wrote on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:44:58 EDT:

On Jun 25, 6:52?pm, AF6AY wrote:

The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate
back in 1998.

That's simply untrue. You are mistaken, Len.

I stated an opinion. Opinions aren't "test" answers. There are no
"incorrect" or "correct" lables except from one's own subjective
viewpoints. You subjective viewpoint does not over-rule mine. :-)

I used the "code thing" as illustrative of the ARRL's conservative
attitudes towards code testing. It was not an attempt to revive
some ages-old argument over just code testing. It was an
illustration,
an example.

Here's what really happened back then:

What "really happened back then" is history. It is documented.
By others.

In its 1998 restructuring proposal to FCC, the ARRL proposed the
following changes to Morse Code testing:

The ARRL has never given up on trying to KEEP code testing for at
least Amateur Extras up to and including NPRM 05-235. That is
also documented. At the FCC.


ARRL was against it even though the IARU recommended
the changes to S25.5 at WRC-03.

Incorrect.

In early 2001, ARRL changed its policy of support for S25.5 from
supporting continued code testing to no opinion.

How is having "no opinion" a "support?" :-)

Incidentally, MOST of ITU-R S25 was rewritten at WRC-03; S25.5
only applied to administrations' license testing requirements in
regards to international morse code.

In its proposal to FCC after ITU-R S25.5 was revised, ARRL proposed
that all Morse Code testing for all amateur radio licenses except
Extra be eliminated.

The ARRL refused to bend on code testing for Amateur Extra...they
HAD to have it in there. :-) That is only natural. The ARRL
represents its membership. The ARRL's core membership is made
up of long-time amateurs favoring morse code skill as the epitome of
US amateur radio skills.

ITU-R S25 does not directly apply to United States radio regulations.
It has no force of law. The United States is obliged to follow the
decisions of this UN body on the basis of Foreign Policy and all
treaties made by the United States to others.

As rewritten, ITU-R Radio Regulation S25.5 removed the requirement
that all adminstrations mandate code testing for all administrations'
licenses yielding amateur operating privileges below 30 MHz to
making it Optional for each administration to do as it wished. There
is no direct relationship between S25 and whatever the ARRL wanted.


In 2005, complete elimination of all Morse Code testing was not the
majority opinion of those who bothered to comment.

Comments on Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRMs) are not a
"vote." They never had such a definition. The Commission issues a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, then invites Comments on same.
The FCC is not, nor has it ever, been "required" to obey any
"majority" opinion of Comments. The Commission will, after the
official end of the Comment period, consider all such Comments
and make a final decision on the NPRM. That final decision then
becomes a Memorandum Report and Order, colloquially known as
an "R&O." Once that R&O is published in the Federal Register, it
become law.

Anyone who wishes to look can go to the FCC's ECFS and Search
under 05-235 and 25 November 2005. On that date I submitted an
EXHIBIT done after the end of official Comment period on 05-235 and
offered solely as an Exhibit. In that I made tallies day-by-day of
each
and every Comment and Replies to Comments totaling 3,795 made
from 15 July 2005 to past the official end of 14 November 2005. I
read
each and every one of the 3,795 documents. Note that nearly half of
the documents were posted before the official start of the Comment
period on 05-235. I commented on that fact in the Exhibit.

That Exhibit has been argued before and I will not reprise it. The
Exhibit document stands on its own and was done over a year and a
half ago. The FCC accepted it enough to post it for public viewing
on their ECFS.

The ARRL is not obliged to publish my views on anything despite my
being a dues-paid voting member. That is as it should be. The ARRL
is a private membership organization and is NOT a part of the
government of the United States. The FCC is a part of the government.
The FCC is obliged to answer to all citizens of the USA. ARRL
membership is less than a quarter of all licensed US radio amateurs.
ARRL members cannot constitute a "majority" of amateur licensees.

AF6AY

On Jun 26, 5:46 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:


That is a sample of one.


I'm only one guy. The sample proves the point, that being an ARRL
member does not always correlate to your "sure thing" active ham.



RDW (Can't we all get some names here? If a person wants to be
anonymous, fine, but.............


My friends call me "RDW". (My mom calls me "Danny Boy"). On most
newsreaders, a glance at the message header will show my name as R D
Weaver. Is that enough "name" for your purposes?

73,

RDW

On Jun 26, 4:28 pm, AF6AY wrote:
wrote on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:44:58 EDT:

On Jun 25, 6:52?pm, AF6AY wrote:

The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate
back in 1998.

That's simply untrue. You are mistaken, Len.

I stated an opinion.

You stated:

"The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate
back in 1998."

How is that an opinion? It sure looks like an attempt to state a fact
- except that it's not true.

Opinions aren't "test" answers. There are no
"incorrect" or "correct" lables except from one's own subjective
viewpoints.

All opinions are not equally valid. A person can have, and state the
opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the sun
rises in the west and sets in the east, but that is clearly not the
case.

You subjective viewpoint does not over-rule mine. :-)

The objective facts prove that your statement about the ARRL
hierarchy in 1998 is false. It is simply not true. Your belief in it
does not make it valid.

I used the "code thing" as illustrative of the ARRL's conservative
attitudes towards code testing.

The facts prove the opposite. In 1998 the ARRL proposed across the
board reductions in Morse Code testing for General, Advanced and
Extra class licenses. Hardly a "conservative attitude". Yet you
stated:

"The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against abolishing the code test or
even reducing the test rate back in 1998."

If they were "dead-set against...reducing the test rate back in
1998.",
then why, in 1998, did ARRL propose those reductions?

It was not an attempt to revive
some ages-old argument over just code testing. It was an
illustration, an example.

Your example was faulty, because it was not based on what
actually happened.

Here's what really happened back then:

What "really happened back then" is history. It is documented.
By others.

And those documents prove that you were mistaken about
the ARRL's position on Morse Code testing in 1998. They prove
that what I wrote is what actually happened.

In its 1998 restructuring proposal to FCC, the ARRL proposed the
following changes to Morse Code testing:

The ARRL has never given up on trying to KEEP code testing for at
least Amateur Extras up to and including NPRM 05-235. That is
also documented. At the FCC.

Not the point, Len.

ARRL was against it even though the IARU recommended
the changes to S25.5 at WRC-03.

Incorrect.

In early 2001, ARRL changed its policy of support for S25.5 from
supporting continued code testing to no opinion.

How is having "no opinion" a "support?" :-)

You wrote that "ARRL was against it.". But ARRL wasn't against it
at all. The policy changed more than two years before WRC-03.

Incidentally, MOST of ITU-R S25 was rewritten at WRC-03; S25.5
only applied to administrations' license testing requirements in
regards to international morse code.

Not the point, Len.

In its proposal to FCC after ITU-R S25.5 was revised, ARRL proposed
that all Morse Code testing for all amateur radio licenses except
Extra be eliminated.

The ARRL refused to bend on code testing for Amateur Extra...they
HAD to have it in there. :-) That is only natural. The ARRL
represents its membership. The ARRL's core membership is made
up of long-time amateurs favoring morse code skill as the epitome of
US amateur radio skills.

Should a membership organization not do what the membership wants?

In 2005, complete elimination of all Morse Code testing was not the
majority opinion of those who bothered to comment.

Comments on Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRMs) are not a
"vote."

Nobody says their a vote, Len.

What the comments are is the voice of those who bother to express an
opinion to FCC. And when those comments were counted, the majority
opinion did not support the reductions and elimination of Morse Code
testing that were later enacted by FCC.

The comments are not limited to those with amateur licenses, or even
those who intend to get amateur licenses.

Anyone who wishes to look can go to the FCC's ECFS and Search
under 05-235 and 25 November 2005. On that date I submitted an
EXHIBIT done after the end of official Comment period on 05-235 and
offered solely as an Exhibit. In that I made tallies day-by-day of
each
and every Comment and Replies to Comments totaling 3,795 made
from 15 July 2005 to past the official end of 14 November 2005. I
read
each and every one of the 3,795 documents. Note that nearly half of
the documents were posted before the official start of the Comment
period on 05-235. I commented on that fact in the Exhibit.

That Exhibit has been argued before and I will not reprise it.

You just did.

The
Exhibit document stands on its own and was done over a year and a
half ago. The FCC accepted it enough to post it for public viewing
on their ECFS.

FCC does that with practically all comments or exhibits sent in. That
does not mean the comments or exhibits are valid or correct, or that
FCC agrees with them.

But that's all besides the point.

In 1998, the ARRL hierarchy was not against reductions in Morse Code
testing. That is proved by the ARRL's proposal to reduce the Morse
Code test speeds for General, Advanced and Extra licenses from 13 wpm,
13 wpm and 20 wpm to 5 wpm, 12 wpm, and 12 wpm, respectively.

Fact - not opinion.

Jim, N2EY

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:19:29 EDT, AF6AY wrote:

Did I know about this
'free offer' ahead of time? No. Was the ARRL VEC side of ARRL
talking to the ARRL Membership people? Apparently not.

Did you discuss this with your Division Director? The DD is your
"Senator" when it comes to dealing with the Newington Mob. Things
like this get resolved to your satisfaction many times through that
route.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:28:17 EDT, AF6AY wrote:

That final decision then
becomes a Memorandum Report and Order, colloquially known as
an "R&O." Once that R&O is published in the Federal Register, it
become law.

