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

"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

Somehow I missed this on the first pass....

"Kim" wrote in message ...
"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,

Wasn't meant to be a loaded question, just a simple inquiry on your
opinion.

and that is very astute of you (you'll
understand that comment much more than many here, I suspect GRIN).

I do - and thanks!

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 agree there are a few like that, Kim, but in 35+ years I've only
encountered a few of them. Maybe there are more where you are. There
are certainly more here on rrap than I've encountered in the general
ARS population.

I would also say that your description could be applied to many
different induhviduals, on all sides of the various debates.

I believe that CW testing has promulgated such behavior as above.

How? It's just a basic test of a simple skill.

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.

If that's true, then the same can be said of the written tests. And
vanity callsigns. Or any other accomplishment by an individual.

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.

Maybe where you are. Not around here, or anywhere else I've lived.

Some would describe the code test as an "ante" - an initial
investment, so to speak.

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.

I don't hear the sort of argument you describe on the air here in EPA,
Kim. In fact, from what I see and hear, the whole code-test thing
seems to be pretty well confined to rrap and a few other outlets.
Maybe where you are it's different, but among the hams I know, putting
someone or a whole group down because of their license class is simply
Not Acceptable Behavior.

Now, all that given, I respect the tradition of CW.

That's good. But it's more than a tradition - it's a very popular mode
in the ARS today. Second only to SSB on the amateur HF bands. I would
not be surprised if this year it turned out that CW was #1 in total
QSOs during FD.

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.

Many if not most newcomers are as you describe. But a growing number
are not - in fact, there are some who consider it a put-down even to
be called newcomers.

Yes, I want CW to stay as a testing element and I think 5wpm is sufficient.

Excellent! But I'm afraid neither you nor I will get our druthers on
this. (I'd be happy with 13 and 20 wpm code tests, actually. 5 wpm was
an FCC mistake, made more than 50 years ago).

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.

I think both sending and receiving should be tested (the two reinforce
each other).

Medical waivers were simply a quick way for FCC to please Papa Bush
and a now-dead King* he wanted to grant a favor. Their implementation
was very poor - any MD or DO could write a waiver, regardless of
specialty or experience. But speech and language pathologists,
occupational therapists, audiologists and other professionals with far
more specialized knowledge and experience in disabilities had no
standing at all. That makes absolutely no sense and shows that the FCC
was simply looking for a quickie solution to a problem.

Again,I'm afraid neither you nor I will get our druthers on this.

Heck,
maybe the Federal Gov't. could even come up with approved doctors--they
approve VEs, right?

Not gonna happen. The VECs approve the VEs, and the FCC oversees the
process.

Last thing FCC wants is more admin work, which is exactly what any
sort of waiver system generates.

Reducing routine admin work is a key FCC goal. That's why all the
emphasis on reduced testing, fewer tests and license classes, online
renewals and modifications, 10 year licenses, etc. It's the whole
reason behind the VEC and QPC systems: Get unpaid volunteers to do the
work and provide the services and facilities formerly performed by
paid govt. personnel. Brilliant, actually.

That's why the smart money approaches FCC with ready-made ideas, at
the right time.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you know hams who have forgotten the code? So do I. I also know
folks who have forgotten all sorts of things they once had to know to
pass various tests, but they don't get their highschool diplomas
pinched for it.

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.

Agreed - and folks like that exist on all sides of the codetest
debate. Do we really want someone who writes things like "those in the
minority should learn to take 'No' for an answer and get on with
life"? (It wasn't a pro-code-test person who wrote that).

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.

I'm happy to have anyone who follows the rules, pulls their own
weight, exhibits a positive attitude towards others, and seeks to
learn and grow.

What gets forgotten too often is that the license test is just the
beginning.

73 de Jim, N2EY

* "who made you king? I don't recall voting for you!" - "Dennis" in
Monty Python and the Holy Grail

On 05 Jul 2003 12:23:34 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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.

Or the wailing and gnashing of teeth back in 1952 when one couldn't
get an Advanced any more.....I had to wait until 1968 to get mine,
and that was before the "incentive licensing" splitups started.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane