| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
NCI filed Petition for Rulemaking Aug. 13
Hello all,
I just got back tonight from several days of meetings in Washington. Wed. when I arrived in Washington, one of the first things I did was file NCI's Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC. It is available in .pdf format at http://www.nocode.org under the "Articles" link ... Some will undoubtedly say "What took you so long?" The answer is simply "We wanted to do the best possible job of getting it right." 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 Chair-elect, Wi-Fi Alliance Regulatory 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 |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... NCI's Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC. It is available in .pdf format at http://www.nocode.org under the "Articles" link ... OK, let's cut to the chase. Obviously the main request is to dump Element 1 ASAP. And there's probably lots of reasons given for doing so, including the Commission's own words "no regulatory purpose". But what else was in the petition? I gave you a URL where you could read it ... Some will undoubtedly say "What took you so long?" The answer is simply "We wanted to do the best possible job of getting it right." What did it take - six weeks? Not really long at all. Plus there was always the chance FCC would have simply dumped Element 1 on its own, instead of doing the whole NPRM thing. What surprises me personally is that NCI didn't have a proposal ready to go before WRC-03 even began. But that's all water under the bridge now. There was some question as to whether S25.5 would be suppressed or modified (as it was) to eliminate the Morse requirement ... that uncertainty made us decide to see the final outcome before developing a final strategy/proposal. As you have pointed out, Carl, FCC hasn't even given any of the proposals an RM number yet. And it's reasonable to assume there will be more proposals - from NCVEC, ARRL, and other groups. FCC may assign numbers, or they may take ideas from each one and produce an NPRM. NCVEC already filed a petition, as have several individuals. From a meeting I had at FCC on Thursday, the indication is that they will lump them all together in whatever course of action they decide to take. ARRL doesn't need to file a petition on the Morse issue, unless, of course, they wise up and decide to ask the FCC to eliminate Morse testing ASAP so they won't continue to alienate a portion of the US amateur population that's larger than their current total membership :-) (They don't need to file a petition to keep code testing, because that is the status quo ...) And of course those wheels turn slowly. We shall see ... 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 Chair-elect, Wi-Fi Alliance Regulatory 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 |
ARRL doesn't need to file a petition on the Morse issue, unless, of course, they wise up and decide to ask the FCC to eliminate Morse testing ASAP so they won't continue to alienate a portion of the US amateur population that's larger than their current total membership :-) (They don't need to file a petition to keep code testing, because that is the status quo ...) Well would there be much of a point in submitting a petition that would be a duplication of those already submitted? I'd just as soon let them focus on BPL.... And of course those wheels turn slowly. We shall see ... 73, |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... No matter what stance the ARRL takes or no stance at all, they will alienate a portion of the US amateur population [CRS insert ... I think you meant to put a "larger" here] than their membership. The number of non-ARRL members supporting code testing is larger than ARRL's membership as well as the group opposing code testing. How did you arrive at that pseudo-fact? The various surverys that have been taken indicate that the ham community is about 50/50 on this issue. That seems to hold true inside the ARRL membership as well as outside it. Thus the ARRL will "alienate" half the US ham population no matter what stance they take. The "various surveys" have all been self-selecting and have no scientific validity. Plus, they are all several years old and the demographic and thoughts have changed a lot since "restructuring." If you look at the numbers of licensees with less than General class licenses, do you really believe that anything approaching 50% of them are in favor of continued Morse testing? I seriously doubt it ... Those licensees alone outnumber the ARRL's entire current membership. Also, many current ARRL members (and a lot of NCI's members are ARRL members, too), including holders of General, Advanced, and Extra class licenses oppose continued Morse testing. Have you read the NCI Petition? If not, I would suggest you read it with an open mind and give due consideration to its content. Carl - wk3c |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... No matter what stance the ARRL takes or no stance at all, they will alienate a portion of the US amateur population [CRS insert ... I think you meant to put a "larger" here] than their membership. The number of non-ARRL members supporting code testing is larger than ARRL's membership as well as the group opposing code testing. How did you arrive at that pseudo-fact? The size of the ARRL membership and its demographics is documented. The size and demographics of the overall ham population are also documented. Anyone can do the math. The various surverys that have been taken indicate that the ham community is about 50/50 on this issue. That seems to hold true inside the ARRL membership as well as outside it. Thus the ARRL will "alienate" half the US ham population no matter what stance they take. The "various surveys" have all been self-selecting and have no scientific validity. Plus, they are all several years old and the demographic and thoughts have changed a lot since "restructuring." There have been internet surveys within the past year. Although they have all been "self-selecting", it still shows a pretty even split. It's the data that is available to us at this time. If you look at the numbers of licensees with less than General class licenses, do you really believe that anything approaching 50% of them are in favor of continued Morse testing? I seriously doubt it ... Based on the Techs I know, it's possible. But that is not the point. The available data, although limited and not of the best quality, still indicates that overall there is a 50/50 split. And do you really believe that all Techs and down want to ditch the code test and all Generals and up want to keep it? That's not a valid assumption at all. Those licensees alone outnumber the ARRL's entire current membership. Also, many current ARRL members (and a lot of NCI's members are ARRL members, too), including holders of General, Advanced, and Extra class licenses oppose continued Morse testing. Do you really believe that the ARRL's membership includes no Technicians? Just as in the overall ham population, the number of members with less than General class licenses is approximately 50%. Have you read the NCI Petition? If not, I would suggest you read it with an open mind and give due consideration to its content. Carl - wk3c I made no comment on the NCI petition. My comments were simply to demonstrate that the ARRL is in a position where it may not even be reasonable for them to take a stance either for or against code testing. With the nearly even split within the ARRL, any position that they take could alienate approximately half the hams in their own membership let alone the overall ham community. How does this become a comment on the NCI petition? