Is There ANY Recourse re. FCC & Dropping CW?
 

Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send e-mails
to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance, all Techs would
automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1 is retained for
General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite any
volume of sentiments to the contrary?

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails
to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance, all Techs
would
automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1 is retained for
General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite any
volume of sentiments to the contrary?

Bert,

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic"
or "self-initiated" way ... the status quo is 5 wpm for General and
Extra.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the FCC
proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would, at this
point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC staffers
who would have to deal with them. (and no matter what our respective
views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want the ARS
to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the result
was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and cause
them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something that they
DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this question
finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time to comment
(when they ASK for comments). In the meantime, a major mail/e-mail
"blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the standing of the ARS
as a whole at the FCC.

73,

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


snippage

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the result
was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and cause
them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something that they
DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'll show my ignorance here What is a LEO? Low Earth Orbiter?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance,
all Techs would automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1
is retained for General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite
any volume of sentiments to the contrary?

Bert,

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic"
or "self-initiated" way ... the status quo is 5 wpm for General and
Extra.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the
FCC proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would, at
this point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC staffers
who would have to deal with them. (and no matter what our respective
views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want the ARS
to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the
result was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and
cause them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something
that they DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this question
finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time to comment
(when they ASK for comments). In the meantime, a major mail/e-mail
"blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the standing of the ARS
as a whole at the FCC.

73,


Bert, as I see it the basic facts are these:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will be a
rubber stamp excercise);

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the Amateur
service. You could file one too;

3)This will be followed by requests for comments, and you could then file
yours too.

The bottom line is yes, there's still plenty of recourse, but not yet, and
very little chance they won't dump element 1 completely anyway (see the
previous poster's explanation).

If you want to petition for all Techs getting Tech+ privileges, or file a
comment to that effect, that may be worthwhile, all the same.

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance,
all Techs would automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1
is retained for General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite
any volume of sentiments to the contrary?

Bert,

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic"
or "self-initiated" way ... the status quo is 5 wpm for General and
Extra.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the
FCC proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would, at
this point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC staffers
who would have to deal with them. (and no matter what our respective
views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want the ARS
to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the
result was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and
cause them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something
that they DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this question
finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time to comment
(when they ASK for comments). In the meantime, a major mail/e-mail
"blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the standing of the ARS
as a whole at the FCC.

73,


Bert, as I see it the basic facts are these:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will be a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the Amateur
service. You could file one too;

Maybe. Time will tell.

3)This will be followed by requests for comments, and you could then file
yours too.

Not necessarily. Since the FCC already stated (in R&O 98-143)
that code was only retained because of the S25.5 requirement, it is possible
for the FCC to just drop Element 1 altogether based solely on
prior consideration.

The bottom line is yes, there's still plenty of recourse, but not yet, and
very little chance they won't dump element 1 completely anyway (see the
previous poster's explanation).

Agree.

If you want to petition for all Techs getting Tech+ privileges, or file a
comment to that effect, that may be worthwhile, all the same.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

That was reaffirmed in their response to the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli Petiton for
Reconsideration, too. I recall that the FCC said they thought code testing
"serves no regulatory purpose" other than meeting the treaty requirement.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

The USA has to ratify the revised treaty first. Ink up the rubber stamps...

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic"
or "self-initiated" way ...

Why not? They said the test is there for Reason X. Reason X no longer exists.
Bye-bye code test.

Of course there will be petitions all over the place just to make sure.

the status quo is 5 wpm for General and Extra.

Hard to see what all the fuss is about, really.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the FCC
proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would, at this
point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC staffers
who would have to deal with them.

The real problem is that FCC can't do anything about it until the treaty is
ratified anyway.

(and no matter what our respective
views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want the ARS
to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

OK, fine. Then let's ALL not send any letters, emails, proposals or petitions
to the FCC about code testing from now on. We'll just wait until FCC initiates
something and asks for comments. Deal?

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the result
was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and cause
them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something that they
DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

So we should all just be quiet, huh?

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this question
finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time to comment
(when they ASK for comments).

OK, fine. I promise not to bother FCC about the subject of code testing if
everyone else promises not to bother FCC about the subject of code testing.

Does everyone agree?

In the meantime, a major mail/e-mail
"blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the standing of the ARS
as a whole at the FCC.

The thing to "blitz" the FCC about is Broadband over Power Line. They've only
got about 1800 comments - and we have over 685,000 hams.

Did anyone besides me comment to the FCC about it?

