| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#22
December 19th 06, 10:24 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
No More Element 1
wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 17 2006 3:22 pm an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: Jim Hampton wrote: Hello, Jim Now, perhaps, everyone can put this code vs no code thing behind us.  I can put the issue away, but not some of the hard feelings developed along the way. There are several individuals on this group that I would never care to meet on the air or in person. Perhaps, just perhaps, the group can quiet down a bit and get back to more serious discussions ... Perhaps now we can discuss N2EY's proposal for a No-Test service. There was never any such proposal. You are mistaken, in error, and just plain wrong. sure there is you have often said Jim/N2EY was the very first to roll that one out, at least that I am aware of. I am not in favor of a "No-Test" amateur radio service. Nor have I ever advocated such. Anyone who says I have is mistaken - in error - just plain wrong. Ahem...three things as I saw them, Brian: 1. That "they [FCC] MIGHT just as well eliminate writtens" was such a COMMON rejoinder by pro-coders that it became another myth in the minds of the 1930s-standards-retro folk. To them everything was about the code test. That's not true about me. 2. by his tacit admission (and self-praise) never ever done anything wrong nor ever expressed a bad attitude (dictated by the Elders of the Church of St. Hiram). Len, that's what *you* do. Not me. Why, if pinned to the wall by someone, he will self-righteously (and in 'outrage') demand for 'proof' by going into thousands upon thousands of old, old Google archives and copying the 'proof.' [AS IF this was evidenciary in some mythical court of law] The facts are what they are. You don't seem to like facts, Len, if they disprove your cherished opinions. 3. Several others well back before 1998 were using the general remark of "if the code test is eliminated, then the writtens will be 'next' because it 'follows the progression.'" That has already happened. In 2000, the *written* testing for the three classes of license still available was reduced significantly. Yet that wasn't enough for some. At least one recent proposal (NCVEC's second proposal) claimed the 35 question multiple-choice Technician was 'too hard' and that a new license class with even less *written* testing is needed. picked up on that, reworded it, but repeated it...apparently making certain he couldn't be found 'guilty' of EXACT wording. Show us. Pointing out that the written requirements have been reduced is not the same thing as advocating a 'no test' amateur radio service. Not the same thing at all. as do most of the ProCoders that the NoCode would be followed your proposal to end testing They think that there might as well be no testing at all now that the code exam is gone. I'm as pro-code-test as they come, and I do not think that at all. And the Morse Code test in the USA isn't gone yet. It will take a few weeks at most for the bureaucratic wheels to turn and make the change effective. They sure don't value the writtens very much, do they? Well, I do. They could be better, though. To the pro-coders EVERYTHING in amateur radio was about morse code use, venerating the mode of on-off keying CW, and generally making them "masters of the radio waves" by their skill at a DEFUNCT radio communications mode once championed in the 1930s and 1940s. Not true at all. There's a lot to amateur radio besides Morse Code. Which is not 'defunct' at all. The VEC QPC has made up ALL the written test elements for years but not a single pro-coder seems to admit to ever contacting the VEC QPC about that content...at least not in here. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Not everyone brags on and on like you, Len ;-) One reason (perhaps) is they don't give a damn about the writtens. Another reason is that they don't tell you everything. Everything is about morsemanship in operating on the ham bands to them. Even if true - what's wrong with that? If you are really only against the *test*, what's wrong with *using* Morse Code? we arre awaiting you ideas on the subject What ideas? He just wanted to dump the written. Untrue. In essence, that is true No, it's completely untru. ...despite denials. Then show where it was proposed. All the pro-coders were using the rationalization about the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS) and the 'necessity' to keep code testing. Forever. What's wrong with wanting to keep a good thing? "Forever" is about to cease. The "End of the World As They Know It" is about to happen. Their sky will fall. Chickens Little will scamper about, shouting epithets and nastywords at evil, loathsome no-coders and the "failure" to "keep standards high"..."standards" that have been drilled into their psyches for decades by the Elders of Newington. No, not at all. It's just another bad decision by FCC. They make some good decisions and some bad decisions. Do you think their BPL decisions are good ones? I've been gone for a few days, didn't hear about it until late Friday night and then only in a casual remark over a telephone call. Got on a friend's computer and saw that the End of Code Testing was the #1 news item on the FCC home page. [it doesn't appear on the Amateur page under Wireless Bureau, but then little happens there in keeping up to date] Wonder upon wonders! :-) Guess who broke the news here on rrap, Len, by starting this thread? Okay, now I'm reflecting about the GLORY of the democratic process in petitioning our government for a redress of grievances. IT WORKS! Not really. An agency of our government believed the words of our citizens in wanting change and is about to rule on that change. A majority of those who commented on the Morse Code test issue wanted at least *some* Morse Code testing to remain. The majority did *not* want complete elimination. Yet FCC ignored the majority and will completely eliminate Morse Code testing very soon. Explain how ignoring the majority means "IT WORKS". CHANGE will happen, despite the former ruling party of pro-coders' spitting and snarling about "spamming" the government with "anti- ham" attitudes wanting the code test gone. :-) Your wordy piles of commentary to FCC amounted to spam, Len, and probably slowed down the process. On more reflections, FCC 99-412, the R&O establishing the Restructuring of 2000, was released on 30 Dec 1999. I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC releases the R&O on code testing elimination about that same date...the news release (not a law, just a 'media advisory') was done on 15 Dec 2006, almost 7 years later. I think of it as a Christmas Present or the Start of a New Era along with a New Year. Glory in Excelsus! The announcement was made at the end of the business day on a Friday. That way FCC doesn't have to deal with the responses right away. Modernization is Happening in US amateur radio. Regs are finally catching up to late-1900s standards! [catching up, they will be approaching 1980 when the code elimination R&O is released] Did amateurs stop using Morse Code in 1980, Len? Has No Code International "done anything?" Hard to tell. the www.nocode.org pages haven't been updated for a year. NCI is still talking about the NPRM of July 2005 in their 'Articles' section. But, I'm sure that NCI will praise itself after the fact...all their 'hard work' etc., etc., etc. In my estimation, the Comments of CITIZENS on NPRM 05-143 did all the work in influencing our government on its announced decision. Power to the People! [but we still need electricity...] A majority of "the People" did *not* want complete Morse Code test elimination, Len. FCC gave "the People" what they did not want. -- In a few days the official Report and Order will be released, and in a few weeks it will be effective. The only surprise is how long it has taken for FCC to make the change. Three and a half years since the treaty changed! And once the Morse Code test is completely gone, what will you do, Len? You won't have anything to carry on about on rrap anymore. |
|
#23
December 19th 06, 08:38 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
No More Element 1
wrote in message ups.com... Jim Hampton wrote: Hello, Jim Greetings! Good to hear from you again. Now, perhaps, everyone can put this code vs no code thing behind us. Hopefully. Actually it should come as no surprise. Things have been heading that way for a long time. Frankly, I'm surprised it has taken so long, considering that FCC could have done the same thing more than 3 years ago. Perhaps, just perhaps, the group can quiet down a bit and get back to more serious discussions ... Perhaps when Paul Schleck's moderated version starts up. -- btw, I'm still keeping the "ARS License Numbers" thread going. It will be interesting to see how the number of current US licenses held by individuals changes after the new rules go into effect. The public announcement doesn't say when the new rules will go into effect, though. 73 de Jim, N2EY 1. Who won the pool? 2. It will be interesting to follow the numbers on the licenses. Please give consideration to either excluding the Novice license class entirely or reporting it as a separate item. This puts a different light on the so-called decline of amateur radio. This group is almost entirely inactive, not renewing, and not relevant to the growth or decline of amateur radio anymore. Dee, N8UZE |
|
#24
December 19th 06, 09:03 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
No More Element 1
"Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. wrote in message [snip] 1. Who won the pool? 2. It will be interesting to follow the numbers on the licenses. Please give consideration to either excluding the Novice license class entirely or reporting it as a separate item. This puts a different light on the so-called decline of amateur radio. This group is almost entirely inactive, not renewing, and not relevant to the growth or decline of amateur radio anymore. Dee, N8UZE Also it might be interesting if you post three sets of numbers: 1. As of May 2000 as you have been doing. 2. As of the effective date of the implementation of no-code testing. 3. The current number of licensees. My predictions are that there will be numerous upgrades but little to no impact on the overall growth of ham radio. Dee, N8UZE |
|
#25
December 19th 06, 11:01 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
No More Element 1
"Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. wrote in message [snip] 1. Who won the pool? 2. It will be interesting to follow the numbers on the licenses. Please give consideration to either excluding the Novice license class entirely or reporting it as a separate item. This puts a different light on the so-called decline of amateur radio. This group is almost entirely inactive, not renewing, and not relevant to the growth or decline of amateur radio anymore. Dee, N8UZE Also it might be interesting if you post three sets of numbers: 1. As of May 2000 as you have been doing. 2. As of the effective date of the implementation of no-code testing. 3. The current number of licensees. My predictions are that there will be numerous upgrades but little to no impact on the overall growth of ham radio. Dee, N8UZE Hello Dee, An interesting question, but I am going to guess that it may have a positive impact - simply because folks that aren't licensed will hear that there is no more cw requirement. There are, I suspect, a fair number out there that haven't bothered simply because a tech license limits you to above 30 MHz and they want to work the world - without cw. We should have the answer to the question in the next year or so. Like you, I suspect a fairly large number of upgrades; unlike you, I suspect there will be a modest impact in the growth of amateur radio. Many don't understand the implications of learning something about electronics. A few years ago, I was given a Leslie speaker (rotating speaker used on Hammond organs) that was not compatable with my organs. It was obvious that not only would the socket have to be re-wired, but the new Leslie needed control via 110 volts ac. My control was high-impedance dc (about 90 volts dc). I called the service guy. The estimate was 8 hours of labor (at $70.00 per hour), plus a new relay, tube, and other components. After looking the situation over, I spent less than $5.00 in components, rewired the socket, isolated the dc with an interstage transformer, fed the dc to a big VFET through a 1 megohm resistor and zener to ground (to limit the voltage applied to the gate). The VFET switched 400 volts dc through a 100 k resistor to a solid state relay to the existing relay. The 110 volts was already present in the Leslie. It has worked flawlessly for a few years now. 2 hours work and 5 bucks spent vs probably over $600.00. Amateur radio was my background; hey, ya never know :P 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
#26
December 19th 06, 11:27 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
No More Element 1
Dee Flint wrote: 1. Who won the pool? See new thread on that subject. 2. It will be interesting to follow the numbers on the licenses. Please give consideration to either excluding the Novice license class entirely or reporting it as a separate item. This puts a different light on the so-called decline of amateur radio. This group is almost entirely inactive, not renewing, and not relevant to the growth or decline of amateur radio anymore. Also it might be interesting if you post three sets of numbers: 1. As of May 2000 as you have been doing. 2. As of the effective date of the implementation of no-code testing. 3. The current number of licensees. I intend to report all current, unexpired FCC amateur radio licenses held by individuals, sorted by license class. I also intend to include the May 14, 2000 numbers and the numbers from the effective date of the R&O. Three sets of numbers, but only one set will change. My predictions are that there will be numerous upgrades but little to no impact on the overall growth of ham radio. We'll see. For a few years after the 2000 restructuring we saw growth, but since then we have seen more decline. The Novice class, IMHO, consists of three groups: 1) A small number of active hams 2) An unknown number of inactive hams who haven't got the word yet, haven't gotten around to upgrading, or who are waiting for a no-test upgrade. 3) An unknown number of totally inactive hams who will disappear from the database once their licenses expire. While 2) may seem unrealistic, even today I encounter hams who either don't know about or don't understand the 2000 restructuring. I also encounter amateurs who think that their Advanced will soon be auto-upgraded to Extra, or their Tech Plus to General, even though FCC has repeatedly denied proposals to do such things. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#27
December 20th 06, 01:09 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
No More Element 1
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. wrote in message [snip] 1. Who won the pool? 2. It will be interesting to follow the numbers on the licenses. Please give consideration to either excluding the Novice license class entirely or reporting it as a separate item. This puts a different light on the so-called decline of amateur radio. This group is almost entirely inactive, not renewing, and not relevant to the growth or decline of amateur radio anymore. Dee, N8UZE Also it might be interesting if you post three sets of numbers: 1. As of May 2000 as you have been doing. 2. As of the effective date of the implementation of no-code testing. 3. The current number of licensees. My predictions are that there will be numerous upgrades but little to no impact on the overall growth of ham radio. Dee, N8UZE Hello Dee, An interesting question, but I am going to guess that it may have a positive impact - simply because folks that aren't licensed will hear that there is no more cw requirement. There are, I suspect, a fair number out there that haven't bothered simply because a tech license limits you to above 30 MHz and they want to work the world - without cw. We should have the answer to the question in the next year or so. Like you, I suspect a fairly large number of upgrades; unlike you, I suspect there will be a modest impact in the growth of amateur radio. It will be interesting to see if this proves true. I know of many people who have no idea what the requirements are to get a ham license. Matter of fact most have no idea that ham radio exists. Therefore the code requirement was not a factor. I have yet to meet anyone who said that they had an interest but did not pursue it because of the code requirement. Many don't understand the implications of learning something about electronics. A few years ago, I was given a Leslie speaker (rotating speaker used on Hammond organs) that was not compatable with my organs. It was obvious that not only would the socket have to be re-wired, but the new Leslie needed control via 110 volts ac. My control was high-impedance dc (about 90 volts dc). I called the service guy. The estimate was 8 hours of labor (at $70.00 per hour), plus a new relay, tube, and other components. After looking the situation over, I spent less than $5.00 in components, rewired the socket, isolated the dc with an interstage transformer, fed the dc to a big VFET through a 1 megohm resistor and zener to ground (to limit the voltage applied to the gate). The VFET switched 400 volts dc through a 100 k resistor to a solid state relay to the existing relay. The 110 volts was already present in the Leslie. It has worked flawlessly for a few years now. 2 hours work and 5 bucks spent vs probably over $600.00. Amateur radio was my background; hey, ya never know :P While some of the hams I know could and would do the same, the majority have chosen not to explore electronics beyond what they had to do for the test. That isn't sufficient to enble them to venture into this type of activity. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA Dee, N8UZE |
|
#28
December 20th 06, 01:17 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
No More Element 1
wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: 1. Who won the pool? See new thread on that subject. 2. It will be interesting to follow the numbers on the licenses. Please give consideration to either excluding the Novice license class entirely or reporting it as a separate item. This puts a different light on the so-called decline of amateur radio. This group is almost entirely inactive, not renewing, and not relevant to the growth or decline of amateur radio anymore. Also it might be interesting if you post three sets of numbers: 1. As of May 2000 as you have been doing. 2. As of the effective date of the implementation of no-code testing. 3. The current number of licensees. I intend to report all current, unexpired FCC amateur radio licenses held by individuals, sorted by license class. I also intend to include the May 14, 2000 numbers and the numbers from the effective date of the R&O. Three sets of numbers, but only one set will change. My predictions are that there will be numerous upgrades but little to no impact on the overall growth of ham radio. We'll see. For a few years after the 2000 restructuring we saw growth, but since then we have seen more decline. The Novice class, IMHO, consists of three groups: 1) A small number of active hams 2) An unknown number of inactive hams who haven't got the word yet, haven't gotten around to upgrading, or who are waiting for a no-test upgrade. 3) An unknown number of totally inactive hams who will disappear from the database once their licenses expire. While 2) may seem unrealistic, even today I encounter hams who either don't know about or don't understand the 2000 restructuring. I also encounter amateurs who think that their Advanced will soon be auto-upgraded to Extra, or their Tech Plus to General, even though FCC has repeatedly denied proposals to do such things. 73 de Jim, N2EY You could be right. It's simply my opinion that 3) represents the vast majority of Novice licensees. I've met no Novice operators on the bands and our club roster has no Novice licensees. Dee, N8UZE |
|
#29
December 20th 06, 01:43 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
No More Element 1
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: 1. Who won the pool? See new thread on that subject. 2. It will be interesting to follow the numbers on the licenses. Please give consideration to either excluding the Novice license class entirely or reporting it as a separate item. This puts a different light on the so-called decline of amateur radio. This group is almost entirely inactive, not renewing, and not relevant to the growth or decline of amateur radio anymore. Also it might be interesting if you post three sets of numbers: 1. As of May 2000 as you have been doing. 2. As of the effective date of the implementation of no-code testing. 3. The current number of licensees. I intend to report all current, unexpired FCC amateur radio licenses held by individuals, sorted by license class. I also intend to include the May 14, 2000 numbers and the numbers from the effective date of the R&O. Three sets of numbers, but only one set will change. My predictions are that there will be numerous upgrades but little to no impact on the overall growth of ham radio. We'll see. For a few years after the 2000 restructuring we saw growth, but since then we have seen more decline. The Novice class, IMHO, consists of three groups: 1) A small number of active hams 2) An unknown number of inactive hams who haven't got the word yet, haven't gotten around to upgrading, or who are waiting for a no-test upgrade. 3) An unknown number of totally inactive hams who will disappear from the database once their licenses expire. While 2) may seem unrealistic, even today I encounter hams who either don't know about or don't understand the 2000 restructuring. I also encounter amateurs who think that their Advanced will soon be auto-upgraded to Extra, or their Tech Plus to General, even though FCC has repeatedly denied proposals to do such things. 73 de Jim, N2EY You could be right. It's simply my opinion that 3) represents the vast majority of Novice licensees. I've met no Novice operators on the bands and our club roster has no Novice licensees. Dee, N8UZE Hello Dee, I swear I am going to apply for WN2CJV, my first license. I still have the license. Then set the keyer to 45 words per minute and have some fun 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
#30
December 20th 06, 02:30 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
No More Element 1
wrote: wrote: From: on Sun, Dec 17 2006 3:22 pm an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: Jim Hampton wrote: Hello, Jim Now, perhaps, everyone can put this code vs no code thing behind us. I can put the issue away, but not some of the hard feelings developed along the way. There are several individuals on this group that I would never care to meet on the air or in person. Perhaps, just perhaps, the group can quiet down a bit and get back to more serious discussions ... Perhaps now we can discuss N2EY's proposal for a No-Test service. There was never any such proposal. You are mistaken, in error, and just plain wrong. sure there is you have often said Jim/N2EY was the very first to roll that one out, at least that I am aware of. I am not in favor of a "No-Test" amateur radio service. Nor have I ever advocated such. Anyone who says I have is mistaken - in error - just plain wrong. So when you trotted that one out way back when, it really was a strawman as I described it then. Yet you said it wasn't. Ahem...three things as I saw them, Brian: 1. That "they [FCC] MIGHT just as well eliminate writtens" was such a COMMON rejoinder by pro-coders that it became another myth in the minds of the 1930s-standards-retro folk. To them everything was about the code test. That's not true about me. Like Dee a couple of weeks ago, it's what "other hams" were saying. 2. by his tacit admission (and self-praise) never ever done anything wrong nor ever expressed a bad attitude (dictated by the Elders of the Church of St. Hiram). Len, that's what *you* do. Not me. Len is no Elder of the Church of Saint Hiram. Why, if pinned to the wall by someone, he will self-righteously (and in 'outrage') demand for 'proof' by going into thousands upon thousands of old, old Google archives and copying the 'proof.' [AS IF this was evidenciary in some mythical court of law] The facts are what they are. You don't seem to like facts, Len, if they disprove your cherished opinions. "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Raygun 3. Several others well back before 1998 were using the general remark of "if the code test is eliminated, then the writtens will be 'next' because it 'follows the progression.'" That has already happened. In 2000, the *written* testing for the three classes of license still available was reduced significantly. Yet the QP can be increased infinitely. Yet that wasn't enough for some. At least one recent proposal (NCVEC's second proposal) claimed the 35 question multiple-choice Technician was 'too hard' and that a new license class with even less *written* testing is needed. The Technician License is not entry level. picked up on that, reworded it, but repeated it...apparently making certain he couldn't be found 'guilty' of EXACT wording. Show us. It's what you do. Pointing out that the written requirements have been reduced is not the same thing as advocating a 'no test' amateur radio service. Not the same thing at all. If you don't and never have advocated a "No-Test" license, why did you trot it out? as do most of the ProCoders that the NoCode would be followed your proposal to end testing They think that there might as well be no testing at all now that the code exam is gone. I'm as pro-code-test as they come, and I do not think that at all. And the Morse Code test in the USA isn't gone yet. It will take a few weeks at most for the bureaucratic wheels to turn and make the change effective. See how many you can recruit before it goes away. Anyone should be able to learn 5WPM and take a 13-15WPM exam in a couple of weeks, right? They sure don't value the writtens very much, do they? Well, I do. They could be better, though. Even though you say that now, I recall you trotting out that "No-Test" strawman To the pro-coders EVERYTHING in amateur radio was about morse code use, venerating the mode of on-off keying CW, and generally making them "masters of the radio waves" by their skill at a DEFUNCT radio communications mode once championed in the 1930s and 1940s. Not true at all. There's a lot to amateur radio besides Morse Code. Which is not 'defunct' at all. ....a few weeks. The VEC QPC has made up ALL the written test elements for years but not a single pro-coder seems to admit to ever contacting the VEC QPC about that content...at least not in here. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Not everyone brags on and on like you, Len ;-) Ahem, seven hostile actions... One reason (perhaps) is they don't give a damn about the writtens. Another reason is that they don't tell you everything. Another is that they don't give a damn about the writtens. Everything is about morsemanship in operating on the ham bands to them. Even if true - what's wrong with that? An amateur is balanced. If you are really only against the *test*, what's wrong with *using* Morse Code? It's perfectly legal. we arre awaiting you ideas on the subject What ideas? He just wanted to dump the written. Untrue. Riiiight. Dumping the writtens was just a strawman. In essence, that is true No, it's completely untru. Heil/K8MN says people who cannot spell are not worthy of being leaders. ...despite denials. Then show where it was proposed. RRAP All the pro-coders were using the rationalization about the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS) and the 'necessity' to keep code testing. Forever. What's wrong with wanting to keep a good thing? I thought it was the ITU rule that was the stumbling block? "Forever" is about to cease. The "End of the World As They Know It" is about to happen. Their sky will fall. Chickens Little will scamper about, shouting epithets and nastywords at evil, loathsome no-coders and the "failure" to "keep standards high"..."standards" that have been drilled into their psyches for decades by the Elders of Newington. No, not at all. "Slow Code" is an artifact from the chicken little syndrome. It's just another bad decision by FCC. A good decision. They make some good decisions and some bad decisions. True enough. And the Code Free HF license with almost exclusively CW priveleges is an artifact of the piecemeal approach that the FCC uses WRT the ARS. Do you think their BPL decisions are good ones? No. Do you? I've been gone for a few days, didn't hear about it until late Friday night and then only in a casual remark over a telephone call. Got on a friend's computer and saw that the End of Code Testing was the #1 news item on the FCC home page. [it doesn't appear on the Amateur page under Wireless Bureau, but then little happens there in keeping up to date] Wonder upon wonders! :-) Guess who broke the news here on rrap, Len, by starting this thread? "QUOTE 2. by his tacit admission (and self-praise) never ever done anything wrong nor ever expressed a bad attitude (dictated by the Elders of the Church of St. Hiram). Len, that's what *you* do. Not me. "UNQUOTE ....and self-praise Okay, now I'm reflecting about the GLORY of the democratic process in petitioning our government for a redress of grievances. IT WORKS! Not really. Seems to. An agency of our government believed the words of our citizens in wanting change and is about to rule on that change. A majority of those who commented on the Morse Code test issue wanted at least *some* Morse Code testing to remain. The majority did *not* want complete elimination. Leadership doesn't mean taking a poll. Yet FCC ignored the majority and will completely eliminate Morse Code testing very soon. Explain how ignoring the majority means "IT WORKS". "Serves no regulatory purpose" was the key point. CHANGE will happen, despite the former ruling party of pro-coders' spitting and snarling about "spamming" the government with "anti- ham" attitudes wanting the code test gone. :-) Your wordy piles of commentary to FCC amounted to spam, Len, and probably slowed down the process. Does the "banana boat swing" slow down the process? On more reflections, FCC 99-412, the R&O establishing the Restructuring of 2000, was released on 30 Dec 1999. I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC releases the R&O on code testing elimination about that same date...the news release (not a law, just a 'media advisory') was done on 15 Dec 2006, almost 7 years later. I think of it as a Christmas Present or the Start of a New Era along with a New Year. Glory in Excelsus! The announcement was made at the end of the business day on a Friday. That way FCC doesn't have to deal with the responses right away. I wonder if the emnergency rooms across the nation were deluged with stroke victims? Modernization is Happening in US amateur radio. Regs are finally catching up to late-1900s standards! [catching up, they will be approaching 1980 when the code elimination R&O is released] Did amateurs stop using Morse Code in 1980, Len? They could have. Has No Code International "done anything?" Hard to tell. the www.nocode.org pages haven't been updated for a year. NCI is still talking about the NPRM of July 2005 in their 'Articles' section. But, I'm sure that NCI will praise itself after the fact...all their 'hard work' etc., etc., etc. In my estimation, the Comments of CITIZENS on NPRM 05-143 did all the work in influencing our government on its announced decision. Power to the People! [but we still need electricity...] A majority of "the People" did *not* want complete Morse Code test elimination, Len. FCC gave "the People" what they did not want. They sure didn't listen to the ARRL, thank God! -- In a few days the official Report and Order will be released, and in a few weeks it will be effective. The only surprise is how long it has taken for FCC to make the change. Three and a half years since the treaty changed! Those darned treaties. And once the Morse Code test is completely gone, what will you do, Len? You won't have anything to carry on about on rrap anymore. Nor you. Sayonara. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Who are the FISTS members on RRAP? | Policy | |||
| Simple practical designing with antenna modeling programs | Antenna | |||
| Scaling yagi antennas | Antenna | |||
| There is no International Code Requirement and techs can operate HF according to FCC Rules | General | |||
| Tech+ to General upgrade question | Policy | |||
Linear Mode