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... NCI's Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC. It is available in .pdf format at http://www.nocode.org under the "Articles" link ... OK, let's cut to the chase. Obviously the main request is to dump Element 1 ASAP. And there's probably lots of reasons given for doing so, including the Commission's own words "no regulatory purpose". But what else was in the petition? I gave you a URL where you could read it ... That's not what I asked. Here's the answer, to save others the bother of reading 20 pages to get the answer to my question: NOTHING. The NCI petition consists of a request to drop Element 1 without further delay or discussion and give Techs the same privileges as Tech Pluses. No other changes proposed. Most of the 20 pages is supporting reasons to make the change. Some will undoubtedly say "What took you so long?" The answer is simply "We wanted to do the best possible job of getting it right." What did it take - six weeks? Not really long at all. Plus there was always the chance FCC would have simply dumped Element 1 on its own, instead of doing the whole NPRM thing. What surprises me personally is that NCI didn't have a proposal ready to go before WRC-03 even began. But that's all water under the bridge now. There was some question as to whether S25.5 would be suppressed or modified (as it was) to eliminate the Morse requirement ... that uncertainty made us decide to see the final outcome before developing a final strategy/proposal. 99% of what was in the petition would have been the same regardless. As you have pointed out, Carl, FCC hasn't even given any of the proposals an RM number yet. And it's reasonable to assume there will be more proposals - from NCVEC, ARRL, and other groups. FCC may assign numbers, or they may take ideas from each one and produce an NPRM. NCVEC already filed a petition, as have several individuals. It's clear NCVEC isn't done yet. They're talking about other changes too. From a meeting I had at FCC on Thursday, the indication is that they will lump them all together in whatever course of action they decide to take. In terms of requested rules changes, the NCI and NCVEC petitions are essentially identical. ARRL doesn't need to file a petition on the Morse issue, unless, of course, they wise up and decide to ask the FCC to eliminate Morse testing ASAP so they won't continue to alienate a portion of the US amateur population that's larger than their current total membership :-) Who is this alienated population? You can't mean NCI members, because they are less than 1% of US hams. (They don't need to file a petition to keep code testing, because that is the status quo ...) They may want changes other than elimination of Element 1. And of course those wheels turn slowly. We shall see ... You in The Pool yet? (see rrap thread by that name) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message m... You in The Pool yet? (see rrap thread by that name) 73 de Jim, N2EY Hey Jim, can I change my response to The Pool? My new answer is NEVER! I think they're going to grant Techs HF privies by allowing them on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands and leave it at that. Element 1 lives on as a requirement for General and Extra. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... No matter what stance the ARRL takes or no stance at all, they will alienate a portion of the US amateur population [CRS insert ... I think you meant to put a "larger" here] than their membership. The number of non-ARRL members supporting code testing is larger than ARRL's membership as well as the group opposing code testing. How did you arrive at that pseudo-fact? Dee, please allow me. http://www.speroni.com/FCC/ The various surverys that have been taken indicate that the ham community is about 50/50 on this issue. That seems to hold true inside the ARRL membership as well as outside it. Thus the ARRL will "alienate" half the US ham population no matter what stance they take. The "various surveys" have all been self-selecting and have no scientific validity. http://www.eham.net/survey/539 Gee Carl, you're right. It's NOT 50%. Out of 5,020 votes, PCTA got 62% while NCTA got 33%. I'll take that split, Dee. ;-) Shall we try QRZ...? Plus, they are all several years old and the demographic and thoughts have changed a lot since "restructuring." Late December, 2002 isn't "several years old," Carl. If you look at the numbers of licensees with less than General class licenses, do you really believe that anything approaching 50% of them are in favor of continued Morse testing? Yes, I do. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... [snipped the unresolvable debate about survey validity, etc.] Have you read the NCI Petition? If not, I would suggest you read it with an open mind and give due consideration to its content. Carl - wk3c I made no comment on the NCI petition. I didn't mean to imply that you did ... just encouraged you to read it and give it due consideration. My comments were simply to demonstrate that the ARRL is in a position where it may not even be reasonable for them to take a stance either for or against code testing. With the nearly even split within the ARRL, any position that they take could alienate approximately half the hams in their own membership let alone the overall ham community. I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. (Not Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the test requirement ...) How does this become a comment on the NCI petition? It didn't, and as I said above, I didn't mean to imply that it did. Carl - wk3c |
"N2EY" wrote in message m... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... NCI's Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC. It is available in .pdf format at http://www.nocode.org under the "Articles" link ... OK, let's cut to the chase. Obviously the main request is to dump Element 1 ASAP. And there's probably lots of reasons given for doing so, including the Commission's own words "no regulatory purpose". But what else was in the petition? I gave you a URL where you could read it ... That's not what I asked. Here's the answer, to save others the bother of reading 20 pages to get the answer to my question: NOTHING. Jim, You say "NOTHING" ... but in the following paragraphs you admit that "Most of the 20 pages is supporting reasons to make the change." I think that's important information for folks to consider ... that's why I encourage folks to actually READ and consider the NCI Petition, rather than relying on your "5 cent synopsis." Why do you want to "save others the bother" of reading the Petition? (Could it be that you find the arguments so compelling that you don't WANT others to read them???) The NCI petition consists of a request to drop Element 1 without further delay or discussion and give Techs the same privileges as Tech Pluses. No other changes proposed. Most of the 20 pages is supporting reasons to make the change. As you have pointed out, Carl, FCC hasn't even given any of the proposals an RM number yet. And it's reasonable to assume there will be more proposals - from NCVEC, ARRL, and other groups. FCC may assign numbers, or they may take ideas from each one and produce an NPRM. NCVEC already filed a petition, as have several individuals. It's clear NCVEC isn't done yet. They're talking about other changes too. That's their business ... NCI is focused on the Morse test issue and is not proposing more sweeping changes that are outside of our charter ... Carl - wk3c |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. (Not Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the test requirement ...) You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. (Not Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the test requirement ...) You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly. And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't see much in it for them. Dick |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. (Not Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the test requirement ...) You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE The ARRL would be wise to sit this one out for the very reasons that Carl has listed. So where is your data (of any kind), Dee? |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message .net...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... No matter what stance the ARRL takes or no stance at all, they will alienate a portion of the US amateur population [CRS insert ... I think you meant to put a "larger" here] than their membership. The number of non-ARRL members supporting code testing is larger than ARRL's membership as well as the group opposing code testing. How did you arrive at that pseudo-fact? Dee, please allow me. http://www.speroni.com/FCC/ The various surverys that have been taken indicate that the ham community is about 50/50 on this issue. That seems to hold true inside the ARRL membership as well as outside it. Thus the ARRL will "alienate" half the US ham population no matter what stance they take. The "various surveys" have all been self-selecting and have no scientific validity. http://www.eham.net/survey/539 Gee Carl, you're right. It's NOT 50%. Out of 5,020 votes, PCTA got 62% while NCTA got 33%. I'll take that split, Dee. ;-) Me, too! The 1996 READEX survey, paid for by ARRL, showed that 63% of members PCTA and 30% NCTA (8% undecided). Nonmembers were 54% PCTA and 37% NCTA (9% undecided). This survey also showed something very interesting when age groups were analyzed. All ages of members were majority PCTA. Here are the results, PCTA/NCTA/undecided: 65+ - 65%/27%/8% 55 to 64 - 55%/36%/9% 45 to 54 - 66%/26%/8% 35 to 44 - 58%/34%/7% 25 to 34 - 52%/45%/3% under 25 - 85%/15%/0% Note that last result - the 24-and-unders are the strongest PCTAs! These are the young people we are supposed to be wooing, right? No wonder Len Anderson wants an age limit for a ham license! Shall we try QRZ...? Plus, they are all several years old and the demographic and thoughts have changed a lot since "restructuring." Late December, 2002 isn't "several years old," Carl. If you look at the numbers of licensees with less than General class licenses, do you really believe that anything approaching 50% of them are in favor of continued Morse testing? Yes, I do. Me, too. The mere fact that someone hasn't done something doesn't mean they are not in favor of it. Look at how many hams with code test credit don't have Extras yet, more than 3 years since restructuring. Is that an indication that the Extra license should be dumped? Let's look at the "survey" that should have counted the most - comments to FCC about 98-143. The majority not only favored code testing but wanted either two code test speeds or three code test speeds. Yet FCC overruled them. I have a feeling that majority is going to get overruled again. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Brian" wrote in message om... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side .... thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. (Not Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the test requirement ...) You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE The ARRL would be wise to sit this one out for the very reasons that Carl has listed. So where is your data (of any kind), Dee? Data on what specifics of the issue? eHam and ARRL have had surveys within the past year that contradict Carl's statement. And I've already listed these sources several times before. Must I keep repeating myself? You are getting my statements mixed up other peoples. I have already referenced the current data on ARRL membership, ham radio membership, surveys on Morse code, etc. I then stated that the ARRL may very well be wise to not take a stance on the issue since the split is roughly even and no matter what stance they take, a significant number of hams will probably be dissatisfied. Carl has stated that most hams want Morse testing to go away and has provided no data to support that. I and others have pointed out that the data that does exist contradicts his "belief". These are the recent surveys done on the various ham radio sites. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. Very much so, I'd agree. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what? thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. It remains to be seen. Those for who the Morse test is too much trouble may not be bothered to join the ARRL either. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... Hello all, I just got back tonight from several days of meetings in Washington. Wed. when I arrived in Washington, one of the first things I did was file NCI's Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC. It is available in .pdf format at http://www.nocode.org under the "Articles" link ... Some will undoubtedly say "What took you so long?" The answer is simply "We wanted to do the best possible job of getting it right." 73, -- Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c Grid Square FN20fm Well-written petition. I personally oppose it, but it is well-written with what might be considered a logical rationale giving all of the justifications for the NCI position. It deserves a chance to be considered, in my opinion, and I hope that the FCC does issue a call for comments. They probably will not, believing that the recent reduction to very-slow-code (5 wpm) was a good compromise, i.e. not acceptable to either side. And, it is very recent. Having said that, I would hope that whatever the outcome, we should accept it and quit trying to change the law. This requirement certainly has had a good and lengthy hearing and additional work on this item is just a waste of time. It is said that Isaac Newton spent the majority of his career trying to find the exact displacement of Noah's ark; in his spare time he discovered gravity. de KR4AJ |
"DickCarroll" wrote in message om... And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't see much in it for them. Dick, Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly) EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated (and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF??? If the ARRL would "get with it" and actively, openly support this inevitable change, rather than fighting to keep the nocoders off of HF until the bitter end, they might be able to restore the goodwill they've lost exactly because of their Morse policy ... Carl - wk3c |
"Dan Finn" wrote in message ... Well-written petition. I personally oppose it, but it is well-written with what might be considered a logical rationale giving all of the justifications for the NCI position. It deserves a chance to be considered, in my opinion, and I hope that the FCC does issue a call for comments. Thanks for the kind words, Dan ... and for the spirit of faireness your comments above show. They probably will not, believing that the recent reduction to very-slow-code (5 wpm) was a good compromise, i.e. not acceptable to either side. I have ZERO doubt that the FCC will consider this matter. It's merely a question of how soon and how quickly they move. Carl - wk3c |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