Or should I have kept quiet, so as not to annoy FCC? The way the NOI was
written, it seemed like BPL was the latest new golden technology. Sure seemed
like FCC liked it a lot.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will be a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has the USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the Amateur
service. You could file one too;

Maybe. Time will tell.

The smart money will wait until the treaty is ratified.

3)This will be followed by requests for comments, and you could then file
yours too.

Not necessarily. Since the FCC already stated (in R&O 98-143)
that code was only retained because of the S25.5 requirement, it is possible
for the FCC to just drop Element 1 altogether based solely on
prior consideration.

BINGO. In fact, considering both the R&O and the FCC response to the
Worser-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration, I would be very, very
surprised if FCC bothered with an NPRM.

The bottom line is yes, there's still plenty of recourse, but not yet, and
very little chance they won't dump element 1 completely anyway (see the
previous poster's explanation).

Agree.

If you want to petition for all Techs getting Tech+ privileges, or file a
comment to that effect, that may be worthwhile, all the same.

The next step is "what other changes are needed?" That will take an NPRM


73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
:


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta
ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for
instance, all Techs would automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies
while Element 1 is retained for General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1
despite any volume of sentiments to the contrary?

Bert,

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic" or "self-initiated" way ... the status quo is 5 wpm for
General and Extra.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the
FCC proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would,
at this point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC
staffers who would have to deal with them. (and no matter what our
respective views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want
the ARS to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the
result was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and
cause them great difficulty in conducting normal business ...
something that they DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this
question finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time
to comment (when they ASK for comments). In the meantime, a major
mail/e-mail "blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the
standing of the ARS as a whole at the FCC.

73,


Bert, as I see it the basic facts are these:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified
the new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part
will be a rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the
Amateur service. You could file one too;

Maybe. Time will tell.

3)This will be followed by requests for comments, and you could then
file yours too.

Not necessarily. Since the FCC already stated (in R&O 98-143)
that code was only retained because of the S25.5 requirement, it is
possible for the FCC to just drop Element 1 altogether based solely on
prior consideration.


Agreed, but do you really think that will stop people from submitting
petitions for restructuring?

The bottom line is yes, there's still plenty of recourse, but not yet,
and very little chance they won't dump element 1 completely anyway
(see the previous poster's explanation).

Agree.

If you want to petition for all Techs getting Tech+ privileges, or
file a comment to that effect, that may be worthwhile, all the same.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before
congress has ratified the new treaty (no point
approaching congress, though, as that part will
be a rubber stamp excercise);


Is there no clause in the treaty Congress previous ratified that allows
for modifications in compliance with ITU changes?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:


Is there no clause in the treaty Congress previous ratified that allows
for modifications in compliance with ITU changes?



Do you mean that the ITU treaty allows the retention of a code test if
the FCC decides
to? It says as much that it is now an option.

There is quite likely many new things in the new treaty that the USA
really wants and
the code thing for hams is likely at the very bottom of the list of
priorities. Most members
of congress are not likely to even know what ham radio is, much less
care about the
code requirement for hams......

We're not banning code. Some new hams will likely start playing it and
find it
easy to pick up, and become good at it. As long as there is interesting
DX to
be had on CW, hams will keep using it. "CW gets thru when nothing else
does,
and only needs the simplest of equipment".

Don't know about the emails, but you can send a letter to the commisioner or
others in the FCC. I am sure a mailing address would be listed somewhere on
their website, as well as maybe even the email addy's you mentioned.

Also, write a letter or email to you senators and congresspersons, as well
as other ones not necessarily in your district. You would be pleasantly
surprised as to what has been achieved by others over the years as far as
concerns and interests, and this without a "big-brotherish, mafioso-like"
organization taking your money and not showing where it goes but saying they
are there to support you.


I currently write (or bug) my governmental representatives on somewhat of a
regular basis. Hell, they may actually learn something as well. (both
amateur radio related and other concerns as well.)



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails
to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance, all Techs
would
automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1 is retained for
General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite any
volume of sentiments to the contrary?

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

Bill Sohl wrote:


And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

Whoa there Bill! Are you saying that as of this moment, we are not part
of the treaty?


- Mike KB3EIA -=

Right ... "little LEOs" are Mobile Satellite Service systems with small
constellations of satellites in low earth orbits ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


snippage

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the
result
was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and
cause
them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something that
they
DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'll show my ignorance here What is a LEO? Low Earth Orbiter?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send e-mails
to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance, all Techs would
automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1 is retained for
General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite any
volume of sentiments to the contrary?


FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes. It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

Sometimes the US does the right thing even though the rest of the
world makes another choice. Lemmings march into the sea. Are they
right?

/ rant off

73, Wes, kc8spr
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will be a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has the USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the Amateur
service. You could file one too;

Maybe. Time will tell.

And since "concensus" is a term totally foreign to ham radio, Bill Cross himself,
the big stick at FCC for ham radio, the guy who makes all the rules that are
rubberstamped by the other otherwise-occupied staff, will make the new rules for
us, himself. He said so at Dayton a couple years ago.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has
ratified
the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will
be
a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has
the
USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

But let's pretend...for academic discussion.

IOW, let's speculate.

Just what would you
expect the USA position to be with regard to the New vs Old ITU
treaty if the USA doesn't ratify?

That depends on WHY the USA doesn't ratify, and how the non-ratification
is
done.

There's only two ways non-ratification can be done:
1. No action is ever taken at all to ratify or
2. The vote for ratification fails.

Seems to me that the lawyers could argue it either way. Some would argue
that the USA is no longer bound by treaty provisions of the old treaty
that
don;t appear in the new one, while others could argue the opposite. Plus
all
sorts of variations.

Arguing for the old treaty makes no sense since the rest
of the world is on the new treaty.

Remember, ratification, if at all,
is a USA function and the end result of ITU doesn't require
a follow-up ratification process from each administration.

Yet at the same time, if nobody ratifies it, the new treaty means nothing.

Nobody has to ratify. Many, perhaps most, administrations
simply abide by the new treaty having empowered their
repective delegations to negotiate/participate on their pehalf.
The USA has a specific ratification process for ALL
treaties as a matter of USA law.

Note that at the present time, the USA is acting as if the old treaty is
still
in force.

Actually I disagree. I believe the official posture is that the USA
acknowledges the new treaty but makes no effort to change
USA law/rules until after USA ratification. I don't believe the
FCC has any expectation that the rest of the world is
respecting old treaty obligations.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

Whoa there Bill! Are you saying that as of this moment, we are not part
of the treaty?
- Mike KB3EIA -=

You could say that to a certain degree. The old treaty is dead
as far as the rest of the world is concerned. The USA process
of ratification is a unique post WRC approval process for
the USA only. The rest of the world isn't
waiting for USA approval.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:
And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

Surely you know more about how treaties work than to believe that. No
treaty-
-nor the recension of one-is effective until ratified by the governments
involved.

So tell us Dick, if the USA doesn't ratify does the WRC-03
become null and void? Ratification is a USA process that
may or may not have similar process in other administrations.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:51:24 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:

Is there no clause in the treaty Congress previous ratified that allows
for modifications in compliance with ITU changes?

Nope.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has
ratified
the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will
be
a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has
the
USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

But let's pretend...for academic discussion.

IOW, let's speculate.

Just what would you
expect the USA position to be with regard to the New vs Old ITU
treaty if the USA doesn't ratify?

That depends on WHY the USA doesn't ratify, and how the non-ratification
is
done.

There's only two ways non-ratification can be done:
1. No action is ever taken at all to ratify

Not gonna happen. It's an agenda item for The Congress. Too many other radio
services involved.

or
2. The vote for ratification fails.

Which, to my knowledge, has never happened before.

Seems to me that the lawyers could argue it either way. Some would argue
that the USA is no longer bound by treaty provisions of the old treaty
that
don;t appear in the new one, while others could argue the opposite. Plus
all
sorts of variations.

Arguing for the old treaty makes no sense since the rest
of the world is on the new treaty.

Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, some lawyers somewhere will argue it.

Remember, ratification, if at all,
is a USA function and the end result of ITU doesn't require
a follow-up ratification process from each administration.

Yet at the same time, if nobody ratifies it, the new treaty means nothing.

Nobody has to ratify. Many, perhaps most, administrations
simply abide by the new treaty having empowered their
repective delegations to negotiate/participate on their pehalf.

Which simply means they have a different ratification process than the USA.
They choose their delegates and empower the delegates to ratify at the
convention, rather than afterwards.

The USA has a specific ratification process for ALL
treaties as a matter of USA law.

Exactly. And until that process is carried out, the USA will abide by the old
treaty.

Note that at the present time, the USA is acting as if the old treaty is
still
in force.

Actually I disagree. I believe the official posture is that the USA
acknowledges the new treaty but makes no effort to change
USA law/rules until after USA ratification. I don't believe the
FCC has any expectation that the rest of the world is
respecting old treaty obligations.

Allow me to rephrase:

.....the USA is still acting *internally* as if the old treaty is still in
force.

