In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

Actually, Alun, I'd say it was the other way around. The shouting is
all overand the test continues until the paperwork is completed.

Good one!

I thought you'd like it.

The unanimously agreed
language, now passed through all the commitee levels, makes it
optional.

Maybe that's a solution for the FCC. Have code tests at 5, 13 and 20
wpm. Just make them optional.

I think that would be fine, but I don't think the FCC would go for it.

WA2ISE's idea has merit. Might be a way to get widespread support.

It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows
those countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without
it seeming that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also
allowing every other country to dump CW teasting.

We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get
through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more
than a year from today.

I would think about the same, but surely we should each guess a particular
date, and the winner should be whoever is closest.

K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim,

Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool!


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date!

73 de Jim, N2EY



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/03

"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

Jim,

Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool!


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date!

73 de Jim, N2EY



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/03




I'm going for May 1, 2004

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

Jim,

Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool!

Nobody has it yet, so it's yours!

So far:

K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun Palmer
writes:


It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows
those countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without
it seeming that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also
allowing every other country to dump CW teasting.

We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get
through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more
than a year from today.

I would think about the same, but surely we should each guess a
particular
date, and the winner should be whoever is closest.

K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date!

73 de Jim, N2EY


OK. So we're picking dates for when the CW requirement (as it exists now)
will be dropped? Gosh. I think it's going to take a lot longer than a
year. Let's say five years; so, by June of 2008.

Heh heh, the real test here is whether many of us will be around RRAP to
roundabout on it when it happens, unless it does happen in the short term.

Kim W5TIT

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

Well Kim, the ITU have actually abolished it effective July 5th, 2003. Do
you really think it will take the FCC five years to implement? I don't
think that even they are that slow!

Kim has a point, Alun, but I think 5 years is a bit much. Look how long it took
'em to do the Restructuring. And we're still waiting on some NPRMs.

But I'm sticking with the date I posted. Less than a year.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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 , 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

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