... "DickCarroll" wrote in message om... And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't see much in it for them. Dick, Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly) EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated (and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF??? That's odd, Carl. I used the ARRL CD's to prepare for Element 1. When I had specific questions, league employees responded promptly via e-mail with helpful answers. To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF. If the ARRL would "get with it" and actively, openly support this inevitable change, rather than fighting to keep the nocoders off of HF until the bitter end, they might be able to restore the goodwill they've lost exactly because of their Morse policy ... I'm a league member, Carl. I (...and I suspect many others.) have written the league informing them that I do NOT support the removal of Element 1. While I stopped short of telling them that my family membership was at stake, it may hve been inferred. (Fine by me.) I also made a point to inform them of our demographic, young newbies who are NOT put off by the code test and willing to meet the requirements for HF. Carl - wk3c -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"DickCarroll" wrote in message om... And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't see much in it for them. Dick, Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly) EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated (and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF??? Yep, I considered it, then rejected it as inaccurate. Nocoders aren't about to dole out $34 per year for *nothing* That's exactly what most of then see of value to them in ARRL membership, since they really aren't into ham radio beyond their HT, and have no use for al the many ARRL "bennies". If the ARRL would "get with it" and actively, openly support this inevitable change, rather than fighting to keep the nocoders off of HF until the bitter end, they might be able to restore the goodwill they've lost exactly because of their Morse policy ... That's about as accurate as your prediction that no code will bring hordes of geniuses into the hobby. |
"Carl R. Stevenson"
BTW, those who want to read the NCI Petition for Rulemaking and see what Jim doesn't want you to see and consider Not to be concerned, Jim, he always gets paranoid like this when decision time looms...... You can bet that far more people agree with your assesment than his. |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. Very much so, I'd agree. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what? I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I get from folks, etc. I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those nocode techs who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse requirement ... do you REALLY think they are "hot to learn Morse"??? I don't ... Okay, it's speculation. I guess it depends on who you hang out with. I know a lot of people who don't like the idea of dropping the requirement. And most of the tech's I know are pretty happy with their lot in life. Just a comparison. thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. It remains to be seen. Those for who the Morse test is too much trouble may not be bothered to join the ARRL either. ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website, and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio. However, selling those benefits is difficult when the prospective buyer is someone who knows his/her membership dues are going to an organization that's dedicated by current policy to keep them off of HF ... it doesn't take Einstein or a Gallup poll to figure that one out ... But they really do benefit the tech's also, Of course that all depends on the level of interest in amateur radio to begin with. Whether they are interested in the VHF or HF/MF aspect. Those are pretty much different worlds. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message om... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. (Not Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the test requirement ...) You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE The ARRL would be wise to sit this one out for the very reasons that Carl has listed. So where is your data (of any kind), Dee? Data on what specifics of the issue? eHam and ARRL have had surveys within the past year that contradict Carl's statement. And I've already listed these sources several times before. Must I keep repeating myself? Of course you must. We had to address and readdress all those Morse Myths time after time, day after day, year after year. As an ARRL member, I've yet to see them repeat the debacle that they tried to pass off as a legitimate survey prior to the last restructuring. Please tell me what issue it was published in and I'll look it up. As for eHam, I'm sorry but I've never heard of them. You are getting my statements mixed up other peoples. I have already referenced the current data on ARRL membership, ham radio membership, surveys on Morse code, etc. I then stated that the ARRL may very well be wise to not take a stance on the issue That is correct. since the split is roughly even and no matter what stance they take, a significant number of hams will probably be dissatisfied. What is "roughly?" 70/30? Carl has stated that most hams want Morse testing to go away and has provided no data to support that. I and others have pointed out that the data that does exist contradicts his "belief". These are the recent surveys done on the various ham radio sites. Is this one of those surveys where you can click and click and click? |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message .net... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "DickCarroll" wrote in message om... And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't see much in it for them. Dick, Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly) EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated (and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF??? That's odd, Carl. I used the ARRL CD's to prepare for Element 1. When I had specific questions, league employees responded promptly via e-mail with helpful answers. To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF. Yes, IF you were willing to meet their criteria by jumping through the Morse code hoop ... Carl - wk3c |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message m... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "N2EY" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... NCI's Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC. It is available in .pdf format at http://www.nocode.org under the "Articles" link ... OK, let's cut to the chase. Obviously the main request is to dump Element 1 ASAP. And there's probably lots of reasons given for doing so, including the Commission's own words "no regulatory purpose". But what else was in the petition? I gave you a URL where you could read it ... Not really. You gave the main website and left it up to the reader to find the article, then download it and open it as a pdf. If you really wanted people to read it, you'd have it front-and-center on the webpage and post a direct link. That's not what I asked. Here's the answer, to save others the bother of reading 20 pages to get the answer to my question: NOTHING. Jim, You say "NOTHING" That's right. ... but in the following paragraphs you admit that "Most of the 20 pages is supporting reasons to make the change." Yup. And that was already referred to. Yes, referred to with a thinly-veiled attempt to dissuade others from reading and considering all of those reasons. Not at all. My main concern was whether there were other things in the petition, such as written test changes, license class changes, etc. There weren't. Look again at what I wrote: "Obviously the main request is to dump Element 1 ASAP." Which is true. Yes ... what did you expect? I expected that much. It's the unexpected that I was concerned about. Since NCI does not want me as a member, and keeps its internal policy functions secret, I was simply asking for a quick indication of what other issues would be covered. That *IS* NCI's chartered goal. And it's a good thing they are sticking to it, rather than getting bogged down in other issues. "And there's probably lots of reasons given for doing so, including the Commission's own words "no regulatory purpose"." Which is also true. And then the question: "But what else was in the petition?" The "what else" refers to things OTHER THAN dropping Element 1 and reasons to drop Element 1. And the correct answer is: NOTHING. The petition consists of a request to drop element 1 and reasons to do so. What did you expect? See above. That is what a Petition for Rulemaking IS ... a specific request(s) and all of the supporting arguments ... Those specific requests could be anything. I *really* don't know what else you're asking for ... Here, I'll spell it out for ya: You could have simply answered my question this way: 'NCI requested the immediate removal of Element 1 for all classes of license and the granting of Novice/Tech Plus privileges to all Technicians. Detailed supporting arguments were included in the proposal. No other changes were requested because they fall outside the stated purpose of NCI." One paragraph. Three sentences. Short sweet and concise. 100% accurate. Would it have been so hard to have answered my question that way? I think that's important information for folks to consider ... that's why I encourage folks to actually READ and consider the NCI Petition, rather than relying on your "5 cent synopsis." I've read and cosidered it, and I'm opposed to it. Really? (what a surprise) Yes, really. Why do you want to "save others the bother" of reading the Petition? Because we already know that it would contain a request to drop Element 1 and reasons to do so. Those reasons have been argued endlessly here and elsewhere. The reasons elaborated in the Petition form the factual, legal, and rational basis for granting the request ... I think they're presented clearly in a well-organized manner that, in only 20 pages, tells a a reader all they need to know to make an informed decision based on the facts. My summary, above, boils it down to three sentences. You don't WANT people reading it and coming to the logical conclusion, IMHO ... Not at all! Did I say anyone should not read it? Of course not! I simply wanted to save the time of wading through 20 pages of same-old same-old looking for something new. My question was about what else was in the petition besides dropping Element 1 and reasons to do so. That wasn't clear at all ... Sure it was...if you read what I wrote. and why you would expect more escapes me, since, as I pointed out above, all of the essential elements of a Petition for Rulemaking are there (and you knew the what the goal of the Petition would be before it was written ...) Because there is always the chance that something unexpected would be in there. (Could it be that you find the arguments so compelling that you don't WANT others to read them???) Nope. None of the arguments are compelling at all. Not to me, anyway - YMMV. And we've all read them many times before. OK, we disagree ... but I believe the FCC (and MANY amateurs) will find the arguments compelling. Sure. They've already been convinced. Did not FCC write, almost 4 years ago, "no regulatory purpose"? Those three little words say it all. I don't think the petition will change anyone's mind. You HOPE not ... that's why you try to brush it off as somehow being insignficant and "not worth the time to read." Interesting tactic, but I doubt that it will work. Has anyone's mind been changed? The NCI petition consists of a request to drop Element 1 without further delay or discussion and give Techs the same privileges as Tech Pluses. No other changes proposed. Most of the 20 pages is supporting reasons to make the change. Is this synopsis not 100% accurate? Yup ... and that's EXACTLY what's SUPPOSED to be there. In your opinion. Do you dictate NCI policy, Carl, or is it formulated by the Board? I'm an outsider, remember - not even privileged to know how many members NCI has. As you have pointed out, Carl, FCC hasn't even given any of the proposals an RM number yet. And it's reasonable to assume there will be more proposals - from NCVEC, ARRL, and other groups. FCC may assign numbers, or they may take ideas from each one and produce an NPRM. NCVEC already filed a petition, as have several individuals. It's clear NCVEC isn't done yet. They're talking about other changes too. That's their business ... NCI is focused on the Morse test issue and is not proposing more sweeping changes that are outside of our charter ... That's the smart way to go. Focus on the core issue and don't be delayed or derailed by other issues. Bingo ... and I don't believe that the FCC will allow this issue to get bogged down with other unrelated issues. It's too clear-cut, whereas other issues (band segmentation, privs by license class, etc.) are clearly going to be harder to deal with because they are not so clear-cut. (They're also not NCI's charter, so they're not our "ox to gore.") Maybe. OTOH, if the issue is that clear cut, why is FCC dragging its feet? I actually thought the main delay would be ratification, and that the removal of Element 1 would be a quick MO&O thing. Now it looks like the whole NPRM cycle will be invoked. A year - 2 years....? There are supposedly four other petitions filed, too. Wonder what they say? They basically say the same thing, in various levels of detail and sophistication, ranging from a 1-pager from a guy who's filed MANY (read between the lines) Not many lines to read between in a one-pager... to a few pages of generally well-considered material that doesn't have the cites to law, previous FCC decisions/determinations, etc. that NCI's has. They all add to the momentum, however ... Maybe. NPRM means comments... I urge all to read the NCI proposal and consider the arguments contained therein. I don't agree with them or find them compleiing - maybe others will. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
