|
CW Gone ?? It Ain't Over Til It Is Over!
|
(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 |
On 24 Jul 2003 14:31:36 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:
"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. Well, that and the story in Amateur Radio Newsline that estimated the same time frame. 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). The U.S. is already a signatory to the ITU treaty. That may have something to do with it. Besies that, though, I'm sure there has been at least one treaty that was actually submitted to the Senate for ratification that the Senate didn't ratify, but the executive branch implemented the terms of the treaty anyway. This was not viewed as a breach of checks and balances, but as the U.S. complying voluntarily with the terms of the treaty as a matter of administration policy even though as a non-signatory it was not required to do so. 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. You might try contacting Alan Dixon, N2HOE. He filed a petition awhile back relative to removing the 150-mile distance limit for contacts in the 11-meter Citizens' Band Radio Service (Part 95), so he is familiar with the procedure. His petition was rejected, not because he failed to follow proper procedure, but rather because FCC decided the action he petitioned for was not warranted. His column in Popular Communications does not show an e-mail address, but you could probably contact him through the magazine, or run his call through QRZ and see if there's a valid e-mail addy listed. I'm composing this offline, on a laptop that's nowhere near an Internet connection right now, or I'd try to run down hos e-mail addy myself for you. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:24:56 -0700, Keith
wrote: 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. Which will amount to about six people. The rest of us are intelligent enough to know that FCC makes the rules, not ARRL. All those no code techs and new hams that come into the hobby will never join a organization Sure about that? I joined ARRL as a no-code Tech. Volunteered as a member of its field organization, too. that did everything it could to keep the average citizen out of the HF bands. The average citizen doesn't belong on the ham bands. The average citizen belongs on MURS - and on 11 meters, along with you. The ARRL has kept ham radio in the dark ages by requiring horse and buggy morse code technology. Once again, FCC makes the rules, not ARRL. Furthermore, the requirement was a stipulation of international rules agreed upon by treaty with all of the other countries that signed the same treaty. Now, please go back to rec.radio.cb where you'll find more people who don't know any better and might actually fall for your drivel? You're just going to get torn apart in the ham newsgroups because most of us hams have forgotten more than you've ever bothered to learn. You're like debating against a 3-year old. DE John, KC2HMZ |
On 24 Jul 2003 19:02:34 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:
The FCC want 5 copies, though, including the original. That's a lot of paper and ink! I tried to warn ya! REAL filings at the FCC require NINE copies......and they do not go to "The Commissioners". Did you also warn him that stuff sent to "The Commissioners" will get put in a certain round wire basket because that's NOT the procedure for getting rules changed? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
|
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net... On 24 Jul 2003 19:02:34 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote: The FCC want 5 copies, though, including the original. That's a lot of paper and ink! I tried to warn ya! REAL filings at the FCC require NINE copies......and they do not go to "The Commissioners". Did you also warn him that stuff sent to "The Commissioners" will get put in a certain round wire basket because that's NOT the procedure for getting rules changed? You mean like the vanity call system NPRM, Phil? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
Yep, they sit back and wait for some big brother/mafioso protectionism
organization to do all the work! -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... Simple the same people too lazy to learn the code are too lazy to become politically active. They want to achieve their results simply by whining about it and getting someone else to do the work. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com