"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

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

Having not seen a public notice from the FCC on ANY of the petitions,
it would appear that NONE of them are formally open for comment.

If I missed an official FCC public notice, I'd appreciate it if someone
could tell me the date it was released. (I check the "Daily Digest" and
the Federal Register daily ... though it's possible I could have
overlooked
one ...)

Carl - wk3c


The ARRL website has direct links.

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/29/2/?nc=1
FCC Invites Comments on Six Morse Code-Related Petitions

The ARRL has direct links to (some) of the *petitions* that the
FCC has put into "docket items" on their website.

There is no link to a Public Notice from the FCC, seeking comments
on *any* of the petitions, nor has one been published by the FCC
to the best of my knowledge, and it certainly hasn't been published
in the Federal Register. I follow those sorts of things because I am
involved in radio regulatory matters professionally.

Technically, the FCC hasn't asked for comments yet ...

Carl - wk3c

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...

As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI.

How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?


Lots and lots.

How many *US* licensees are members of NCI, Carl?

btw, the FISTS member list is online.


I've given it a read. It sounds pretty good, I agree with it for the
most part, and it is doomed. Won't happen. Not in a million years.

It's not the way we are heading.

Maybe it will make a difference, maybe it won't. But no matter what happens,
there will have been a proposal and a lot of commentary opposing the dropping
of all code tests.

How do you justify a trained group of communicators that are versed in
a mode that is as useful and needed as CW is? There isn't an emergency
right now.

It's not the way we are heading.

True - the "fashion" for the past 25+ years has been to reduce the license test
requirements - code *and* written.

Perhaps some day they will see the value, just like all the people who
build houses in flood plains - Hey, those areas are dry 99.5 percent of
the time!

Let it never be said that there was no opposition.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

How do you justify a trained group of communicators that are versed in
a mode that is as useful and needed as CW is? There isn't an emergency
right now.

It's especially hard when the emergency management agencies have
no use for a cadre of CW ops ... it's not the type of communications
that they want or need.

KT4ST has shown that to be untrue. However, with all due respect, Carl, I don't
think you'd be the most effective salesman for the mode...

Just as the CW NTS nets are anachronisms ...

What about SSB NTS nets? Are they anachronisms?

A CW NTS net can handle more traffic in less time using less spectrum than an
SSB NTS net. Been there, done that.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....


http://www.eham.net/articles/6371


Enjoy!


I thought that FISTS sold themselves as a non-political club?

How is sending in a petition a political act? Does that mean when NCI
sent
in a petition it was political? Or perhaps they were simply following
proceedures.

Of course participating in the regulatory process is a "political" thing.

And yes, FIST's position in the past (and IIRC, their charter) was
that they were *not* a politically-oriented group ... just a group that
was supposed to foster the *use* of Morse.

Right. So where NCI is purposely a politically-oriented group, and
behaves accordingly, FISTS is specifically a non-political group who
is now behaving politically.

Why don't we hear any whining about how FISTS has broken with their
charter from the people that are always whining about NCI?

Usual PCTA double-standard?

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dick Carroll; wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:



"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI.

How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?


Many times the number of *US* NCI members, Carl.

It doesn't take a majority to win an issue, Dick. All it takes is an
irate minority that is prepared to be loud and active.


No, what it takes are rational, compelling arguments that support
your position ... NCI had them in the case of WT 98-143, the
PCTAs couldn't come up with ANY (because there are no rational,
compelling arguments for keeping Morse testing).



What do they do for an encore?


We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course.


Carl, with all due respect, "rational and compelling arguments" are in
the head of the beholder.

Why do you do people a disservice by suggesting otherwise?

I have read both documents, and find the NCI and FISTS proposals
equally rational and compelling.


In the end, it all comes down to what a person **believes**. And that
is not rational. Not in your case, not in mine. And too much of the
"belief" business and it turns into religion, which some PCTA'ers have
been accused of. It all works both ways.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dick Carroll; wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:



"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI.

How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?


Many times the number of *US* NCI members, Carl.

It doesn't take a majority to win an issue, Dick. All it takes is an
irate minority that is prepared to be loud and active.


No, what it takes are rational, compelling arguments that support
your position ... NCI had them in the case of WT 98-143, the
PCTAs couldn't come up with ANY (because there are no rational,
compelling arguments for keeping Morse testing).



What do they do for an encore?


We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course.


Carl, with all due respect, "rational and compelling arguments" are in
the head of the beholder.

Then the words "rational" and "irrational" have no meaning.

Dick Carroll; wrote:

It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....




http://www.eham.net/articles/6371




If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will
choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license test.
CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment.
NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have
fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the
ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on
ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's
no CW op on the space probe.

Or we could do an "either or": For the extra, pass element 1 or a new
element 5 (a tougher written) with your general license. And for the
general,
either element 1 and the general written, or the general and extra writtens
with your tech license.

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

Sorry, the "Morse is necessary for emergency communications" argument
doesn't
hold water, and the FCC has already realized that.

Carl - wk3c

Let's face it- Carl just hates Morse code, despite his many protests to the contrary.
It's really not that difficult to understand - after all, he hears all that digital data
flying past his ears and the old nternal modem just won't work on it! Ah, the pain! The
Frustration! The Agony!

You just can't help sympathyzing with his plight. The ONLY way for him to find relief is
to slay that dreaded dragon under the bed.....

Regardless of what Carl wants or likes or dislikes, you are free to
use Morse at any time (cept on CB and 5MHz).

Dick Carroll; wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:


"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...

As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI.

How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?


Many times the number of *US* NCI members, Carl.


Now Dick, how do you know that? No one knows except a person that isn't
telling.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I've explained out committment to our members' privacy. If FISTS
doesn't have the same policy, that's their choice, and thus, you could
have answered my question without breaching any confidence. I can't
do the same because of the committment we have made to our members.


Can't you think of a better reason? Let's say there are 5000 members of
NCI.

Explain how saying There are 5000 members of NCI is violating anyones
privacy.

- Mike KB3EIA -