... "Bert Craig" wrote in message .net... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "DickCarroll" wrote in message om... And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't see much in it for them. Dick, Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly) EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated (and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF??? That's odd, Carl. I used the ARRL CD's to prepare for Element 1. When I had specific questions, league employees responded promptly via e-mail with helpful answers. To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF. Yes, IF you were willing to meet their criteria by jumping through the Morse code hoop ... Carl - wk3c Speak for yourself, Carl. I certainly did NOT have to jump through any hoops. I set a goal, researched the requirements, and then set about meeting said requirements. I also make sure that in all the letters and e-mails I send to the league, FCC, political reps, etc. I inform them that the current Morse code test was no barrier for this newbie and did NOT "force" me to jump through any hoops. So please don't allow any individual or group promoting the "barrier/hoop" line of Bravo Sierra to include me in their demographic. I suspect there are more NTs (As opposed to OTs or OFs) like me who dislike being associated with underachievement. I hope they too will take the time to make their views on the matter heard. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS# 9384 |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "DickCarroll" wrote in message om... And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't see much in it for them. Dick, Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly) EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated (and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF??? If they don't want to join the ARRL, there's no way you're gonna stop 'em! (apologies to Yogi) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message .net... Speak for yourself, Carl. I certainly did NOT have to jump through any hoops. I set a goal, researched the requirements, and then set about meeting said requirements. I also make sure that in all the letters and e-mails I send to the league, FCC, political reps, etc. I inform them that the current Morse code test was no barrier for this newbie and did NOT "force" me to jump through any hoops. So please don't allow any individual or group promoting the "barrier/hoop" line of Bravo Sierra to include me in their demographic. I suspect there are more NTs (As opposed to OTs or OFs) like me who dislike being associated with underachievement. I hope they too will take the time to make their views on the matter heard. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS# 9384 Nor did I find Morse to be a barrier. Just as you did, I researched the requirements, investigated study methods, and then proceeded to fulfill the requirements. Although I did not use the mode all that much at first, I find in the last two years that my usage is growing by leaps and bounds. As a supporter of Morse, I've recently sent in my membership request to FISTS. I'll also be putting together a "learn/improve your Morse code" class for our club sometime this year. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. Very much so, I'd agree. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what? I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I get from folks, etc. So you're clearly hearing just what you want to hear.If you'd tunein the low end of the 40 meter band some night you'd hear the real evidence. I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those nocode techs who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse requirement ... do you REALLY think they are "hot to learn Morse"??? I don't ... They make it clear they're not "hot to get on HF" either. If they were they'd be doing juste as Bert, Dee and Mike have done, and work toward meeting the requirements instead of ranting and bitching about a mundane *verey* minimal Morse code test. thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. It remains to be seen. Those for who the Morse test is too much trouble may not be bothered to join the ARRL either. At $34 per year there'll never be any large percentage of the minimally interested joining the ARRL, whatever the code test is or isn't. ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website, and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio. Very little if any of which is of any interestinterest to the HT jocks. However, selling those benefits is difficult when the prospective buyer is someone who knows his/her membership dues are going to an organization that's dedicated by current policy to keep them off of HF None of which is in the least applicible to those who have no interest in joining in the first place. ] .... it doesn't take Einstein or a Gallup poll to figure that one out ... It just takes a huge leap to a conclusion. |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. Very much so, I'd agree. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what? I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I get from folks, etc. With all due respect, Carl, I don't think that "self selected sample" is representative of the entire amateur radio community. And I don't think you are a totally objective observer...;-) I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those nocode techs Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest hams were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he does not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said the same thing. Don't they count? who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse requirement ... Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra! The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs will gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for them to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another written exam.....;-) You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that they are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to be necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station. Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above 30 MHz but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF? do you REALLY think they are "hot to learn Morse"??? Some of them are. Others aren't. I don't ... With all due respect, Carl, I don't see you as a good spokesperson for the CW/Morse mode.... thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. It remains to be seen. Those for who the Morse test is too much trouble may not be bothered to join the ARRL either. ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website, and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio. Sure - but a lot of hams, of all license classes, don't see those things. Or they aren't interested. I know at least one ham here who gave up on HF because she doesn't like the noise and distortion of HF. And, comparing even the best HF SSB to typical VHF/UHF FM, I can understand her point of view. Some are still mad about incentive licensing, of all things. One of the real problems with the Tech license being defacto the entry-level is that, for the most part, beginners nowadays are VHF/UHF centered, with their main focus on voice operation and manufactured equipment. Those things are not bad of themselves. They do, however, tend to distract new hams from nonvoice modes, building their own equipment, and national interests vs. local ones. IOW, they are more likely to join a local radio club than the distant ARRL. However, selling those benefits is difficult when the prospective buyer is someone who knows his/her membership dues are going to an organization that's dedicated by current policy to keep them off of HF ... That's simply not true. Everyone has the same opportunity to pass the required tests - code and written - and get whatever license they desire. There is no policy to keep anyone off HF. There is also the option of becoming a member, electing new directors, and changing the policy. it doesn't take Einstein or a Gallup poll to figure that one out ... How about the ARRL/READEX poll, and what it told us about hams under 24? 