IOW, the VEs are still giving code tests, and FCC won't allow any hams to
operate on the HF/MF ham bands unless those hams pass a code test.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Agreed. But as far as FCC rules are concerned, the old treaty is still in force
in the USA. That's my point.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

If YOU want to learn and use Morse, fine ... same for anyone else
with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

I want all the technically competent folks we can get ...

"Technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent enough to
use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from scratch, or
something in between?

with homeland
defense spuring increased demand for use of HF frequencies, we need
to increase our numbers to protect our spectrum

Every increase in technical competency requirements works against increased
numbers.

NOTE: I said "technically competent folks" ... I am NOT in the
"ham license in the Cracker Jacks box" camp AT ALL.

Again - "technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent
enough to use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from
scratch, or something in between?

Are the current written tests adequate for the technical competency
requirements of the ARS, or not?

If YOU want to increase your technical competency, fine ... same for anyone
else with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

I just don't believe that forcing folks to learn Morse to get an HF
license is a reasonable requirement.

Yet even if the code test disappears tomorrow, to get an HF license with
reasonable privileges, folks are forced to take a written test that goes beyond
the test required for ALL VHF/UHF privileges. To get all HF/MF privileges,
folks must take two written tests that go far beyond the test required for ALL
VHF/UHF privileges.

Those who want to use it
will have to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in
Morse, but could contribute technically, in public service communications,
etc. should not be excluded because of their lack of interest in Morse.

Those who want to be involved in the technical end of amateur radio will have
to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in technical subjects,
but could contribute technically, in public service communications, etc. should
not be excluded because of their lack of interest in technical subjects.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course. Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.
The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

If YOU want to learn and use Morse, fine ... same for anyone else
with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

I want all the technically competent folks we can get ...

"Technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent
enough to
use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from scratch,
or
something in between?

According to the FCC, competent enough to pass the written tests.
I'd like to see folks even more competent than that, but everyone has
to start somewhere.

with homeland
defense spuring increased demand for use of HF frequencies, we need
to increase our numbers to protect our spectrum

Every increase in technical competency requirements works against
increased
numbers.

NOTE: I said "technically competent folks" ... I am NOT in the
"ham license in the Cracker Jacks box" camp AT ALL.

Again - "technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level?
Competent
enough to use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from
scratch, or something in between?

See above.

Are the current written tests adequate for the technical competency
requirements of the ARS, or not?

That's the FCC's call ... as I said, I'd like to see folks actually learn
more
than the tests require (and would welcome more folks who ALREADY
know more than that, but aren't interested in Morse).

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience. And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows them
to do.

If YOU want to increase your technical competency, fine ... same for
anyone
else with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

I'm not bitching about today's tests ... the only issue I have is that I
think the Tech test is "light" for the power level it allows at frequencies
that can cook meat. Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

I just don't believe that forcing folks to learn Morse to get an HF
license is a reasonable requirement.

Yet even if the code test disappears tomorrow, to get an HF license with
reasonable privileges, folks are forced to take a written test that goes
beyond
the test required for ALL VHF/UHF privileges. To get all HF/MF privileges,
folks must take two written tests that go far beyond the test required
for ALL
VHF/UHF privileges.

Again, I think the Tech test/priv ratio is flawed WRT the power levels
allowed.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio ... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Those who want to use it
will have to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in
Morse, but could contribute technically, in public service
communications,
etc. should not be excluded because of their lack of interest in Morse.

Those who want to be involved in the technical end of amateur radio will
have
to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in technical
subjects,
but could contribute technically, in public service communications, etc.
should
not be excluded because of their lack of interest in technical subjects.

Read your paragraph above ... it's flawed ... how can "those who have no
interest
in technical subjects" "contribute technically" ???

73,
Carl - wk3c

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:45:24 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote:

And since "concensus" is a term totally foreign to ham radio, Bill
Cross himself, the big stick at FCC for ham radio, the guy who makes
all the rules that are rubberstamped by the other otherwise-occupied
staff, will make the new rules for us, himself. He said so at Dayton a
couple years ago.

Hey, that's the way it was done (with the names changed) some 40
years ago when I started sniffing around the FCC to see if I wanted
to work there.

Why should it be different now ?? ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has
ratified
the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part
will
be
a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has
the
USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

But let's pretend...for academic discussion.

IOW, let's speculate.

Just what would you
expect the USA position to be with regard to the New vs Old ITU
treaty if the USA doesn't ratify?

That depends on WHY the USA doesn't ratify, and how the
non-ratification
is
done.

There's only two ways non-ratification can be done:
1. No action is ever taken at all to ratify

Not gonna happen. It's an agenda item for The Congress. Too many other
radio
services involved.

or
2. The vote for ratification fails.

Which, to my knowledge, has never happened before.

Seems to me that the lawyers could argue it either way. Some would
argue
that the USA is no longer bound by treaty provisions of the old treaty
that
don;t appear in the new one, while others could argue the opposite.
Plus
all
sorts of variations.

Arguing for the old treaty makes no sense since the rest
of the world is on the new treaty.

Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, some lawyers somewhere will argue
it.

Remember, ratification, if at all,
is a USA function and the end result of ITU doesn't require
a follow-up ratification process from each administration.

Yet at the same time, if nobody ratifies it, the new treaty means
nothing.

Nobody has to ratify. Many, perhaps most, administrations
simply abide by the new treaty having empowered their
repective delegations to negotiate/participate on their pehalf.

Which simply means they have a different ratification process than the
USA.
They choose their delegates and empower the delegates to ratify at the
convention, rather than afterwards.

The USA has a specific ratification process for ALL
treaties as a matter of USA law.

Exactly. And until that process is carried out, the USA will abide by the
old
treaty.

Note that at the present time, the USA is acting as if the old treaty
is
still
in force.

Actually I disagree. I believe the official posture is that the USA
acknowledges the new treaty but makes no effort to change
USA law/rules until after USA ratification. I don't believe the
FCC has any expectation that the rest of the world is
respecting old treaty obligations.

Allow me to rephrase:

....the USA is still acting *internally* as if the old treaty is still in
force.

IOW, the VEs are still giving code tests, and FCC won't allow any hams to
operate on the HF/MF ham bands unless those hams pass a code test.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Agreed. But as far as FCC rules are concerned, the old treaty is still in
force
in the USA. That's my point.

Fair enough...internally only.
And, as you note above, USA ratification is just a matter of time.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Read your paragraph above ... it's flawed ... how can "those who have no
interest
in technical subjects" "contribute technically" ???

By acting as examples on how not to do things for the rest of the amateur
community ?

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

(massive snippage for sanity's sake)

Allow me to rephrase:

....the USA is still acting *internally* as if the old treaty is still in
force.

IOW, the VEs are still giving code tests, and FCC won't allow any hams to
operate on the HF/MF ham bands unless those hams pass a code test.

The fact that there's a new one awaiting ratification doesn't make
the old one and its requirements immediately disappear.

That's only true to the extent that any specific country has their own
ratification process...and failure to ratify by one or more
countries does NOT nullify the new treaty.

Agreed. But as far as FCC rules are concerned, the old treaty is still in
force in the USA. That's my point.

Fair enough...internally only.

Yup - which is 99% of what US hams care about, anyway.

And, as you note above, USA ratification is just a matter of time.

As Carl/WK3C predicted, the whole deal was/is a "slam dunk". Really
just a matter of waiting for the various bureaucratic gears to turn.
I'm predicting that there won't even be an NPRM or NOI on eliminating
the code test, just a neat little MO&O from FCC very soon after the
treaty is ratified. Bye bye Element 1, game over, thank you for
playing. Or maybe FCC will tack it onto the R&O for the petition to
refarm the Novice/Tech+ subbands. Would be ironic as heck: "No more
code tests, Novices and Techs get lots more HF access on 80, 40 and 15
- but they can only use CW/Morse on those bands". Stranger things have
happened.

--

Stuff like code tests, written tests, technical competence, appliance
operating, hi-fi-ssb and license numbers are all red herrings compared
to the real threats to amateur radio, like BPL, CC&Rs, and
enforcement. Those real threats are where we have to focus our
resources and efforts. What good are licenses, tests and technical
competence out the ying-yang if you can't put up a decent antenna for
any band, and the antennas you *can* put up hear nothing but noise?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Removing the CW test does not mean you can no longer use CW ?

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course.

Why do such different levels of knowledge need to be tested? FCC sez a
Tech is qualified to use any authorized mode/power anywhere on the 2
meter band - but nowhere on the 20 meter band. Code test or no code
test. Why does 20 meters require more technical competency than 2
meters? Why does 14.020 require more technical competency than 14.030?

Yes, there's rules, regs and propagation. But the General and Extra
tests cover a lot more than those three things. The written test
system we have now, and which we have had for decades, FORCES more
technical stuff on prospective hams whether they want it, need it, or
plan to use it, or not.

Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.

And many do not. For non-technical types, learning the written
material can require quite a bit of effort. It took me far longer to
learn the written material than the code way back when. Heck, I was
licensed and on the air long before school got around to things like
electricity and basic trigonometry, let alone how even the simplest
radios work.

