"KØHB" wrote in
hlink.net:


"Leo" wrote

Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

OK, if we can "make believe" that FCC would find it in their heart to
set aside all the valuable spectrum we occupy today "from scratch",
then here is my suggestion for the "New Amateur Radio Rules":

97.1 To get an Amateur Radio license, you are required to pass
a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple
equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of (.....blah,
blah, blah). You will be issued a license and callsign when you
pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when
on the air.

97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna.

97.3 Here are your bands. Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and communicate
and do public service and talk to strangers in far away lands and
launch communications satellites into space and any other cool
technical "radio stuff" you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair.
Deliberate interference, unresolved dirty signals, or other asinine
behavior on your part will cause Riley Hollingsworth to come and
permanently kick your ass off the playground. Have fun.

Love always,
/signed/ FCC




Sounds like a decent set of rules. Put the actual bands down in a separate
schedule, word it a little more formally, and write a petition to go with
it. I'll support it.

73 de N3KIP

BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes, don't
you? It's always been that way, too.

On 24 Oct 2003 00:53:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

Sounds like a decent set of rules. Put the actual bands down in a separate
schedule, word it a little more formally, and write a petition to go with
it. I'll support it.

Sounds to me like the "comic book rules" (disguised as "plain
language rules") that the scholars and wonders at the then-new
Consumer Affairs Task Force of the FCC tried to institute in 1976
after their spectacular victory in rewriting Part 95 Subpart D (the
CB Rules) in the same "lowest common denominator" (also known as
"Illiteracy for Dummies") style. They tried running it up the
flagpole and it was resoundingly shot down by both the professional
regulators and the knowledgeable amateur community.

The head of that operation - who up to that time had no idea of what
and how the FCC was supposed to do for a living, much like the
recent crop of appointees and promotees - then tried coming out to
our field office and telling us how we were doing everything all
wrong. In return, we requested that our Bureau Chief do all he
could to ensure that those fools stayed out of our face and off our
property in the future. The person running that operation got the
same message from wherever she visited, and soon left the agency.

"Those who will not learn from history will be doomed to repeat it...."

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 24 Oct 2003 00:53:40 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

Sounds like a decent set of rules. Put the actual bands down in a separate
schedule, word it a little more formally, and write a petition to go with
it. I'll support it.

Sounds to me like the "comic book rules" (disguised as "plain
language rules") that the scholars and wonders at the then-new
Consumer Affairs Task Force of the FCC tried to institute in 1976
after their spectacular victory in rewriting Part 95 Subpart D (the
CB Rules) in the same "lowest common denominator" (also known as
"Illiteracy for Dummies") style. They tried running it up the
flagpole and it was resoundingly shot down by both the professional
regulators and the knowledgeable amateur community.

The head of that operation - who up to that time had no idea of what
and how the FCC was supposed to do for a living, much like the
recent crop of appointees and promotees - then tried coming out to
our field office and telling us how we were doing everything all
wrong. In return, we requested that our Bureau Chief do all he
could to ensure that those fools stayed out of our face and off our
property in the future. The person running that operation got the
same message from wherever she visited, and soon left the agency.

"Those who will not learn from history will be doomed to repeat it...."

Subpart D of 95 was rewritten to its present form way back in '76?

Gosh, that's 27 years ago!

Nobody tried to change it back to lawyerspeak since then?

:-)

LHA

Alun Palmer wrote

BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes

ITU doesn't "require", they only "recommend".

73, Hans, K0HB

(Hans K0HB) wrote in message . com...
Alun Palmer wrote

BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes

ITU doesn't "require", they only "recommend".

73, Hans, K0HB

Did they only "recommend" a "knowledge of morse code?"

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...

: BTW, you do know that the ITU only requires ID every _15_ minutes, don't
: you? It's always been that way, too.

If you're speaking of the ITU (nee CCITT) headquartered over here in Geneva,
their regulations reads:

S25.9 2) During the course of their transmissions, amateur stations shall
transmit their call sign at short intervals.

In your imaginations perhaps that short interval is 15 minutes. In your YL
imagination it perhaps that short interval is several weeks.

73, Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte

"All persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental, and should not be
construed."