The MO&O is only one type of Order used in both rulemaking and
adjudicative proceedings.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:46:42 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

At one point a lot of husband and wife teams got their licenses and
used local repeaters to call each other at lunchtime or on the way home
from work in order to exchange info on say stopping off at the grocery
store to pick up something for dinner, or at the hardware store to pick
up something.

Hence the name "Honey, do this, Honey, do that. 8^)

We used to call that "The Kenny and Michelle Show" in honor of the
stars of that on our repeater... g
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Jun 26, 7:44?pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:19:29 EDT, AF6AY wrote:
Did I know about this
'free offer' ahead of time? No. Was the ARRL VEC side of ARRL
talking to the ARRL Membership people? Apparently not.

Did you discuss this with your Division Director?

No. It was not that big a deal to me.

However, it indicates that three separate office groups at
Newington have some lack of internal communications.
shrug

The DD is your
"Senator" when it comes to dealing with the Newington Mob.

Thank you. I will keep that in mind.

Things
like this get resolved to your satisfaction many times through that
route.

How? I found and corrected my address for QST...and it got
righted after three issues. I wrote personally to Membership folks.
I was only interested in one 'free' item, the Repeater Directory. I
found lots of Repeater listings on the web for no cost.

I am of the mindset that small problems can be handled
personally without resorting to "representative" assistance. If
that is the wrong approach, I apologize.

AF6AY

On Jun 26, 7:45?pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:28:17 EDT, AF6AY wrote:
That final decision then
becomes a Memorandum Report and Order, colloquially known as
an "R&O." Once that R&O is published in the Federal Register, it
become law.

The MO&O is only one type of Order used in both rulemaking and
adjudicative proceedings.

Thank you for the additional information. I was not trying to
write a treatise on law, just making a simple explanation of
how the FCC does its thing for the benefit of those who are
less informed.

Never fear, I shall endeavor to keep quiet on "adjudicative
proceedings" until I have been admitted to the Bar. [when
do they open and close?]

AF6AY

wrote:

Should a membership organization not do what the membership wants?

Pardon my taking a single line from your article, but it's the topic I
want to discuss.

The first problem is figuring out "what the membership wants". What do
you do when the membership is split into approximately equal factions
with opposite opinions and both feel passionately that their position is
Right? Do you develop a position that pleases one faction and is
completely unacceptable to the other, or a compromise that no one agrees
with 100% but most folks can accept?

But the second problem is that "what the membership wants" may not be
the best course of action. It is perhaps arrogant of the management of
an organization to think that they are more qualified to set a policy
than the members, but sometimes that's the case. Back in the 1960s the
ARRL lost a lot of support from their membership when they supported
incentive licensing; this seems to be a case of the organization doing
the opposite of "what the membership wants". I suppose we'll be
debating forever whether the ARRL support for incentive licensing was
the Right Thing to do for the hobby, but I'm only trying to use it as an
illustration that there are cases in which a membership organization
does *not* set policy based on membership consensus.

Setting policy for a large national organization is a complex task. I
don't agree with everything that the ARRL does, but I don't expect to.
I suppose I have a mental threshold and as long as I agree with "enough"
of what the organization espouses, I'll continue to be a member.

The other aspect for the ARRL is that there's a Field Organization that
provides support for various aspects of the hobby. At various points in
my ham radio career, I have used that support structure and been a part
of it, adding to my enjoyment of the hobby. I find it a significant
disappointment that this organization does not exist in my current ARRL
section, and this may have more to do with whether I maintain my ARRL
membership than the organization's position on national issues.

Before someone says, "If you're upset that the ARRL Field Organization
is broken, why don't you fix it?", let me explain my position on that.
When I moved here, I did the same sorts of things that I've done on
other occasions in terms of getting involved in the local organizations.
It became quickly apparent that the ARRL officials at the section
level had no interest in actually *doing* anything. (There was one
exception, but with no support from the Section Manager, even that
individual was unable to accomplish much.) So where does this leave me?
I considered the option of trying to "fix" things, but it would
require many hours of work to accomplish anything. Ham radio is a
hobby, and I'm not inclined to invest that amount of effort into it. So
I have contented myself with helping at the local club level. Maybe
there are lots of other hams in this ARRL section who would like to see
an effective Field Organization, and if we all worked together it would
happen, but I have no way of knowing if that's the case.

73, Steve KB9X

Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:46:42 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

Hence the name "Honey, do this, Honey, do that. 8^)

We used to call that "The Kenny and Michelle Show" in honor of the
stars of that on our repeater... g


Yeah, we have a few of those yet locally. One is an elderly couple
staying in touch with their son as he does his rounds. Its actually
great that the old folk can do that.

Sometimes it's good for a few chuckles, as when the mother calls the
son to ask his location, and he answers "I'm in the driveway, Ma! Bless
'em all.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -