|
RM-10808 --- Wexelbaum Redux
Joe Speroni, AH0A, has introduced a looney-tune petition, reminiscent
of Bob Wexelbaum, W2ILP "Amateur Radio Needs More Tests". Below is my comment to the FCC. 73, de Hans, K0HB ------- Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's ) RM-10808 Rules to Drergulate Testing for Non-Voice ) Mode Allocation for Amateur Radio Licenses ) To: The Commission PERSONAL COMMENTS OF HANS BRAKOB, K0HB OVERVIEW These comments are submitted in response to the petition of Joseph Speroni (AH0A) which requests changes in the qualifications and testing of applicants for new or upgraded licenses in the Amateur Radio Service. I. Discussion: The instant petition requests the elimination of Element 1 (5WPM Morse code test) from the required test for General and/or Extra Class licenses in the Amateur Radio service, and goes on to request that the written examinations (elements 2, 3, and 4) be stripped of all mode-related questions except those pertaining to Phone operation. Persons licensed under this scheme would only be authorized to use Phone emissions, unless they had additionally passed examinations related to other modes. Petitioner further proposes that operation in ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Service) would be restricted to licensees who had passed a written examination on that subject. Petitioner also proposes that Volunteer Examiners would only be required to administer the basic written examinations (elements 2, 3, and 4) and could decline to administer any of the proposed mode-related examinations if they felt it were burdensome to them. II. Comments: I agree with the proposal to remove the requirement for a Morse test (element 1) from the Amateur Radio Service rules. However, I disagree with the remainder of his proposal. Key to the concept of amateur radio regulation is the permission (indeed encouragement) to tinker, experiment, and try different (dare I say "sometimes new") things. Under a system where "you can't use a mode until you've passed a test on that mode" amateur radio experimentation would be dramatically inhibited. The development of NEW modes of amateur radio communications would in fact be PROHIBITED under a Catch-22 situation where "you can't play with it if you haven't been tested and if it hasn't been developed yet we can't write test questions". The current regulatory environment for Amateur Radio properly allows significant latitude in selection of operating modes and communications techniques, and the historical tendency of the Commission to relax restrictions on new modes should be continued, indeed accelerated. All of the above aside, the proposal is fatally flawed in three Regards: 1) Effective enforcement (detecting operators operating outside their authorized mode) would be virtually impossible. 2) Allowing VEC's to pick-and-choose what tests they choose to administer would deprive applicants in those localities of reasonable access to the full range of amateur radio activities. 3) Requiring a separate passing an examination to engage in RACES/ARES activities would cripple the ability of the Amateur Radio Service to adequately respond to the needs of the public when our services are required in emergency communications scenarious. In summary, this petition should not be tossed aside lightly. It should be hurled aside with great force. Respectfully submitted, H. Hans Brakob, K0HB 1610 Weston Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 |
Well said!
73, Leo On 9 Oct 2003 14:13:43 -0700, (Hans K0HB) wrote: snip It should be hurled aside with great force. |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... Joe Speroni, AH0A, has introduced a looney-tune petition, reminiscent of Bob Wexelbaum, W2ILP "Amateur Radio Needs More Tests". Below is my comment to the FCC. 73, de Hans, K0HB ------- Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's ) RM-10808 Rules to Drergulate Testing for Non-Voice ) Mode Allocation for Amateur Radio Licenses ) To: The Commission PERSONAL COMMENTS OF HANS BRAKOB, K0HB OVERVIEW These comments are submitted in response to the petition of Joseph Speroni (AH0A) which requests changes in the qualifications and testing of applicants for new or upgraded licenses in the Amateur Radio Service. I. Discussion: The instant petition requests the elimination of Element 1 (5WPM Morse code test) from the required test for General and/or Extra Class licenses in the Amateur Radio service, and goes on to request that the written examinations (elements 2, 3, and 4) be stripped of all mode-related questions except those pertaining to Phone operation. Persons licensed under this scheme would only be authorized to use Phone emissions, unless they had additionally passed examinations related to other modes. Petitioner further proposes that operation in ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Service) would be restricted to licensees who had passed a written examination on that subject. Petitioner also proposes that Volunteer Examiners would only be required to administer the basic written examinations (elements 2, 3, and 4) and could decline to administer any of the proposed mode-related examinations if they felt it were burdensome to them. II. Comments: I agree with the proposal to remove the requirement for a Morse test (element 1) from the Amateur Radio Service rules. However, I disagree with the remainder of his proposal. Key to the concept of amateur radio regulation is the permission (indeed encouragement) to tinker, experiment, and try different (dare I say "sometimes new") things. Under a system where "you can't use a mode until you've passed a test on that mode" amateur radio experimentation would be dramatically inhibited. The development of NEW modes of amateur radio communications would in fact be PROHIBITED under a Catch-22 situation where "you can't play with it if you haven't been tested and if it hasn't been developed yet we can't write test questions". The current regulatory environment for Amateur Radio properly allows significant latitude in selection of operating modes and communications techniques, and the historical tendency of the Commission to relax restrictions on new modes should be continued, indeed accelerated. All of the above aside, the proposal is fatally flawed in three Regards: 1) Effective enforcement (detecting operators operating outside their authorized mode) would be virtually impossible. 2) Allowing VEC's to pick-and-choose what tests they choose to administer would deprive applicants in those localities of reasonable access to the full range of amateur radio activities. 3) Requiring a separate passing an examination to engage in RACES/ARES activities would cripple the ability of the Amateur Radio Service to adequately respond to the needs of the public when our services are required in emergency communications scenarious. In summary, this petition should not be tossed aside lightly. It should be hurled aside with great force. Respectfully submitted, H. Hans Brakob, K0HB 1610 Weston Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Mega Dittos. I especially like the "catch 22" prohibition of new modes. Frankly I'm surprised that Joe didn't think of that. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote
Mega Dittos. I especially like the "catch 22" prohibition of new modes. Frankly I'm surprised that Joe didn't think of that. I sent a courtesy copy of my comments to the author of RM-10808. Here is his response. 73, de Hans, K0HB __________________________________________________ ______ RESPONSE FROM AH0A __________________________________________________ ______ Thanks for taking the time to respond, although your last comment was a bit strong. The idea behind the petition was to try to retain some "merit" badge testing and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a transceiver for RTTY operation?". I've taught several courses in the last few years, and have come to the conclusion that so many different technologies are very difficult to get across in a three week course, and I question whether it is desirable to require it. What is so special about Morse that it requires so much emotion? The real issue for those proposing to remove it is they want more Amateurs. If the market were growing fast enough, we would not see this much effort. I felt that my proposal to remove CW testing for phone privileges, but retain it to operate CW would be a compromise. How it could interfere in the development of amateur radio escapes me. It is less restrictive than current rules. I also thought that moving all testing requirements out of the FCC would make it more acceptable. The FCC clearly wants to get out of the business of regulating amateur radio. The question we amateurs need to address is what are the requirements to get a license? Questions about CW, RTTY, SS, EME, FM, repeaters, SSB, space communications, emergency communications, circuits, electric theory, regulations, etc. And which group of amateurs gets to make the decision? Anyway I want to assure you I that I put thought into the petition and sincerely believe that CW testing for CW privileges was a compromise. Joe Speroni Honolulu |
Hans K0HB wrote:
Joe Speroni, AH0A, has introduced a looney-tune petition, reminiscent of Bob Wexelbaum, W2ILP "Amateur Radio Needs More Tests". Below is my comment to the FCC. 73, de Hans, K0HB ------- Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's ) RM-10808 Rules to Drergulate Testing for Non-Voice ) Mode Allocation for Amateur Radio Licenses ) To: The Commission PERSONAL COMMENTS OF HANS BRAKOB, K0HB OVERVIEW These comments are submitted in response to the petition of Joseph Speroni (AH0A) which requests changes in the qualifications and testing of applicants for new or upgraded licenses in the Amateur Radio Service. I. Discussion: The instant petition requests the elimination of Element 1 (5WPM Morse code test) from the required test for General and/or Extra Class licenses in the Amateur Radio service, and goes on to request that the written examinations (elements 2, 3, and 4) be stripped of all mode-related questions except those pertaining to Phone operation. Persons licensed under this scheme would only be authorized to use Phone emissions, unless they had additionally passed examinations related to other modes. Bizarre. I wonder what the "test" for Hellschrieber or the computer modes would be? Petitioner further proposes that operation in ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Service) would be restricted to licensees who had passed a written examination on that subject. OY! This person would maybe like to turn Amateur radio into a Fraternity? Signa Fy Nothing? Petitioner also proposes that Volunteer Examiners would only be required to administer the basic written examinations (elements 2, 3, and 4) and could decline to administer any of the proposed mode-related examinations if they felt it were burdensome to them. Okay, so we couldn't operate any other mode besides phone is essentially what he is saying. If we strip mode specific questions, and then VE's only tested for 2, 3, and 4, all the other modes kinda go away, don't they. And this is yet another time I've heard about the great "burden" upon the VE's. Heck it's a volunteer thing. If its too much work, they can find less burdensome things to do with their time. II. Comments: Agreed with all your comments, Hans. In summary, this petition should not be tossed aside lightly. It should be hurled aside with great force. And terminated with great prejudice! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
Mega Dittos. I especially like the "catch 22" prohibition of new modes. Frankly I'm surprised that Joe didn't think of that. The proposal in toto doesn't show much evidence of thought. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote Mega Dittos. I especially like the "catch 22" prohibition of new modes. Frankly I'm surprised that Joe didn't think of that. I sent a courtesy copy of my comments to the author of RM-10808. Here is his response. 73, de Hans, K0HB __________________________________________________ ______ RESPONSE FROM AH0A __________________________________________________ ______ Thanks for taking the time to respond, although your last comment was a bit strong. The idea behind the petition was to try to retain some "merit" badge testing It's not govt's legitimate purpose to have "merit badge testing." and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a transceiver for RTTY operation?". Clearly AH0A can't understand (or accept) that the RTTY example is "theoretical knowledge" and the Morse test is a test of a mechanical skill ... while I don't advocate it, a touch-typing test would be more relevant to the future of ham radio than a Morse test. [snip] Anyway I want to assure you I that I put thought into the petition and sincerely believe that CW testing for CW privileges was a compromise. It appears that AH0A either did not read the R&O in 98-143 and the denials of the Petitions for Reconsideration that were filed, or he didn't understand/accept what the FCC clearly said. Carl - wk3c |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote Mega Dittos. I especially like the "catch 22" prohibition of new modes. Frankly I'm surprised that Joe didn't think of that. I sent a courtesy copy of my comments to the author of RM-10808. Here is his response. 73, de Hans, K0HB ________________________________________________ ________ RESPONSE FROM AH0A ________________________________________________ ________ Thanks for taking the time to respond, although your last comment was a bit strong. The idea behind the petition was to try to retain some "merit" badge testing It's not govt's legitimate purpose to have "merit badge testing." Seems to me that the amateur should be trusted to do the needed work to get on the air with whatever method he or she chooses. The test should reflect the level needed to gain that trust. For me to get on for example, PSK31, I simply built an interface to connect the computer to the rig. To have to be tested on that would be a waste of time. Odd that the proposer of that seemed to be worried about how much burden was upon the VE's. his proposal would amount to a huge increase in work for them. But then he seemed to say they could refuse to test applicants except in element 2,3,4! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Mike Coslo wrote: Hans K0HB wrote: Joe Speroni, AH0A, has introduced a looney-tune petition, reminiscent of Bob Wexelbaum, W2ILP "Amateur Radio Needs More Tests". Below is my comment to the FCC. 73, de Hans, K0HB ------- Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's ) RM-10808 Rules to Drergulate Testing for Non-Voice ) Mode Allocation for Amateur Radio Licenses ) To: The Commission PERSONAL COMMENTS OF HANS BRAKOB, K0HB OVERVIEW These comments are submitted in response to the petition of Joseph Speroni (AH0A) which requests changes in the qualifications and testing of applicants for new or upgraded licenses in the Amateur Radio Service. I. Discussion: The instant petition requests the elimination of Element 1 (5WPM Morse code test) from the required test for General and/or Extra Class licenses in the Amateur Radio service, and goes on to request that the written examinations (elements 2, 3, and 4) be stripped of all mode-related questions except those pertaining to Phone operation. Persons licensed under this scheme would only be authorized to use Phone emissions, unless they had additionally passed examinations related to other modes. Bizarre. I wonder what the "test" for Hellschrieber or the computer modes would be? Petitioner further proposes that operation in ARES (Amateur Radio Emergency Service) would be restricted to licensees who had passed a written examination on that subject. OY! This person would maybe like to turn Amateur radio into a Fraternity? Signa Fy Nothing? Petitioner also proposes that Volunteer Examiners would only be required to administer the basic written examinations (elements 2, 3, and 4) and could decline to administer any of the proposed mode-related examinations if they felt it were burdensome to them. Okay, so we couldn't operate any other mode besides phone is essentially what he is saying. If we strip mode specific questions, and then VE's only tested for 2, 3, and 4, all the other modes kinda go away, don't they. And this is yet another time I've heard about the great "burden" upon the VE's. Heck it's a volunteer thing. If its too much work, they can find less burdensome things to do with their time. II. Comments: Agreed with all your comments, Hans. In summary, this petition should not be tossed aside lightly. It should be hurled aside with great force. And terminated with great prejudice! And ya'all failed to underestand that the real point to allthis is that NONE of the tests are any more valid than the Morse code test! So you're saying Joe filled his petition as a joke or to be sarcastic then. Not a nice thing to do to the FCC if that was his intent...which I don't believe was his intent. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
|
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a transceiver for RTTY operation?". Clearly AH0A can't understand (or accept) that the RTTY example is "theoretical knowledge" and the Morse test is a test of a mechanical skill ... You mean "a practical skill". Both are valuable to the radio amateur. Whether either should be tested is a matter of opinion, nothing more. But if a person has no interest in RTTY, why should that person be subjected to questions on the subject? Why can't a ham be trusted to learn about RTTY if/when the desire to use that mode arises? RTTY is "just another mode", is it not? There's no requirement for any ham to ever use it. while I don't advocate it, a touch-typing test would be more relevant to the future of ham radio than a Morse test. Why touch-typing? Isn't hunt-and-peck good enough? 5 wpm code is like being able to hunt-and-peck type at 10 wpm, not touch-typing. [snip] Anyway I want to assure you I that I put thought into the petition and sincerely believe that CW testing for CW privileges was a compromise. It appears that AH0A either did not read the R&O in 98-143 and the denials of the Petitions for Reconsideration that were filed, or he didn't understand/accept what the FCC clearly said. Or maybe he just disagrees. FCC's decisions are simply FCC opinion, not some form of absolute proof. (Note what has happened to FCC's decision on broadcast media ownership rules. While something like that won't happen to the amateur rules, it proves the point). Of course it's clear from FCC actions that any petition that *increases* testing complexity is going to have a very very small chance of being acted upon by FCC. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a transceiver for RTTY operation?". Clearly AH0A can't understand (or accept) that the RTTY example is "theoretical knowledge" and the Morse test is a test of a mechanical skill ... You mean "a practical skill". No, I meant "mechanical skill." (touch typing would be in the same category ...) Both are valuable to the radio amateur. Whether either should be tested is a matter of opinion, nothing more. But if a person has no interest in RTTY, why should that person be subjected to questions on the subject? Why can't a ham be trusted to learn about RTTY if/when the desire to use that mode arises? RTTY is "just another mode", is it not? There's no requirement for any ham to ever use it. There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC, it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ... That recommendation is consistent with the basis and purpose of the ARS, both as defined by the FCC and the ITU. While not strictly mandatory, it is provided as "good advice to administrations" on what sorts of theoretical knowledge hams should possess. Carl - wk3c |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC, it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ... Carl, I think that is "irrelevant" in this newsgroup. If it hasn't been officially published by the ARRL, it can't apply at all to amateur radio! :-) That recommendation is consistent with the basis and purpose of the ARS, both as defined by the FCC and the ITU. While not strictly mandatory, it is provided as "good advice to administrations" on what sorts of theoretical knowledge hams should possess. Well, there are SEVEN petitions for rulemaking posted by the FCC for retention of code testing...in addition to the seven posted for the elimination of code testing. Those for code test retention are RM-10805 through RM-10811 inclusive. The most glaring of the "stuck-in-the-past emotional attachment to old ways" is Napurano's RM-10806. A classic, almost, in the gratuitous glorification of morse beyond reasonable bounds of the state of the art of radio of 30 years ago. It exceeds morse glorification of FISTS' RM-10811 document. :-) Roux' petition of RM-10810 is split on code test necessity, only extras having code tests. I've already filed Comments on all 14. The others in here seem content with just jawing and hollering among themselves... :-) LHA |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a transceiver for RTTY operation?". Clearly AH0A can't understand (or accept) that the RTTY example is "theoretical knowledge" and the Morse test is a test of a mechanical skill ... You mean "a practical skill". No, I meant "mechanical skill." (touch typing would be in the same category ...) Both are also practical skills, are they not? Practical as opposed to theoretical. Both are valuable to the radio amateur. Whether either should be tested is a matter of opinion, nothing more. But if a person has no interest in RTTY, why should that person be subjected to questions on the subject? Why can't a ham be trusted to learn about RTTY if/when the desire to use that mode arises? RTTY is "just another mode", is it not? There's no requirement for any ham to ever use it. There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC, it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ... It's just a recommendation, though - not a requirement. That recommendation is consistent with the basis and purpose of the ARS, both as defined by the FCC and the ITU. So is touch typing, knowing Morse code, knowing how to solder, and a whole bunch of other things. While not strictly mandatory, it is provided as "good advice to administrations" on what sorts of theoretical knowledge hams should possess. Sure - but it's just a recommendation. Can we really say that the questions on RTTY in the current written tests really assure that hams have theoretical knowledge of RTTY at the level recommended by M-1544? And note this: When I took my most recent ham exam that counted for a license, the only TOR mode authorized for hams was 60 wpm Baudot code RTTY using FSK or OOK. (Shift had to be less than 900 Hz, as I recall. No PSK-31, no packet, no PACTOR or even AMTOR. Not even ASCII! Back then the power limit was different, repeater rules were very different, and the 30, 17 or 12 meter bands weren't even a distant dream. The technology used in most ham rigs was also very different. And the tests we took back then had lots of things in them that are no longer in the current tests. Neutralization of triode RF power amplifiers, for example..... In the intervening years, FCC has trusted me (and almost every other ham from those days who hasn't lost interest) to keep current with amateur radio. FCC has renewed almost all of our licenses without question, and we're allowed to use those new modes and technologies even though we've never passed any tests on them. If FCC trusts us OTs to learn as we go, why not the new folks? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: Well, there are SEVEN petitions for rulemaking posted by the FCC for retention of code testing...in addition to the seven posted for the elimination of code testing. In the first group, there is only five petitions that request deletion of all code exams. The Beauregard petition, RM-10781, retains the 5 wpm code exam for both General and Extra. The Reich, RM-10784, retains it for Extra. Those for code test retention are RM-10805 through RM-10811 inclusive. The most glaring of the "stuck-in-the-past emotional attachment to old ways" is Napurano's RM-10806. A classic, almost, in the gratuitous glorification of morse beyond reasonable bounds of the state of the art of radio of 30 years ago. It exceeds morse glorification of FISTS' RM-10811 document. :-) Roux' petition of RM-10810 is split on code test necessity, only extras having code tests. I've already filed Comments on all 14. The others in here seem content with just jawing and hollering among themselves... :-) Excellent comments. Thanks for taking the time to file. LK |
"Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC, it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ... Carl, I think that is "irrelevant" in this newsgroup. If it hasn't been officially published by the ARRL, it can't apply at all to amateur radio! :-) Actually, ARRL was instrumental in developing the recomendation and pushing it through WP8A and SG8 ... Carl - wk3c |
|
In article , "lk"
writes: Roux' petition of RM-10810 is split on code test necessity, only extras having code tests. I've already filed Comments on all 14. The others in here seem content with just jawing and hollering among themselves... :-) Excellent comments. Thanks for taking the time to file. Larry, it's interesting to see the "mix" of RMs. Seven essentially for the elimination of the code test, seven essentially for its retention. I observe some deliberate picking of what to make into a released RM on some curious "equal-sized-teams" contest. What the public does NOT get a chance to see easily is how many petitions for change actually arrived at the FCC. All the public can see is what is officially selected for issuance. It's difficult to find out what RMs exist unless there is an ex officio communications means elsewhere to let everyone know. The FCC is attempting to be fair in the "7 versus 7" in my opinion. All are, or were, open for Comment. Comments on 98-143 are still open for Internet access even though those comments were supposed to cease on 15 January 1999. :-) Been about a half thousand comments on 98-143 _since_ official closure. One thing for su The FCC now has a quick and easy procedure for Comment upload from either "manual" entry (on-line) or via prepared documents in five file formats. That's a good thing for all. Making sensible/logical commentary is quite another thing... :-) LHA |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC, it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ... Carl, I think that is "irrelevant" in this newsgroup. If it hasn't been officially published by the ARRL, it can't apply at all to amateur radio! :-) Actually, ARRL was instrumental in developing the recomendation and pushing it through WP8A and SG8 ... Carl, you deserve a bigger hand for helping the changes at WRC-03 regardless of the few ARRL actually involved with Working Group 6 at the FCC. The minutes of those meetings, terribly late in coming, are on public view. I would suppose that ARRL executive-president-for-life Dave Sumner did help change S25 in Geneva. From his reportings to the IARU website - NOT the ARRL web pages - he was NOT expressing any enthusiasm for changing S25 nor showing much bias for either side. It is also evidenciary that IARU policy on code testing had ALREADY shifted to no code test in 2002, almost a year before WRC-03. ARRL public policy statements took a neutral stance, supporting only obediance to federal regulations whatever they would become. That's a clear case of division of opinion within the ARRL upper echelons... the public (and membership) is shielded from internal divisions by the public stance of "neutrality" on code testing. Any sign of internal division in a membership organization (a minority group considering all the licensed amateurs NOT members) shows that ARRL cannot reach any consensus itself! It would then be useless to use any neutral ARRL public policy statement to show a "consensus" opinion on "representation of US amateur opinion." The rest of the radio world goes on advancing to the future. ARRL leadership seems firmly rooted to the past, trying to regain the glory of the executives' and BoD' youth long past. LHA |
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY) writes: FCC disagrees with you, Len. They trust amateurs (like me, whose first amateur radio license arrived in the mail exactly 36 years ago today) to keep on learning as they go. At least enough to know the current regulations. There is NO evidence of such implicit "trust" in all of Title 47 C.F.R., any radio service. Yes, there is, Len. It's expressed every time FCC renews an amateur license without requiring a retest of the licensee. It's expressed every time an amateur puts a non-certified, non-type-approved transmitter on the air and uses it legally. It's expressed every time FCC makes a rules change in the amateur service but does not require any certification that already-licensed hams know about the change and will comply with it. It's expressed in FCC's acceptance of amateurs' use of new modes and technologies without a lengthy approval process. It's expressed by the unprecedented freedom amateurs enjoy in choice of modes, frequencies, power levels, and technologies. The Commission is NOT chartered or organized to be a promoter or booster or provider of emotional sustenance for radio operator license grantees. Sure they are. Amateur radio is lots of fun. That's why I do it. In fact, on this 36th anniversary of the arrival of my Novice license, I'd like to thank the FCC for allowing me to have a tremendous amount of fun and enjoyment on the amateur bands. Radio serivce regulations of ALL radio serivices do not expect emotional, nurturing "trust." Regulations REQUIRE obeyance to the LAW. Disobediance to the law will result in possible arrest, confinement, equipment seizure, and monetary loss. FCC has never done any of that to me. Of course, I've never knowingly broken any FCC regulations. Regulations, the LAW, requires ALL involved to be cognizant of ALL changes which alter relevant LAW. That applies to ALL involved regardless of their total time of involvement. Is there a point to all this hollering of yours? No emotional-level "trust" is involved. Sure there is. I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling every time FCC renews or modifies my license, and accepts me at my word that the information I give them is true and correct. My next renewal is coming up in a few months - wanna bet FCC trusts me for another 10 years? I trust FCC and they trust me. ALL are EXPECTED to obey the EXISTING law and ANY changes in that law as it occurs. You mean like not bootlegging? That is basic to ALL LAW. Is there a point to your lectures? The Federal Communications Commission was created by the United States Congress through the Communications Act of 1934. That act of Congress did NOT specifically center on amateur radio nor did it give any special dispensation in any way to radio amateurs. ALL civil radio services (non-government, non-military) in the United States are regulated by the FCC. Regulation of radio services does not involve "trust." It involves expectation of obeyance of regulations. Failure to obey regulations will result in governmental action to punish offenders. All involved with any radio service activity are governed by regulations applying to that radio service. That is the law. For all. Try not to redifine basic law or governmental regulation...or attempt coloring and distortion of personal activities with emotional sugar-coating of artificial sweetener in a false claim of personal or like-group dilligence and responsibility. Try to stay within one light-year distance of the subject thread instead of misdirecting into personal pettiness of perceived pompousness through false claims. Gee, Len, why don't you try civil discourse? You know, like Carl suggested, hoeny instead of vinegar. And maybe a spellchecker? It's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between your posts and Bruce's. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com