The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

Call that the "ante" effect.

If YOU want to learn and use Morse, fine ... same for anyone else
with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

I want all the technically competent folks we can get ...

"Technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent
enough to
use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from scratch,
or
something in between?

According to the FCC, competent enough to pass the written tests.

I'd like to see folks even more competent than that, but everyone has
to start somewhere.

So are the current writtens OK with you or not?

And WHY must there be more written testing forced on people just to
have full privileges?

with homeland
defense spuring increased demand for use of HF frequencies, we need
to increase our numbers to protect our spectrum

Every increase in technical competency requirements works against
increased numbers.

NOTE: I said "technically competent folks" ... I am NOT in the
"ham license in the Cracker Jacks box" camp AT ALL.

Again - "technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level?
Competent
enough to use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from
scratch, or something in between?

See above.

Doesn't answer the question.

Are the current written tests adequate for the technical competency
requirements of the ARS, or not?

That's the FCC's call ... as I said, I'd like to see folks actually learn
more
than the tests require (and would welcome more folks who ALREADY
know more than that, but aren't interested in Morse).

We'll see how that works out in a short time, when FCC dumps Element
1. I'm predicting that there won't be an NPRM or NOI or anything like
that. FCC will just do a MOO or equivalent and say "This was all
argued before, the treaty was the one reason to keep Element 1.
Treaty's gone and so is the element. Game over, thank you for
playing". As you predicted, a "slam-dunk".

Biggest unknown is how long it will take The Congress to rubberstamp
the treaty.

btw, you put a date in The Pool yet? (see thread of that name).

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience.

I'm not one of those people.

And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows them
to do.

It is simply human nature not to value highly what is acquired easily.

But let's talk about this "graduation" thing. In a way, a license IS a
"diploma" or "graduation certificate" - it says you have met the
requirements for that level of privileges. It does NOT say you know
everything there is to know about the subjects covered, or that your
education is complete. Just that you met the minimum requirements.

If YOU want to increase your technical competency, fine ... same for
anyone
else with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

I'm not bitching about today's tests ...

Which means you think that it's OK to force more written testing on
everyone else if they want a reasonable-privileges HF license or a
full-privileges HF license. Because when Element 1 disappears,
Elements 3 and 4 will still be there. Sure - they were easy for you ~3
years ago, and their predecessors were easy for me ~33 years ago, but
they're NOT easy for everyone.

the only issue I have is that I
think the Tech test is "light" for the power level it allows at frequencies
that can cook meat.

So you would either beef up (pun intended) the Tech written or lower
the Tech power level. (I think the latter is more reasonable, btw)

Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

Still doesn't explain why we need the Extra, or even most of the
General.

I just don't believe that forcing folks to learn Morse to get an HF
license is a reasonable requirement.

Yet even if the code test disappears tomorrow, to get an HF license with
reasonable privileges, folks are forced to take a written test that goes
beyond
the test required for ALL VHF/UHF privileges. To get all HF/MF privileges,
folks must take two written tests that go far beyond the test required
for ALL
VHF/UHF privileges.

Again, I think the Tech test/priv ratio is flawed WRT the power levels
allowed.

But we're talking about a lot more than the power level. Most hams I
know don't ever run even 10% of the maximum allowed power. The past
two Field Days and Sweepstakes, I've used QRP. Did pretty well, too.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio

Ah - a "carrot" to get them to "jump through the hoop" of more written
testing. Or, to put it another way, it's OK to force people to learn
lots more written-test material, whether or not they are interested,
in order to grant them an HF license, but it's not OK to force people
to learn even a very basic level of Morse code/CW, whether or not they
are interested, in order to grant them an HF license.

Seems like a contradiction, since the Tech written test is obviously
adequate for all VHF/UHF modes and frequencies.

... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Sure - but at the same time, VHF/UHF is where many if not most of the
public safety services are. Interference with those services can
easily cost lives.

FCC sez Techs are technically competent to operate all amateur
VHF/UHF, but not on most amateur HF/MF. Sounds like an artificial,
arbitrary barrier to force those without a technical background to
expend effort learning more technical stuff just to pass the test so
they can get on HF.

Those who want to use it
will have to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in
Morse, but could contribute technically, in public service
communications,
etc. should not be excluded because of their lack of interest in Morse.

Those who want to be involved in the technical end of amateur radio will
have
to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in technical
subjects,
but could contribute technically, in public service communications, etc.
should
not be excluded because of their lack of interest in technical subjects.

Read your paragraph above ... it's flawed ... how can "those who have no
interest
in technical subjects" "contribute technically" ???

You missed the point that they could contribute in public service
communications and other ways. If there is any logical reason to make
ham licenses easier to get, it's so that there are more hams available
for public service comms - 'specially emergency comms.

Example: When the shuttle Columbia blew apart on reentry, it was
amateurs who provided much of the communications between search
parties (according to posts here by people who were there, on the
ground). Neither "technical competency" nor code speed made a bit of
difference then - just operating skills.

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

73 de Jim, N2EY

WWHD

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course.

Why do such different levels of knowledge need to be tested? FCC sez a
Tech is qualified to use any authorized mode/power anywhere on the 2
meter band - but nowhere on the 20 meter band. Code test or no code
test. Why does 20 meters require more technical competency than 2
meters? Why does 14.020 require more technical competency than 14.030?

Yes, there's rules, regs and propagation. But the General and Extra
tests cover a lot more than those three things. The written test
system we have now, and which we have had for decades, FORCES more
technical stuff on prospective hams whether they want it, need it, or
plan to use it, or not.

See 97.1 ... basis and purpose ... the ARS is supposed to promote
technical self-education and experimentation. While it is still sort of
"incentive licensing," using the "carrot" of increased privs on HF is
the FCC's way of promoting that goal.

Also, as I pointed out ... Techs on VHF/UHF stand less of a
chance of causing worldwide interference problems than folks
on HF (and the FCC doesn't like to have to deal with complaints
from other administrations ...)


Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.

And many do not. For non-technical types, learning the written
material can require quite a bit of effort. It took me far longer to
learn the written material than the code way back when. Heck, I was
licensed and on the air long before school got around to things like
electricity and basic trigonometry, let alone how even the simplest
radios work.

However, learning that material at least is in line with 97.1's goals.
Learning how to encode/decode Morse with one's "wetware"
doesn't fall in the same ballpark.

The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

Call that the "ante" effect.

It's not a game of poker ... you either know the material or you don't
and it is not a legitimate purpose of regulation to "make you work xxx
amount to get a license." If someone has to work to learn the material
that's legitimately required, so be it ... if they already know it and don't
have to put forth any (further) effort to learn it, so be it, too.

[snippage]

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the
entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience.

I'm not one of those people.

And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows
them
to do.

It is simply human nature not to value highly what is acquired easily.

I worked hard for many years to gain the technical knowledge and
skills I have ... the fact that I didn't have to put forth additional
effort to pass the extra test doesn't devalue what the license allows
me to do one iota.

But let's talk about this "graduation" thing. In a way, a license IS a
"diploma" or "graduation certificate" - it says you have met the
requirements for that level of privileges. It does NOT say you know
everything there is to know about the subjects covered, or that your
education is complete. Just that you met the minimum requirements.

OK ... goes to the old joke, "What do you call the guy who finished
at the bottom of his class in medical school?" (Doctor)

Hams will have different levels of technical knowledge and skills,
depending on whether they are engineers, plumbers, cab drivers,
etc. (Though there is nothing preventing an interested, intelligent
cab driver from studying on his own and achieving a high level of
technical knowledge and skill.)

So you would either beef up (pun intended) the Tech written or lower
the Tech power level. (I think the latter is more reasonable, btw)

If it were up to me *personally*, I would reduce the power limit for
techs to something around 50W ... those that simply operate commercial
radios wouldn't really be affected, those who have the skill and knowledge
to build higher powered rigs for things like EME, tropscatter, etc. should
have no problem passing at least the General written.

Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

Still doesn't explain why we need the Extra, or even most of the
General.

If you don't get why the FCC uses the "carrot" to promote 97.1
I doubt I can explain it in a way that will cause you to get it.

I strongly suspect that you actually *do* get it, but simply wish
to be contrarian about it because it suits your purpose ... which
appears to be to attempt to justify forcing Morse on everyone
"just because the technical stuff is forced on everyone" (or something
to that effect.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio

Ah - a "carrot" to get them to "jump through the hoop" of more written
testing. Or, to put it another way, it's OK to force people to learn
lots more written-test material, whether or not they are interested,
in order to grant them an HF license, but it's not OK to force people
to learn even a very basic level of Morse code/CW, whether or not they
are interested, in order to grant them an HF license.

Back to 97.1 ...

Seems like a contradiction, since the Tech written test is obviously
adequate for all VHF/UHF modes and frequencies.

... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Sure - but at the same time, VHF/UHF is where many if not most of the
public safety services are. Interference with those services can
easily cost lives.

But I would wager that the vast majority of techs use store-bought rigs
(and with today's interated circuits, SMT manufacturing, etc, they are
generally VERY reliable, statistically-speaking)

[snip]

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

Sounds like sour grapes because your favorite mode is no longer
going to be on government life support.

73,
Carl - wk3c

On 11 Jul 2003 10:59:42 -0700, N2EY wrote:

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

I for one have no problem requiring an applicant for an amateur
license to be well-rounded in radio and electronics, both theory and
operations including regulations.

There was lots of stuff that I was "forced" to learn in all three of
my professions (which I sometimes refer to as shoeshine boy, baggage
handler, and bus washer) but even though I may never use it in my
specialty, it was necessary to learn it in order to be a "well-rounded"
individual who can easily follow and evaluate what specialists in those
other fields say rather than just smiling, nodding my head, and not having
a clue.

Applying it to ham radio, the operator who may be a good traffic
handler but doesn't have a clue about what OET 65 requires of all
ham operators (OK folks, look it up) is going to be behind the
eight-ball if s/he's not in compliance. Ditto for the one who is an
antenna maven but doesn't have a clue about digital communication
protocols and emission masks.

Without the "generalist" background I'd be just another narrow geek.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
"Highball the scanner"

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 11 Jul 2003 10:59:42 -0700, N2EY wrote:

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

I for one have no problem requiring an applicant for an amateur
license to be well-rounded in radio and electronics, both theory and
operations including regulations.

Nor do I, Phil.

Seems to me that a person who is "well rounded" in amateur radio will have at
least some skill in Morse code, though.

There was lots of stuff that I was "forced" to learn in all three of
my professions (which I sometimes refer to as shoeshine boy, baggage
handler, and bus washer) but even though I may never use it in my
specialty, it was necessary to learn it in order to be a "well-rounded"
individual who can easily follow and evaluate what specialists in those
other fields say rather than just smiling, nodding my head, and not having
a clue.

Same here. But amateur radio is an avocation, not a profession.

Applying it to ham radio, the operator who may be a good traffic
handler but doesn't have a clue about what OET 65 requires of all
ham operators (OK folks, look it up) is going to be behind the
eight-ball if s/he's not in compliance. Ditto for the one who is an
antenna maven but doesn't have a clue about digital communication
protocols and emission masks.

Only if the person wants to do those things.

Without the "generalist" background I'd be just another narrow geek.

Exactly! I'm sure you realize that I was in "devil's advocate" mode. Just
applying the anticodetest rhetoric to the writtens.

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
"Highball the scanner"

73 de Jim, N2EY

"No defects found...."

Bill Sohl wrote:


The tests are an entry gate

That's a crock and you should know it. The entry level tests are indeed an entry
gate, as the name indicates. Or that's how it was set up and was intended to be. But
you whiners
who want everything handed to you on a platter wouldn't let qualifications remain
meaningful, so an overburdened, underfunded FCC was happy to start the big dumbdown
which will continue until there's nothing left to destroy but what little is then
left of our allocations. THEN we won't be much of a problem to the FCC, and they know
it.


...not the final exam.

The Final Exam comes much later.


That has always been the case with ARS.

You continue to show how little you actually know about the ARS.

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


The tests are an entry gate

That's a crock and you should know it. The entry level tests are indeed an
entry
gate, as the name indicates. Or that's how it was set up and was intended
to be. But
you whiners
who want everything handed to you on a platter wouldn't let qualifications
remain
meaningful, so an overburdened, underfunded FCC was happy to start the big
dumbdown
which will continue until there's nothing left to destroy but what little
is then
left of our allocations. THEN we won't be much of a problem to the FCC,
and they know
it.


...not the final exam.

The Final Exam comes much later.

Guess my Part 97 document doesn't include the section on
ham radio final exams. Please copy us all on where to find it Dick.

That has always been the case with ARS.

You continue to show how little you actually know about the ARS.

Strange, even my 1957 ARRL handbook doesn't mention
anything about how and where to take a ham radio final exam.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:


The Final Exam comes much later.

Guess my Part 97 document doesn't include the section on
ham radio final exams. Please copy us all on where to find it Dick.

Some time around the time when you begin to push up the daisys, Bill.

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Bill Sohl wrote:


The Final Exam comes much later.

Guess my Part 97 document doesn't include the section on
ham radio final exams. Please copy us all on where to find it Dick.

Some time around the time when you begin to push up the daisys, Bill.

Now we've got DICK trying to invoke the actuarial tables.

Do we need Dann to weigh in on this?