In article , "Kim"
writes:

We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of "stuff."

There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait for
treaty ratification.

Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to do with
how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.

Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil, nada.

The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC
kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to
keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're
talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and
reversing itself.

--

So the big question is: What OTHER changes should be made?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WWHD

"lk" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
So far:

K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8EPO: Dec 20, 2003
WA2SI: Sept 13, 2003

Larry

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

N2EY wrote:

The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC
kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to
keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're
talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and
reversing itself.


If it's the same people in charge at the FCC, yes.

In article , "Kim" dont
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of "stuff."

There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait for
treaty ratification.

Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to do
with how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.

Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil,
nada.

True, but that was for a *reduction* in the requirement. I'm not so sure
there will be major support for a complete elimination of the CW
requriement--in some form or another.

The majority of comments to the Restructuring were for at least two code
speeds. FCC said no.

IMHO the majority opinion today, even among those who haven't taken a code
test, is that Element 1 should stay. But there is no requirement that FCC
follow majority opinion.

And we may not even get the chance to express an opinion. Once the treaty is
ratified, FCC has the authority to simply dump Element 1 with no NPRM or NOI.

The pity is that we must go through this again.

Tell it to those who will write the proposals to dump Element 1

The amateur community is
still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.

Heck, there are some who are not over the changes of 1968-69 - even though they
were not hams back then!

You think this is bad, Kim, you shoulda heard the wailing and moaning and
gnashing of teeth back in the '60s when "Incentive Licensing" was proposed and
enacted.

The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason
FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC
to keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though
we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical
and
reversing itself.

heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right?

Yes and no ;-)

The FCC is a government entity=large corporate entity. Right?

Right.

At least that's the way I see it. I
wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity inside
the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars on
organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less than
a year!

All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving in
the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.

Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
sight.

Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?
--

So the big question is: What OTHER changes should be made?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WWHD


OK, what is WWHD?

Send me an email. I won't abuse or share the address.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

N2EY wrote:

The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC
kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to
keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though
we're
talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and
reversing itself.


If it's the same people in charge at the FCC, yes.

I don't think that's much of a factor, Robert.

Look at the history of code testing, and amateur license testing in general, in
the USA over the past 28 years. FCC has been slowly nibbling away at it, or
trying to, since at least 1975. Little by little, the requirements have been
reduced and the tests made easier to pass until now the single remaining test
is about as basic as can be made. The only exception is the removal of
multiple-choice code tests.

I doubt very much that FCC will change direction at this point.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim" dont

writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"

writes:

We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of
"stuff."

There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait
for
treaty ratification.

Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to
do
with how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.

Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil,
nada.

True, but that was for a *reduction* in the requirement. I'm not so sure
there will be major support for a complete elimination of the CW
requriement--in some form or another.

The majority of comments to the Restructuring were for at least two code
speeds. FCC said no.

IMHO the majority opinion today, even among those who haven't taken a code
test, is that Element 1 should stay. But there is no requirement that FCC
follow majority opinion.

Do you seriously believe that the 200 thousand or more
non-code techs support keeping element 1? And, as you
note below...this ain't no ballot issue.

And we may not even get the chance to express an opinion. Once the treaty
is
ratified, FCC has the authority to simply dump Element 1 with no NPRM or
NOI.

Zactly!

The pity is that we must go through this again.

Tell it to those who will write the proposals to dump Element 1

The amateur community is
still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.

Heck, there are some who are not over the changes of 1968-69 - even though
they
were not hams back then!

I must be living in a cave then as I've
yet to meet anyone that wasn't a ham
prior to 68/69 yet is complaining
of the changes made then.

You think this is bad, Kim, you shoulda heard the wailing and moaning and
gnashing of teeth back in the '60s when "Incentive Licensing" was proposed
and
enacted.

BUT that denied existing privilegs to many hams...espeially Generals.
No such LOSS of privileges would accompany the end of Element 1.

(SNIP)

At least that's the way I see it. I
wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
inside
the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars
on
organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
than
a year!

All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving
in
the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.

Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
sight.

Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?

Should be an interesting answer :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim" dont

writes:


At least that's the way I see it. I
wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
inside
the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars
on
organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
than
a year!

All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving
in
the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.

Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
sight.

Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?
--

Oh goodness, what a loaded question, and that is very astute of you (you'll
understand that comment much more than many here, I suspect GRIN). I
don't want to seem like I'm hedging, and I'm a damned good debater, but let
me preface my "final answer" with the following:

It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so populated
by people who are so pleased with themselves and under the apparent
impression that a ham radio license includes the authority to gnash and hate
anyone different from themselves.

I believe that CW testing has promulgated such behavior as above. It is a
"governmental approval" for a specific mode, thereby warranting that anyone
who has taken and passed this mode test is, somehow, of a higher regard to
the FCC and, at least, to fellow hams.

Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device to keep
their ideas of "no gooders" out of the hobby--promoting a "good 'ol boy"
concept. This is attitude is horrendous in a "goodwill" hobby, and displays
of it are terribly disturbing to me. As amateur radio operators we are
ambassadors of the United States. And, to get so petty as to some of the
arguments spoken in this newsgroup, and even more comments I hear on the
air, it makes me totally embarrassed to even bring the hobby of ham radio up
to anyone any more.

Now, all that given, I respect the tradition of CW. Contrary to such people
as Dick Carroll and Larry Roll, who go off half-cocked thinking they "know"
who someone is based on their dislike of the mode of CW, most of we who are
new to the hobby are quite respectful of the tradition of ham radio, and
know good talent on CW when we see it--indeed even love to watch someone
doing it.

