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

What
money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions
by
any manufacturer ...)

All that's really happened so far in the "current round" is a flurry of
petitions. There are more in process that don't have RM numbers yet.

Back during the restructuring NPRM, there were comments from
manufacturers.

In fact, the most-often-quoted-by-FCC commenter in the R&O to 98-143
wasn't
ARRL or NCI or NCVEC or some individual radio amateur.

It was Kenwood.

I wonder if any folks let them know that they would NOT be purchasing
Kenwood products because of this? I've always been a big proponent of
leveraging one's monetary muscle.

BTW, has anybody sent their respective ARRL candidates an e-mail re. their
stance on the code? I'm getting campaign flyers in the mail, seems like the
right opportunity. Same with our regular elected representatives. Drop 'em a
note and make 'em, at least, question the FCC. Remember how the vanity call
system came about.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

They also
value the educational opportunities it presents in a society that
increasingly requires people who are trained in radio/electronics.

The present written test, and the complete lack of knowledge by most No-Coders
proves that stament WRONG.

all they have to do is set reasonable, logical,
and justifiable licensing standards and then stick to their guns.

Which they havent done.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

The FCC's language seems to be geared mainly to pander
to those commentors who favored the reduction/elimination
of code testing, and for good reason. (snip)


The only pandering I see in the quoted paragraph is that to the future
needed expertise of this country.


The FCC, if they can get the code testing requirement lifted,
faces a smaller administrative burden in running the ARS
licensing system, an important consideration since the ARS is
an economically irrelevant communications service. (snip)


Where exactly is this "smaller administrative burden" supposed to occur?
Since the cost of entering code-related data while processing an overall
license is almost infinitesimal, I just don't see a significant financial
windfall for the FCC here. But what I do see here (in your overall mesage)
is an effort to undermine the real reasons for the elimination of the code
test requirement by suggesting the FCC is only doing it for financial gain
instead. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to support your claim,
but the exact same thing could be said for all popular conspiracy claims.


(snip) Nothing less than I would expect from people who
don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and
view it as an administrative burden which deflects valuable
resources away from much more economically pertinent
issues. As I've said many times before, follow the money,
and you learn the truth.


I think the FCC understands and appreciates the nature of the ARS just
fine. If you honestly can't see that, then perhaps you don't understand or
appreciate the nature of the FCC when it comes to its regulation of the ARS.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:

Whether or not they're being honest or just spiteful,
there's a lot of hams that accuse the largest ham
radio equipment producers of financing the "beat the
morse code" campaign (as they see it)... (snip) A
little too conspiratorial for me but there's many who
buy it.


I agree. Only a handful of companies have ever said anything publicly
about code testing and even less have stated a position on the matter. For
many of the larger companies, Amateur Radio is a tiny market. Even if this
market doubled in size, the profits would still be small compared to other
markets (military and so on). In other words, there's just not much
incentive for these companies to go out of their way to push towards the
elimination of code testing in an effort to manipulate this market. There is
even less incentive to finance an effort to do so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource.

I hope they remember that BPL. FCC seems to require a reminder now and
again...

The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER
commercial radio services administered by the FCC.

Oh ... why didn't you say that?

This is where the FCC's true mission exists,

The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio
spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that
includes the ARS.

Included in that "public interest, convenience and necessity" are economic
concerns. Some perceive that broadband access to the 'net is somehow a big part
of economic recovery, regardless of what other services get trashed. See Comm.
Abernathy's remarks on the "Road To Enlightenment" and "Wideband Nirvana" being
BPL. As if!

and to a far greater extent than in what
is now primarily a hobbyist service (amateur radio).

YOU view it as primarily a hobby ... and it is a hobby, but the
FCC and Congress look at it as a public service *provided
for free to society* by folks who do it as a hobby. They also
value the educational opportunities it presents in a society that
increasingly requires people who are trained in radio/electronics.

Exactly. And it goes in all sorts of directions. Maybe every ham doesn't become
an EE like I did, but many have gone in related engineering and science
directions because of exposure to technology via amateur radio.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource.

I hope they remember that BPL. FCC seems to require a reminder now and
again...

And they are being reminded vis a vis BPL.

The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER
commercial radio services administered by the FCC.

Oh ... why didn't you say that?

This is where the FCC's true mission exists,

The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio
spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that
includes the ARS.

Included in that "public interest, convenience and necessity" are economic
concerns. Some perceive that broadband access to the 'net is somehow a big
part
of economic recovery, regardless of what other services get trashed. See
Comm.
Abernathy's remarks on the "Road To Enlightenment" and "Wideband Nirvana"
being
BPL. As if!

The problem is the the BPL vendors/organizations apparently "pitched"
BPL to the Commissioners as "the greatest thing since sliced bread,
"the infrastructure already exists" (the wires are there, but they'll have
to spend many millions of ratepayers' money to add all of the couplers,
modems, etc.), and that it would provide a quality, economical competitor
to xDSL and cable modems, all with 'no problems'."

It's understandable that the Commissioners would get rather excited
at the prospect, BUT they haven't had all of the facts, just hype from
the BPL industry and utilities that are seeing $signs ... despite the fact
that it's a demonstrably crappy business model. The other reason the
Commissioners would get excited is that they simply don't have the
technical background to see the problems without significant education
on the matter ... and, sadly, NONE of the Commissioners has a technical
advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a technical
advisor amongst them.

NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL,
just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around.

73,
Carl - wk3c

NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL,
just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Yep, and thats how the No-Coders got there way.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource.

I hope they remember that BPL. FCC seems to require a reminder now and
again...


And they are being reminded vis a vis BPL.


The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER
commercial radio services administered by the FCC.

Oh ... why didn't you say that?


This is where the FCC's true mission exists,

The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio
spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that
includes the ARS.

Included in that "public interest, convenience and necessity" are economic
concerns. Some perceive that broadband access to the 'net is somehow a big

part

of economic recovery, regardless of what other services get trashed. See

Comm.

Abernathy's remarks on the "Road To Enlightenment" and "Wideband Nirvana"

being

BPL. As if!


The problem is the the BPL vendors/organizations apparently "pitched"
BPL to the Commissioners as "the greatest thing since sliced bread,
"the infrastructure already exists" (the wires are there, but they'll have
to spend many millions of ratepayers' money to add all of the couplers,
modems, etc.), and that it would provide a quality, economical competitor
to xDSL and cable modems, all with 'no problems'."

It's understandable that the Commissioners would get rather excited
at the prospect, BUT they haven't had all of the facts, just hype from
the BPL industry and utilities that are seeing $signs ... despite the fact
that it's a demonstrably crappy business model. The other reason the
Commissioners would get excited is that they simply don't have the
technical background to see the problems without significant education
on the matter ... and, sadly, NONE of the Commissioners has a technical
advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a technical
advisor amongst them.

NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL,
just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around.

One of the odd things about the commissioners however. They must be
able to suspend disbelief pretty easily.

Household and electrical wiring has been around for a long time. And
there's no rocket science to the technology of riding a signal on a line
voltage circuit. Control signals are sent along these wires regularly
and have been for many years.

So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the
internet developed this way in the first place?

I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a
technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when
considering BPL.

Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the
internet developed this way in the first place?

Mike:

Or cable TV, for that matter. Why spend all the bucks to wire the world
with coax when power lines are everywhere?

I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a
technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when
considering BPL.

Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight?

For one thing, if and when BPL comes to your area, don't subscribe
to it!

73 de Larry, K3LT