About Us

July 5th 03, 01:23 PM

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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Using a Pool Cage As an Antenna?	W9zr	Antenna	1	November 5th 04 04:18 AM
Use a Pool Cage As An Antenna?	W9zr	Antenna	0	November 4th 04 09:09 PM
From the Extra question pool: The dipole	David Robbins	General	1	January 23rd 04 05:32 PM
REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep		Equipment	0	November 27th 03 07:15 AM
REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep		Equipment	0	November 27th 03 07:15 AM

Menu

About Us