RadioBanter - View Single Post - Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

November 4th 05, 01:34 AM

wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:

How can you can guarantee that what happened to cb cannot happen to
amateur radio?

I didn't "GUARANTEE" anything, Jimmie. The future happens when
it happens.

You've said over and over that removing the Morse Code test would have
*no*
effect on existing licensees. Now you say you can't guarantee there
would be
no effect..

1. The 11 m amateur band of 1958 was taken away from amateurs
in the USA then, 47 years ago. It (and some other services)
were allocated to use part of it.

That's right. FCC made a big mistake doing that - one they're still
trying to deal with.

Why was that a "mistake?"

Because 27 MHz was/is not a good choice for short-range land-mobile
radio communications like cb.

Because the FCC did not have the resources to enforce its own
rules, and the cb folks did not have the discipline to adhere to
those rules.

Amateurs weren't using their former 11 meter band enough.

How do you know? You weren't a radio amateur then and
you aren't one now.

My reading of the history says that hams got 11 meters just
after WW2 as a sort of compensation for the near-total loss of
160 (a very popular band before WW2) to LORAN. By 1958,
hams had 15 meters and more access to 160. So FCC
reassigned 11 meters.

The fact that FCC could reassign 11 meters without a
treaty change was a big part of the decision, too.

The FCC is NOT "dealing with" CB now.

Sure they are. Where do you think freebanders come from?
Or the illegal makers and sellers of 11 meter amplifiers? Or
the intruders into the 10 and 12 meter ham bands?

Why do you care?

Because I don't want what happened to cb to happen to
amateur radio. It seems to me that *you* would like for
amateur radio to become just like cb.

YOU were NOT INVOLVED with radio of any kind
in 1958.

Yes, I was.

YOU were NOT AWARE of the FCC in 1958.

Yes, I was.

YOU were NOT AWARE of much of anything in 1958.

In 1958 I was four years old. I was aware of lots of things
at that age. A lot more than you'd give a four-year-old
credit for.

2. NPRM 05-235 is about the MORSE CODE TEST for a United States
radio amateur license examination. That has NOTHING to do
with "CB."

Not directly. But there is a definite connection.

Merde.

That's what I don't want ham radio to become, Len.

You are busy, busy, busy with SUPPOSITIONS and your own
imagining, not to mention living in a PAST when you were NOT
INVOLVED in any radio.

You're busy, busy, busy with trying to change a radio service you are
NOT
INVOLVED in..

3. You try to connect (1) and (2) and there is NO possible
connection.

Of course there's a possible connection. If the loss of the Morse Code
test causes amateur radio to become more like cb, it will have a
profound effect on *existing*
amateur radio operators. If the amateur bands become like the cb
channels, existing amateurs will be affected.

Waaaa...waaaa...The Sky Is Falling!

No, it isn't.

YOUR "amateur world" will
cease to exist then, right? The "world as you know it" will
disappear!

Not exactly. But my enjoyment of amateur radio would be affected, or
even destroyed. Which means I, an existing amateur, would be
affected.

Maybe you want the amateur bands to become like the cb channels..

Maybe you want me to disappear, too, right? :-)

Obviously *you* want *me* to disappear.

Existing licensees can be profoundly affected by rules changes.

Only MENTALLY.

Nope. The effects can be much more. Do you want 40 meters to
sound like the 40 cb channels?

How can you ask that?

I just type the words, Len. Why not just answer the question?

I think you want amateur radio to become more and more like
cb.

Are you forgetting I'm "not involved
in amateur radio," therefore I have "no business telling
amateur radio what to do?"

Where did I say that? You can say whatever you want. The
truth and validity of what you say is another matter.

I guess you have.

I'm "not allowed" to have any opinions on amateur radio,
according to yours and many other's messages in here.

I've never said you can't have and express opinions, Len.

NPRM 05-235 is about MORSE CODE TESTING, Jimmie, NOT just
about ME. The point about eliminating the morse code test,
other than making the regulations better,

Who made you the judge about what is "better", Len?

Almighty God gave us humans a brain, Jimmie.

How do you know it wasn't evolution?

WE humans
don't all think alike and God for sure didn't make YOU
supreme judge.

I know - and nobody made *you* the supreme judge either, despite the
fact you think and act like you are.

is to give ALL
those interested in amateur radio the OPPORTUNITY to get into
it without that old, outdated, arbitrary manual test for
morsemanship.

All those interested have had the opportunity to "get into" amateur
radio without a Morse Code test since February 14, 1991.

That's SUCH A TIRED CLICHE' you coders use.

Not a cliche. The truth. You have chosen not to avail yourself of that
opportunity.

I was on HF first
in 1953 (before you were even conceived), legally, and with
more RF power output than amateurs were ever granted here.

No, *you* weren't. You were allowed to make certain adjustments
to transmitters bought and paid for by others, as part of a large
team (a whole battalion!) of people.

But *you* as an individual weren't "on HF" then.

Sweetums, I'm very tired of YOUR ASSUMED "superiority" and
your terribly CONDESCENDING "let them eat cake if they have
no bread" to peasants.

What "superiority"? What peasants?

But you haven't taken advantage of that opportunity, Len. Nor of the
opportunity that has existed since 1990 to get full privileges with
only a 5 wpm code test.

So? I had a FIRST CLASS Radiotelephone (Commercial) license.

Which does not allow you to operate an Amateur Radio station.

I took the OPPORTUNITY to get one in one test session at an
FCC office in 1956...and then USED that in my aerospace
career in California. All you got was a 2nd Class. Tsk.
Not much "superiority" THERE, was it?

There was a time when a First Class 'Phone or even a Second Class
was a near-guarantee of a decent job in "radio". That time is gone. I
knew it was on the way out even in the 1970s - that's why I went for
degrees in Electrical Engineering.

There will be NO effect on operating privileges of already-
licensed amateurs due to elimination of the morse code test.
NONE

Can you guarantee that?

No, I cannot "GUARANTEE" that.

So your claim is meaningless.

Will existing Amateur Extras lose their license and/or
privileges? I doubt it. Same with Generals.

Your doubt isn't a guarantee.

Technicians
WILL have a chance to enjoy more of their hobby with
increased frequency privileges.

No, they won't! You are mistaken, Len.

Obviously you haven't read the entire NPRM - or maybe you
don't understand it. Typical.

If FCC enacts the NPRM as written, *no* class of license
will gain *any* operating privileges. Technicians will still
be VHF/UHF only, unless they have passed a Morse Code
test. No HF for Techs who haven't passed a Morse Code test
under the NPRM.

The NPRM specifically *denies* giving any existing licensees
any more privileges. They specifically point out, again and
again, that if the Morse Code test is removed, existing
Technicians need only pass the General written exam to
get lots of HF privileges.

Those Techs who *have* passed a Morse Code test will retain
their HF privileges - consisting of Morse Code on parts of 80,
40, 15 and 10 meters, plus SSB voice on part of 10 meters.

If Element 1 is removed, the only way for a non-code-tested
Tech to get *any* HF/MF privileges is for that non-code-tested
Tech to pass the General written.

FCC also repeatedly points out their commitment to an
incentive licensing system of three license class levels.

That's the way the NPRM is written.

Why are you so against that?

I'm against any reductions in Morse Code or written
testing. I think Morse Code testing is a good thing
for the Amateur Radio Service.

In fact, I think the dropping of the Morse Code
test for Technician, back in 1991, was a big mistake.

Just my opinion.

Why do you want to hold Techs in their present
Ghetto?

What "ghetto"? VHF/UHF?

Ah, you ENJOY being "elite" and looking down on
"inferiors!" :-)

I don't look down on anyone, Len.

And it's not just operating privileges that are effects of such a
change.

Here's an analogy:

Oh, oh, the segue into the NON-APPLICABLE Miccolis "analogies!"

It's very applicable. That's why you don't like it.

You've told us of your house on Lanark Street - how much you paid for
it, how much it's worth now, the nearby gated community, etc.

How can you BELIEVE that? You don't believe what I write!

I've never been to your house but I've been in the area.

You KNOW everything, why am I not surprised? :-)

It's a safe bet that your area is mostly single-family houses built
after WW2, with little or no commercial development.

You could FIND OUT for sure by accessing the LA CITY website.
You are an experienced computer user, yes? You shoud be
able to instantly FIND OUT EXACTLY.

Why should I bother? I describe the big picture - you'll fill in the
details.

World War II ended in 1945, Jimmie. "My street" was developed
beginning in 1960.

Which is post-WW2. I was right!

Also a safe bet that while there
may not be many CC&Rs, the zoning probably prevents much diversity of
development on your street.

You COULD find out for sure instead of IMAGINING. But, what
the heck, YOU never were to any zoning or developing meeting
in the Van Nuys "valley government" meetings, were you? I was.

I was right about the zoning, too.

Little boxes on the hillside (actually at the foot of the hill...)

WRONG.

Yep, they're actually on the hillside! I was right again.

"Little boxes" of 1400 to 2400 square feet on third-
acre land parcels, each one worth in excess of a half million
now.

2400 sf isn't a big house, Len. They're little boxes on the hillside,
all right.

And a half-million is a pretty lowpriced house in suburban LA,
isn't it?

Do you think the owner of a half-million-dollar house is better than
the owner of a quarter-million-dollar house?

The difference in elevation between the "bottom" of the
hill and the "top" is about 450 feet, the "top" of the local
hill is 50 feet above that.

"Little boxes, on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky-tacky..."

If you are trying to be "accurate" you've failed miserably.

Actually it looks like I'm dead-on accurate except for the
boxes being on the hillside rather than at the bottom.

"There's a pink one, and a blue one, and a yellow one, and a purple
one"

I have topographic maps of my area. Do you?

Yes, I have topographic maps of my area.

"And they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the
same"

Now suppose someone bought some properties near you - say next door or
across the street. And suppose they sought to tear down the existing
houses and build new ones that would change things on Lanark Street.
Suppose they wanted to put up multifamily townhomes, some as rentals
and some as condos. Some retail space too. Of course that would
probably take a zoning change.

Sweetums, this area has ALREADY HAD A ZONING CHANGE.

So my hypothetical has already happened! Sunuvagun!

Worse
for you, I was the speaker for our neighborhood back a decade
plus ago.

Why is it worse for me? Did you win the debate?

Good speech but it didn't matter...the issue had
already been decided in favor of changing the "R" (Residential)
to "R-1" (Residential with limited multi-family).

If it was a good speech, it would have mattered. But you *LOST*.

One in our
neighborhood affected found that out after the fact. The
developer requesting the change (for "senior citizen
apartments") ran out of money and couldn't start. We (us
neighbors) were at the meetings with the second developer
who did the walled community (single-family houses).

And you *opposed* the changes, right? You *opposed* what others,
including your local elected Government officials, thought was
best...right?

And you *LOST*...

Do NOT tell ME what the zoning changes are in MY neighborhood
are, Jimmie.

Is that an order? Who made you Supreme Newsgroup Ruler?

YOU are NOT INVOLVED here.

Just like *you* are not involved in amateur radio.....

If you need information, just ask, don't make up stories.

I was being hypothetical, Len. You seem to have trouble dealing in
abstractions.

Would you support and accept that sort of change, Len?

I accepted it, as did my neighbors. We did NOT "support" it.

You opposed it, then, and only accepted it because you LOST
the debate.

The neighbor who found out about the under-the-table zoning
change now works for our Councilwoman and has been at
neighborhood meetings with the government as organizer.

That's nice. But you folks still failed to stop the change.

After all, it
would give a lot more people the opportunity to get into your
neighborhood without the old, outdated, arbitrary necessity of a huge
down payment and massive mortgage. It would be an end to the old
arbitrary requirements of single-family houses, etc. It would not
directly affect *your* house - you're already there, established, etc.
The new rules would not touch your house. You wouldn't
give up anything except your mental image of the neighborhood.

All of us at 840 feet MSL or lower (my back yard is 820 feet)
lost ALL the view we had. New homes were two-story.

"ALL" the view? You can't see the sky?

Was it 'the end of the world as you knew it'?

Why were you so against that change? Ah, you ENJOYED being
"elite" and looking down (literally!) on your neighbors! ;-)

Would you oppose or support that change?

I already described what happened, dumb bass. Inject yourself
with your own hypotheses and "questions." They didn't apply to
me.

They applied almost exactly.

Let's recap....

More than 40 years ago, you bought the house on Lanark Street.
Classic little ticky-tacky box on the hillside, lots of nice things
about the
house and the area. Zoning (which is The Government) protected
you from certain changes.

Then someone wanted to change the zoning, because their vision
of the area and its future were different from your own. You
opposed the change even though it would have no direct effect
on your house. But The Government prevailed, the zoning
changed, and the new *two story* houses were built. And the
value of your property continued to rise.

Was it The Government's role to always keep things As They Were
When You Bought Your House? To guarantee your "view" regardless
of the wishes and needs of those "downhill" fro you?

Seems like you thought it was.

Or suppose a licensed radio amateur moved in next door and wanted to
put up a few 70 foot towers with big beams (like K8MN's). Would that be
OK with you?

Yes. The FAA would get on their case before me.

Ah - you expect a different branch of The Government to protect you
from
that.

You forget where
your "analogies" are located. Look up BUR on a "sectional."

There's ALREADY an amateur two blocks up, WITH beams. Just not
at 70 foot height. Lower.

2 blocks away isn't next door or across the street.

[you WILL reply "how much lower, Len?" as if that were somehow
'important! :-) ]

Your postings here exceed mine in number and length, Len.
You're describing yourself, not me.

Gosh, better STOP, right? Jimmie NO LIKE my postings!

You're really emotionally invested in rrap....

Tsk, bad "investment." Isn't earning me any "interest."

All on "account" of some dumb bass making analogues that
don't apply and trying to keep amateur radio frozen in
the standards and practices of the 1930s.

You wanted to keep your neighborhood frozen in
the standards and practices of the 1960s, Len.

The analogy is near-perfect. You reacted exactly as predicted.
You opposed a change that would only affect you *mentally* and/or
*emotionally*, and expected The Government to place *your*
desires above those of the other property owners.

At least in the case of the zoning, you were in the affected
community. In the case of amateur radio, you're the outsider
trying to get those who are in the community to accept the
changes *you* want, and The Government to make you
happy........