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

"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

"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

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

(WA3IYC) wrote in message ...
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.

I found it, read it, and understood it. And Bunion Heil has all but
called me retarded.

What exactly was your problem?


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.

That could be learned by reading it. Congratulations.

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.

I just love these non-members demanding resources and actions.
Typical code welfare mentality.

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.

Such as?

"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.

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.

The supporting arguments could be anything also.

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."

All you have to do is denounce the code exam as the true saviour of
amateur radio, join the organization, and issue such a statement
yourself.

One paragraph. Three sentences. Short sweet and concise. 100% accurate. Would
it have been so hard to have answered my question that way?

Yet you have arrived at a short, sweet, concise, and apparently 100%
accurate answer without any help from Carl. The mind is a powerful
tool, isn't it?

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.

That's what I love about America. We can have differences of opinion
without blowing up oil pipelines or water pipelines.

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.

But the FCC contract attorneys get paid by the page.

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.

Code is something old. Code Exams are something old. What did you
expect, Farnsworth?

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.

More the reason to read it yourself.

(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.

Yet you disagree. Is that not enough for you?

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?

Nope.

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.

All you have to do is denounce the code exam as the true saviour of
amateur radio. We might even initiate you into the Wolf Wong Club,
the PTT Pounders Club, and DX Millenium Club (DXMC).

Just kidding. We have none of that in NCI.

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....?

Why does the government drag its feet? It took 10 months to hire a
Sky Marshall after 9/11, and you want them to address the code exam
issue within moments of the end of the meeting?

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...

The key word was "MANY."

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...

So does NOI.

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

I encourage all thinking people to read and consider the proposal,
especially should the FCC address it through an NOI or NPRM.
Participatory government fails when citizens don't participate.

Brian

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

"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 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

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
I think you meant "rationale"

And here it is:

1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur
radio.

So??? That use is purely a matter of choice ... those who chose to use
Morse should have the freedom of choice to learn it and to so ... however,
at the same time, those who are not interested in using Morse should not
be forced to learn it in order to gain HF privileges ...

2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ...
those are important distinctions ... I have no problem with test questions
on the theory of OOK Morse ("What's the necessary bw for x wpm?"
"What are "key-clicks" and how can they be prevented?" etc.) But a
proficiency requirement as a condition of access to HF is totally out of
line.

3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these
advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned.

Other modes also offer "unique advantages" ... those advantages are in
the eye of the beholder and largely subjective ... those who believe that
it is advantageous to learn/use Morse will do so ... those who don't should
not be forced.

4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS.

The FCC disagrees ...

[snipped the remainder of debate on privs vs. license class as
irrelevant to the Morse question]

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ...
those are important distinctions

Those are inaccurate distinctions, Carl. Element 1 is IN NO WAY a test of
one's Morse code "proficiency." The 5-wpm test is just barely sufficient to
test the applicant's "knowledge of" the 43 required characters. IOW, did
s/he memorize the required character set. Are you intentionally trying to
spread this mistruth to rationalize NCI's "goal" or do you really consider a
newbie whose Element 1 CSCE hasn't even dried yet Morse "proficient?" Why
don't you just tap into the knowledge base, Carl? Ask the OT's and learn
from them That's what they're there for.

... I have no problem with test questions
on the theory of OOK Morse ("What's the necessary bw for x wpm?"
"What are "key-clicks" and how can they be prevented?" etc.)

With the answers unpublished?

But a
proficiency requirement as a condition of access to HF is totally out of
line.

I agree. I'm glad we don't currently have one.

3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these
advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned.

Other modes also offer "unique advantages" ... those advantages are in
the eye of the beholder and largely subjective ... those who believe that
it is advantageous to learn/use Morse will do so ... those who don't
should
not be forced.

"Forced?" Lol!

4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS.

The FCC disagrees ...

I wonder how much you'd support the "big brother knows best" if they agreed?
Luckily, they too wish to reduce their work.

[snipped the remainder of debate on privs vs. license class as
irrelevant to the Morse question]

Carl - wk3c

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI