amateur bands.

So anyone who wants to obtain an amateur license can do so without any
code test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Technically, that's true, but there's no longer any ITU requirement for a
code test for any band. I think at one time there were a lot of people who
wanted HF who would have been waiting for the code test to go. This is
probably no longer true, as the hobby has lost a lot of it's popularity
since the Internet, and as the test speed is now only 5wpm.

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.

I heartily disagree. While ARO's may not be the only "interested"
parties, they are the party that currently defines the hobby/service
from a cultural standpoint. Thus, licensed ARO's are the constituenct
that must lean on those who define the hobby/service from a regulatory
standpoint, the FCC.

Wow, is a 35 multiple-choice question written, for which the Q&A pool
is published, really too much to ask for the Carefully chosen words
follow, don't miss 'em. *right* to vote concerning the *requirements*
to *earn* *privileges?!*

Perhaps the path is clearer than we thought.

73 de Bert
WA2SI