Yes, I want CW to stay as a testing element and I think 5wpm is sufficient.
I also think it should be sending OR receiving (not both), and I think that
waivers should only be given upon the agreement of 2 doctors that a certain
handicap is, indeed, the complaint of any particular individual. Heck,
maybe the Federal Gov't. could even come up with approved doctors--they
approve VEs, right? I hear too many stories of hams who have no business
being any class of ham where CW was required--because they DON'T know CW.

People such as those mentioned earlier here are reprehensible in their
opinion (in *my* opinion GRIN), and it is their behavior that does more to
harm ham radio than the choices others make NOT to learn CW or who choose
not to use CW once they've passed and exam requirement. I am happy to have
*anyone* in the hobby--even those with not-so-great-operating practices, as
long as they are friendly, promote ham radio as a positive experience, and
encourage others to simply JOIN, not to GET TO EXTRA.

Kim W5TIT

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

The pity is that we must go through this again. The amateur community
is
still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.

Don't let the rantings in this newsgroup serve as an indicator.
I hear nothing being discussed on the air and even if a few
diehards are ****ed off, they'll either get over it someday or
die with their own complaining attitudes.


While it's true that I have not even listened to amateur radio in quite a
while--probably at least six months anyway--the last time I had a radio on
there was still quite frequent "intonations" around here that express dismay
and a great divide between longer-licensed amateurs and newer-licensed
amateurs. My opinions certainly do not emanate from this newsgroup--I
shudder to think that you'd believe that of me, Bill.


The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only
reason
reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would
be illogical for FCC to
keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even
though
we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine
FCC being that illogical and reversing itself.


heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right? The FCC is a government
entity=large corporate entity. Right? At least that's the way I see
it.
I
wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
inside
the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars
on
organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
than
a year!

Here's the question?
Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?


WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good answer
for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can generally
think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just
leave it as it is.

Kim W5TIT

wrote in message ...
"Kim W5TIT" writes:

It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so
populated by people who are so pleased with themselves. . . [snip]

Ridiculous. All achievements encourage pride, which in some translates
into arrogance. If we beefed up the written tests, and eliminated CW,
then the arrogance would remain. It's the nature of the beast.


True, there are always those that are arrogant. However, is it possible
that the CW testing requirement enhances one's tendency to do that?


Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device. .
.. [snip]

Barriers to entry have their uses. All the best organizations have
them. Compare CB radio, which has none.


I'd have to see some examples. I was not aware that "filtering" was that
widely in use.


As amateur radio operators we are ambassadors of the United States.

That's just a piece of rhetoric, used to help justify allocation of
spectrum by a post-world-war congress. Hams represent only themselves.


Well, I don't take it as a piece of rhetoric. I take it seriously.


I am happy to have *anyone* in the hobby--even those with
not-so-great-operating practices, . . . [snip]

Basically agree, depending what "not-so-great" means exactly. :-)

Regards,
Len.


There are those who get all upset over things such as someone saying "10-4"
or "turn my house around," etc. Or those that habitually just make a call
without checking to see if a freq is in use, etc.

Kim W5TIT
Sorry so short, but I've seen a few of my posts today that have some error
related to being too long...

"Kim W5TIT" writes:
wrote:

...If we beefed up the written tests, and eliminated CW, then the
arrogance would remain. It's the nature of the beast.

True, there are always those that are arrogant. However, is it
possible that the CW testing requirement enhances one's tendency to
do that?

I doubt it--people are arrogant that they can drive a stick-shift. I
think anything that takes effort to attain, becomes a point of
pride--even if it's only the ability to spit into a cup without missing.

Barriers to entry have their uses. All the best organizations have
them. Compare CB radio, which has none.

I'd have to see some examples. I was not aware that "filtering" was
that widely in use.

They're in very wide use. The Army has physical exams and boot
camp. These reflect operational needs, but any DI will tell you that
there's more to it than that, and that a primary aspect of boot camp
is the hazing.

Many organizations use rank in this way; the various scouting
organizations, the elks, masons, the Grange, etc.

Many organizations, if not most, have an induction process followed by
a loyalty oath; the masons again, most religions, fraternities, the
Mafia. In the case of fraternities and the like, the induction process
involves hazing and tests of loyalty. In the case of religions, the
masons, the grange, etc., the induction process involves revealing
secrets, along with tests of loyalty. In the case of Mensa, it
involves taking an IQ test. (It should be noted that this tiny
requirement doesn't do much: most Mensa members never attend a single
meeting.)

Those organizations that demand various sorts of effort from their
members tend to receive the most loyalty. (I remember when CB was
pretty clean--even though the required license was a formality. My
parents let us use it freely, and the only problem we really saw was
congestion.)

That's just a piece of rhetoric, used to help justify allocation of
spectrum by a post-world-war congress. Hams represent only
themselves.

Well, I don't take it as a piece of rhetoric. I take it seriously.

I'm glad; it can only have a positive impact on one's conduct. Though
I wonder what your callsign tells our muslim neighbors about America,
ambassador W5TIT? ;-/

Basically agree, depending what "not-so-great" means exactly. :-)

There are those who get all upset over things such as someone saying
"10-4"...

Anyone who says "10-4", and isn't a cop, is a poser[*]. The only
correct response is "Roger Dodger, copy that."

Regards,
Len.

[*] Anyone who spells it "poseur", is also a poser.