Better read URL:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/07/22/1/?nc=1

"Elmer E Ing" Elmer E wrote in
news:XIRTa.11189$ff.4959@fed1read01:

Better read URL:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/07/22/1/?nc=1




I have read it now. IME, it is more typical for the rule making process to
take about a year. I guess the two year figure in this NG comes
specifically from this article. Whilst I think that two years is a worst
case scenario, one other useful piece of info does come out from the
article, i.e. that ratification is not required before the FCC can act
(although I'm not sure why not).

My XYL (a no-coder) has asked me to draft a petition to the FCC. Since it
looks like others may be waiting unnecesaarily for ratification, I guess I
should get to work on it. Does anyone here have any sensible advice on how
to draft an FCC petition? I'm sure there are people here who have filed
one before.

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

Alun Palmer wrote in message
. ..
"Elmer E Ing" Elmer E wrote in
news:XIRTa.11189$ff.4959@fed1read01:

Better read URL:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/07/22/1/?nc=1




I have read it now. IME, it is more typical for the rule making
process to take about a year. I guess the two year figure in this NG
comes specifically from this article. Whilst I think that two years is
a worst case scenario, one other useful piece of info does come out
from the article, i.e. that ratification is not required before the
FCC can act (although I'm not sure why not).

My XYL (a no-coder) has asked me to draft a petition to the FCC. Since
it looks like others may be waiting unnecesaarily for ratification, I
guess I should get to work on it. Does anyone here have any sensible
advice on how to draft an FCC petition? I'm sure there are people here
who have filed one before.

I strongly suggest you wait until the NPRM is published then add your
comments to the din which is a much simpler proposition. There won't
be any shortage of petitions for the NPRM, believe me.

w3rv


Too late, I've written it. All 22 pages of it. I would post it here, but
none of the rule changes are visible after you convert it to ASCII. I
could post a pdf version on the web if anyone is interested?

In a nutshell, it asks them to ditch Element 1 and give all Techs all the
novice subbands. I may as well go ahead and file it, now. The FCC want 5
copies, though, including the original. That's a lot of paper and ink!

Scott Unit 69 wrote in
:

Too late, I've written it. All 22 pages of it. I would post it here,
but none of the rule changes are visible after you convert it to
ASCII. I could post a pdf version on the web if anyone is interested?

In a nutshell, it asks them to ditch Element 1 and give all Techs all
the novice subbands. I may as well go ahead and file it, now. The FCC
want 5 copies, though, including the original. That's a lot of paper
and ink!


Ink? You must have a stinkjet printer. I have a laser. Cleaner and
clearer. :


Correct

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

Alun Palmer wrote in message
. ..
"Elmer E Ing" Elmer E wrote in
news:XIRTa.11189$ff.4959@fed1read01:

Better read URL:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/07/22/1/?nc=1




I have read it now. IME, it is more typical for the rule making
process to take about a year. I guess the two year figure in this NG
comes specifically from this article. Whilst I think that two years is
a worst case scenario, one other useful piece of info does come out
from the article, i.e. that ratification is not required before the
FCC can act (although I'm not sure why not).

My XYL (a no-coder) has asked me to draft a petition to the FCC. Since
it looks like others may be waiting unnecesaarily for ratification, I
guess I should get to work on it. Does anyone here have any sensible
advice on how to draft an FCC petition? I'm sure there are people here
who have filed one before.

I strongly suggest you wait until the NPRM is published then add your
comments to the din which is a much simpler proposition. There won't
be any shortage of petitions for the NPRM, believe me.

w3rv


Too late, I've written it. All 22 pages of it. I would post it here, but
none of the rule changes are visible after you convert it to ASCII. I
could post a pdf version on the web if anyone is interested?

In a nutshell, it asks them to ditch Element 1 and give all Techs all the
novice subbands. I may as well go ahead and file it, now. The FCC want 5
copies, though, including the original. That's a lot of paper and ink!

I tried to warn ya!

w3rv

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:05:43 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" Elmer E
wrote:

Better read URL:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/07/22/1/?nc=1


Too bad the ARRL has put itself in such a bad situation. As soon as morse code
is removed from HF operating requirements those that are mad about the ARRL not
stopping code removal will quit. All those no code techs and new hams that come
into the hobby will never join a organization that did everything it could to
keep the average citizen out of the HF bands. The ARRL has kept ham radio in
the dark ages by requiring horse and buggy morse code technology.
--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

Too late, I've written it. All 22 pages of it. I would post it here, but
none of the rule changes are visible after you convert it to ASCII. I
could post a pdf version on the web if anyone is interested?

In a nutshell, it asks them to ditch Element 1 and give all Techs all the
novice subbands.

It took 22 pages to say that?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Keith
writes:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:05:43 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" Elmer E
wrote:

Better read URL:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/07/22/1/?nc=1


Too bad the ARRL has put itself in such a bad situation.

How did ARRL put itself in the situation?

As soon as morse code is removed from HF operating requirements those that
are mad about the ARRL not stopping code removal will quit.

Some will, some won't.

All those no code techs and new hams that come
into the hobby will never join a organization that did everything it could to
keep the average citizen out of the HF bands.

"Keep the average citizen out of the HF bands"? How? FCC makes the rules, not
ARRL. The average citizen isn't interested in ham radio.

The ARRL has kept ham radio in
the dark ages by requiring horse and buggy morse code technology.

Nonsense. FCC makes the rules, not ARRL.

And it's more like stick-shift technology.

Since 1990 it has been possible to get full ham privileges with only a 5 wpm
code test, a medical waiver (doctor's note from ANY doctor) and the required
writtens. FCC said way back in 1990, and again in 2000, that they could not get
rid of the 5 wpm code test because of the ITU treaty. Treaty's been changed but
FCC hasn't done a thing. How is that ARRL's fault?

ARRL's policies are decided by the Directors. Who are elected by the members.
Some of them want the 5 wpm code test to go, others want it to stay.

If there really are lots of folks who want ARRL policy to change, all they have
to do is join up and elect Directors who want those same policies. Or run for
Director themselves. Simple.

Why hasn't that happened?

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

Too late, I've written it. All 22 pages of it. I would post it here,
but none of the rule changes are visible after you convert it to ASCII.
I could post a pdf version on the web if anyone is interested?

In a nutshell, it asks them to ditch Element 1 and give all Techs all
the novice subbands.

It took 22 pages to say that?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Do you realise how many rule changes are necessary to implement that Jim?

A couple of deletions in about six to ten paragraphs. K2UNK and I did
a quick review a while back. That is, unless you want to renumber all
the elements and paragraphs.

There's a quicker way, though: FCC grants Element 1 credit to anyone
who has any class of amateur license, current or expired. One
sentence. Then rewrite Part 97 at leisure.

17 pages of it is just the rule changes.

Sounds like a good reason to leave it alone ;-)


73 de Jim, N2EY

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:05:43 -0700, "Elmer E Ing" Elmer E
wrote:

Better read URL:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/07/22/1/?nc=1


Too bad the ARRL has put itself in such a bad situation. As soon as morse
code
is removed from HF operating requirements those that are mad about the
ARRL not
stopping code removal will quit. All those no code techs and new hams that
come
into the hobby will never join a organization that did everything it could
to
keep the average citizen out of the HF bands. The ARRL has kept ham radio
in
the dark ages by requiring horse and buggy morse code technology.
--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

I was not aware that the ARRL was responsible for keeping the code
requirement. All this time I thought it was the FCC. Dang....thanks for
the correction Keith.

Dan/W4NTI