85% of them were procodetest. Do you think that number has radically changed since then? The nocodetest position may carry the day when all is said and done. And then we may well find that the whole issue was a red herring. Consider this, Carl: Once the license is in hand, getting on HF can be quite daunting for the newcomer, compared to VHF/UHF. All a newbie needs on VHF/UHF is an HT, if they are close to repeaters. For a few dollars more, they can have a nice base/mobile duobander with antennas that mount on TV hardware, and/or in the car with a few wires and a magmount. HF requires much more hardware, big antennas, and a whole pile of other stuff. There are 9 bands and a bunch of modes. Propagation varies all over the place, and mobile is a different game altogether. More time, more space and more money. If you have CC&Rs, things get even tougher. You have a new house with plenty of space and more resources than perhaps 99% of the rest of us, Carl. What sort of HF station do you have? Yes, I know you're busy - we're ALL busy, though. Surf on over to http://www.dell.com and check out what sort of computer setup $500 to $1000 will buy. That's the competition. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Yep, I considered it, then rejected it as inaccurate. Nocoders aren't
about to dole out $34 per year for *nothing* That's exactly what most of then see of value to them in ARRL membership, since they really aren't into ham radio beyond their HT, and have no use for al the many ARRL "bennies". Gee... I have more than just the "HT" as you elude to and still don't believe in the value of the membership at the rates it currently is now. Other than a really expensive magazine subscription, these "bennies" as you elude to have yet to be proven. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
In article , "Bert Craig"
writes: To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF. Yes, IF you were willing to meet their criteria by jumping through the Morse code hoop ... Carl - wk3c Speak for yourself, Carl. I certainly did NOT have to jump through any hoops. I set a goal, researched the requirements, and then set about meeting said requirements. I also make sure that in all the letters and e-mails I send to the league, FCC, political reps, etc. I inform them that the current Morse code test was no barrier for this newbie and did NOT "force" me to jump through any hoops. So please don't allow any individual or group promoting the "barrier/hoop" line of Bravo Sierra to include me in their demographic. I suspect there are more NTs (As opposed to OTs or OFs) like me who dislike being associated with underachievement. I hope they too will take the time to make their views on the matter heard. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS# 9384 Bert: Well said, OM! Unfortunately, it was wasted on Carl. Carl is one of those murderously resentful NCTA's who would much rather waste all his time whining about being tested for a useful communications skill than doing what it takes to learn it. He is truly to be pitied, for he has wasted many years that could have been spent happily pursuing the hobby of ham radio. The true irony is that in spite of his professional-grade technical knowledge, he will never be as good a radio amateur as you are! 73 de Larry, K3LT FISTS #2008, CC #0703 |
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over the Code / No Code issue. Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"charlesb" wrote in message gy.com... I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over the Code / No Code issue. Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Historically Charles, this newsgroup was formed specifically to take the code/nocode debate out of rec.radio.amateur.misc. That was about 8-10 years ago. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"WA3IYC" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. Very much so, I'd agree. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side .... What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what? I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I get from folks, etc. With all due respect, Carl, I don't think that "self selected sample" is representative of the entire amateur radio community. And I don't think you are a totally objective observer...;-) I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those nocode techs Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest hams were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he does not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said the same thing. Don't they count? The ONLY thing that counts is the answer to the question: What is the rational for retaining any code test now that the ITU treaty has eliminated the requirement from the treaty? The FCC answered that in their R&O for 98-143. The FCC indicated none of the arguments, comments or suggested reasons put forth by pro-code test advocates were of sufficient rational or justification. to keep any testing of morse. who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse requirement ... Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra! The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs will gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for them to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another written exam.....;-) You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that they are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to be necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station. Just where has that been shown and by whom? The FCC certainly hasn't been convinced of that. Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above 30 MHz but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF? You are now arguing privileges, not code testing. Others have already suggested a need for a different set of licenses and privileges. Jim, you and I have long agreed that privileges in many cases don't map well against the testing for a particular license class. ......... ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website, and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio. Sure - but a lot of hams, of all license classes, don't see those things. Or they aren't interested. I know at least one ham here who gave up on HF because she doesn't like the noise and distortion of HF. And, comparing even the best HF SSB to typical VHF/UHF FM, I can understand her point of view. Some are still mad about incentive licensing, of all things. One of the real problems with the Tech license being defacto the entry-level is that, for the most part, beginners nowadays are VHF/UHF centered, with their main focus on voice operation and manufactured equipment. Those things are not bad of themselves. They do, however, tend to distract new hams from nonvoice modes, building their own equipment, and national interests vs. local ones. IOW, they are more likely to join a local radio club than the distant ARRL. Again, that has nothing to do with code testing and everything to do with license class and privileges being revisted. |
"Bill Sohl" wrote:
"charlesb" wrote in message igy.com... I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over the Code / No Code issue. Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Historically Charles, this newsgroup was formed specifically to take the code/nocode debate out of rec.radio.amateur.misc. That was about 8-10 years ago. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Which is all the more support for his point that it does not advertise hams well. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Mike Coslo wrote:
charlesb wrote: I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over the Code / No Code issue. Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby. Sorry Charles, but that is pretty much the purpose of this newsgroup. This group is not representative of hams in general, it is a pit for those of us with the inclination towards argument to play in. That beats having us out with the general population, no? - Mike KB3EIA - Ten years ago, I'd have agreed that nothing on Usenet should have been confused with "The General Population". Since about 1995 though, I'm not sure but what Usenet isn't just exactly The General Population. Or perhaps just close enough for Government Work. There are certainly *millions* of people who have read a few articles in the rec.radio.amateur.* groups in the last 2 or 3 years. And *millions* of people (including most hams that looked) quickly went on to something not so clearly devoid of intelligent life. They took with them a very poor image of Amateur Radio. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. Very much so, I'd agree. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what? I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I get from folks, etc. With all due respect, Carl, I don't think that "self selected sample" is representative of the entire amateur radio community. And I don't think you are a totally objective observer...;-) I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those nocode techs Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest hams were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he does not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said the same thing. Don't they count? The ONLY thing that counts Hold on a sec, Bill. We've been told that: - we have to get rid of the code test to increase growth in the ARS - (most) young people aren't interested in learning the code - The future is newcomers and young hams - The current 5 wpm test is an unreasonable burden on the VECs and new hams but written tests aren't and the big one: "the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side" Now, do these things matter or not? is the answer to the question: What is the rational for retaining any code test now that the ITU treaty has eliminated the requirement from the treaty? I think you meant "rationale" And here it is: 1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur radio. 2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill test. 3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned. 4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS. Does that constitute an irrefutable proof? Of course not. Neither does the 20 pages of the NCI petition. The FCC answered that in their R&O for 98-143. The FCC indicated none of the arguments, comments or suggested reasons put forth by pro-code test advocates were of sufficient rational or justification. to keep any testing of morse. Sure. And this is the same FCC that thinks BPL is a good idea. Take a look at the 120 page ARRL report and the videos, then tell me what kind of "expert agency" should give such a system the time of day. Note that the BPL'rs want the Part 15 levels RAISED! This is also the same FCC that wanted to allow media giants to become practical monopolies so that radio and TV programming become even more homogenized. This is the FCC that "solved" the freebander linear problem by restricting the manufacture and sale of HF amplifiers, which ties the hands of legitimate ARS manufacturers but hasn't kept one amp out of any illegal's hands. "Expert agency", they're called, right? who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse requirement ... Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra! The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs will gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for them to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another written exam.....;-) You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that they are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to be necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station. Just where has that been shown and by whom? It's self evident. Common sense. FCC considers a Tech to be competent to design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all OPERATE an amateur transmitter on any authorized frequency above 30MHz, using any authorized mode, at full legal power. But it requires a General license for the FCC to consider someone to be competent to design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all OPERATE an amateur transmitter on most authorizeds frequency below 30MHz, using any authorized mode, at full legal power. In fact, Techs-with-HF are only authorized to use two modes and small slices of four bands. Why is a Tech considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 51 MHz but not 29 MHz? Why is a Tech considered competent to use CW, SSB, AM, FM, FSK, PSK, and a host of other modes above 30 MHz but only CW and SSB below 30 MHz? What is in the General written (besides a few regs) that is so essential that it MUST be tested? Now consider the Extra vs. General written. There's no difference between what a General can do and what an Extra can do on the air except that the Extra has a little more spectrum to do it in. Why is a General considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 3.530 MHz but not 3.520 MHz? The FCC certainly hasn't been convinced of that. See above about convincing FCC. Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above 30 MHz but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF? You are now arguing privileges, not code testing. I am arguing that focusing on the code test as a "stupid" requirement opens up the same can of worms on the writtens. Others have already suggested a need for a different set of licenses and privileges. Yup - and a lot of those changes are not for the better. But how can they be defended against? Jim, you and I have long agreed that privileges in many cases don't map well against the testing for a particular license class. Sure. And I see that situation getting worse, not better. ........ ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website, and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio. Sure - but a lot of hams, of all license classes, don't see those things. Or they aren't interested. I know at least one ham here who gave up on HF because she doesn't like the noise and distortion of HF. And, comparing even the best HF SSB to typical VHF/UHF FM, I can understand her point of view. Some are still mad about incentive licensing, of all things. One of the real problems with the Tech license being defacto the entry-level is that, for the most part, beginners nowadays are VHF/UHF centered, with their main focus on voice operation and manufactured equipment. Those things are not bad of themselves. They do, however, tend to distract new hams from nonvoice modes, building their own equipment, and national interests vs. local ones. IOW, they are more likely to join a local radio club than the distant ARRL. Again, that has nothing to do with code testing and everything to do with license class and privileges being revisted. It has to do with the patchwork changes made to the license structure. Our basic system dates from 1951. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com