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.

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 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 , 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?

"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 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