Alun wrote in message . ..
"Bert Craig" wrote in
t:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net...
Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents on
public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the change,
and how many want to keep the code.

Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was
a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long as
quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the bejesus
out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet licensed.

But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The big
bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their no-code Tech
ticket and executing a vote.

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To give
those "yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the process.) and
send a ballot out to all those licensed "of record." Makes too much
sense and requires some effort. IOW, against the contemporary trend.

73 de Bert
WA2SI




Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are just
as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I.

I agree, Alun. The Technician license requires no code test.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Alun wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote in
. net:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net...
Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents
on public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the
change, and how many want to keep the code.

Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there
was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long
as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the
bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet
licensed.

But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The big
bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their no-code
Tech ticket and executing a vote.

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To
give those "yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the
process.) and send a ballot out to all those licensed "of record."
Makes too much sense and requires some effort. IOW, against the
contemporary trend.

73 de Bert
WA2SI




Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are
just as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I.

Sure - nobody is saying that should change.

However, note that there has been an amateur radio license with no code
test available here in the USA for almost 13 years now. That license
gives full VHF/UHF operating privileges and requires only a 35 question
written test.

A code test is only required for access to the HF/MF amateur bands.

So anyone who wants to obtain an amateur license can do so without any
code test.

73 de Jim, N2EY





Technically, that's true, but there's no longer any ITU requirement for a
code test for any band. I think at one time there were a lot of people who
wanted HF who would have been waiting for the code test to go. This is
probably no longer true, as the hobby has lost a lot of it's popularity
since the Internet, and as the test speed is now only 5wpm.

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.

I heartily disagree. While ARO's may not be the only "interested"
parties, they are the party that currently defines the hobby/service
from a cultural standpoint. Thus, licensed ARO's are the constituenct
that must lean on those who define the hobby/service from a regulatory
standpoint, the FCC.

Wow, is a 35 multiple-choice question written, for which the Q&A pool
is published, really too much to ask for the Carefully chosen words
follow, don't miss 'em. *right* to vote concerning the *requirements*
to *earn* *privileges?!*

Perhaps the path is clearer than we thought.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Do you think we'd still have code testing in the USA today if, back in
1998,
there had been an overwhelming majority of support for NCI's "5 wpm and
sunset
clause" idea?

Yes, I do ... because the FCC was bound by S25.5 of the ITU Radio
Regulations.
(The ONLY reason they gave for keeping the 5 wpm requirement at the
time.)

You misunderstood me, Carl. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Note that I wrote "still have code testing in the USA today" (emphasis on
"today")

IIRC, NCI asked for 5 wpm right away and a sunset clause that would dump
Element 1 if/when S25.5 removed the treaty requirement. FCC did the 5 wpm
thing
but did not enact the sunset provision.

Actually, we asked them to be rid of code testing then, or, in the
alternative if
they could not find a legitimate "out" on S25.5, to drop the code test to
the
minimum they thought necessary to meet that obligation and enact a sunset
clause.

My point was that I think if there had been overwhelming support of both
parts
of the NCI proposal, FCC would have done the sunset clause thing and code
testing would have disappeeared in the USA more than five months ago.
YMMV.

NCI asked the FCC to eliminate code testing if they could see their way
clear,
but we frankly were not surprised by the outcome.

Was there not a request for a sunset clause that would do it
automatically?

Yes, but we weren't surprised that they did not adopt it ... the agency
typically
doesn't like to prejudge the future ...
however, the old addage "Don't ask, don't get." has some truth to it ... so
we asked anyway.

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article , Alun
writes:

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.

Who are the non-hams who are interested in the code test issue?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bert Craig wrote:
Alun wrote in message . ..


some snippage


Technically, that's true, but there's no longer any ITU requirement for a
code test for any band. I think at one time there were a lot of people who
wanted HF who would have been waiting for the code test to go. This is
probably no longer true, as the hobby has lost a lot of it's popularity
since the Internet, and as the test speed is now only 5wpm.

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.


I heartily disagree. While ARO's may not be the only "interested"
parties, they are the party that currently defines the hobby/service
from a cultural standpoint. Thus, licensed ARO's are the constituenct
that must lean on those who define the hobby/service from a regulatory
standpoint, the FCC.

Wow, is a 35 multiple-choice question written, for which the Q&A pool
is published, really too much to ask for the Carefully chosen words
follow, don't miss 'em. *right* to vote concerning the *requirements*
to *earn* *privileges?!*

Perhaps the path is clearer than we thought.


There will always be some for whom any amount of testing is too much.
Right now, we're sort of catering to that group.

After all almost everyone uses a two-way radio now, and we don't have to
be very smart to use a cell phone, (proven every day) do we? So why are
all those stuck-up Hams making like they are so hot and smart? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote

Who are the non-hams who are interested in the code test issue?

Why that's pretty simple, Jim, I'm surprised you didn't know. It's all
those non-hams who might consider becoming licensed.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote

However, no matter how interested someone is in politics, that person can
*only* vote where he/she resides. IOW the price of voting is having to
join a
community by living there.

Your analogy remains flaccid. Amateur radio exists in the community in
which we all live. It has an effect on all of us, whether we are licensed
or not, and the regulations concerning qualification to participate in it
even more so.

My friend, W4OYI, ex-President of ARRL, compares the ARS to a public park; a
place in the spectrum set aside for citizens to pursue the avocation of
radio. What you are proposing is that persons already in this 'park' by
virtue of having paid some entry price be the only ones allowed to vote on
the conditions under which other citizens can fully participate in every
area of park activities. IOW, "I got mine, now you get yours, and then you
can vote."

Or consider the recent election of a movie actor with no experience as a
government official to the governorship of California.

Are you suggesting that "experience as a government official" should be a
qualification for election to office in the USA? The Constitution contains
no such language. My daughter was recently elected to public office, and
she has no previous experience as a government official. Should she and
Arnold be denied their office? Should only existing or previous government
officials be allowed to be elected?

Or should there be some sort of 'incentive licensing' of government
officials in which you must first be elected to an entry level office, let's
say Canine Capture Technician. Then after gaining the skill and experience
to capture 5 dogs per minute, they be allowed to run for office at some more
responsible level, all the way up to President, and only those already
elected would be allowed to vote for them? What a concept!

The fact that you have an amateur license suggests
that you will have an opinion about amateur radio
regulation, but it gives no credence in and of
itself whether your opinion is or is not worthy of consideration.

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

....we could go on and on....

In general, what happens to the amateur radio service has a greater effect
on
licensed amateurs and those who want to be licensed amateurs than on the
general public.

But we weren't talking about "in general". Wahtoosey was proposing a poll
to vote on the code test as a qualfication for entry (to HF). Since you
"already have yours", such a poll (were it binding on FCC) would not effect
your entry into amateur radio, but would have a far greater effect on those
not yet licensed (the general public). Thus we could much more convincingly
argue that you should *not* be eligible to vote in the poll, but the general
(non-licensed) public *should* be eligible.

One word: motivation.

Ah, yes, the old "motivation" card. We dealt with that back in 1996 at

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....mn.org&oe= U
TF-8&output=gplain


Who are the people who would want to participate in a one-time survey on
Morse
code testing but who cannot even pass the Technician written test?

Wahtoosey didn't suggest a 'survey'. He talks about a poll where people
vote and democracy rules.

And the discussion was not about those who 'cannot even pass'. It was about
those who (for whatever reason of their own) have not become licensees.
More of your "I've got mine, now you get yours" mindset showing.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

Alun wrote in message . ..
(Bert Craig) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
"Bert Craig" wrote in
t:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net...
Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents
on public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the
change, and how many want to keep the code.

Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there
was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long
as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the
bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet
licensed.

But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The
big bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their
no-code Tech ticket and executing a vote.

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To
give those "yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the
process.) and send a ballot out to all those licensed "of record."
Makes too much sense and requires some effort. IOW, against the
contemporary trend.

73 de Bert
WA2SI




Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are
just as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I.

I agree, Alun. The Technician license requires no code test.

73 de Bert
WA2SI


True, but some don't take it because they only want HF, not because they
couldn't answer the questions. All I'm saying is that they should have a
vote in any poll.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Hmm, sounds like a motivational issue. If you want HF, the road to the
General and Extra begins with the Technician exam...no matter what. If
they're truly "interested" in participating in participating in the
process of this change, you'd think the Tech exam would be...wait a
sec, lemme stop. I just remembered whom we're talking about. Kinda
sad. :-(

No, Alun. I really DO believe that Amateur Radio operators should
define Amateur Radio. What a concept, eh?

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote

No, Alun. I really DO believe that Amateur Radio operators should
define Amateur Radio. What a concept, eh?

Let the participants alone write the rules? They have that concept live on
27MHz. Be careful what you wish for.... you might get it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

However, no matter how interested someone is in politics, that person can
*only* vote where he/she resides. IOW the price of voting is having to
join a community by living there.

Your analogy remains flaccid.

Your description of my analogy remains inaccurate.

Amateur radio exists in the community in
which we all live. It has an effect on all of us, whether we are licensed
or not, and the regulations concerning qualification to participate in it
even more so.

The regulations affect those who are hams the most.

My friend, W4OYI, ex-President of ARRL, compares the ARS to a public park; a
place in the spectrum set aside for citizens to pursue the avocation of
radio.

That's a passable analogy.

In most of the public parks I know, what you can do is limited. And
you need a permit/license to do certain things in the park.

What you are proposing is that persons already in this 'park' by
virtue of having paid some entry price be the only ones allowed to vote on
the conditions under which other citizens can fully participate in every
area of park activities. IOW, "I got mine, now you get yours, and then you
can vote."

No, that's not it at all. You misunderstand what Bert and I are
saying.

What we're saying is that on the single issue of continued Morse code
testing, it would be interesting to know what the opinions of *all*
licensed US hams, (not just a vocal minority) really are. That
includes amateurs of *all* license classes, not just those who have
passed a code test.

To use your park analogy, it's like polling those who actually use a
park whether a specific change should be made.

Nowhere is it proposed that the ability of others to comment would be
changed.

Of course this is simply a discussion point because there's no one who
would actually pay the expenses to conduct such a poll.

Or consider the recent election of a movie actor with no experience as a
government official to the governorship of California.

Are you suggesting that "experience as a government official" should be a
qualification for election to office in the USA?

Nope.

I'm saying that I find it incredible that the allegedly most qualified
candidate for the highest office in the most populous and most in debt
state in
the Union is a movie actor with no real experience as a government
official.

The Constitution contains
no such language.

I know. And nowhere do I say it should be a requirement. But do you
*really* think the new governor is going to better than the old one?

My daughter was recently elected to public office, and
she has no previous experience as a government official.

Did she start out as Governor or as something with a little less
responsibility?

Should she and
Arnold be denied their office?

Nope. The electorate will get what they asked for.

Should only existing or previous government
officials be allowed to be elected?

Not at all.

Do you really think the new governor of California is the most
qualified for the job? I don't.

But because I don't live there, I can't vote there.

Or should there be some sort of 'incentive licensing' of government
officials in which you must first be elected to an entry level office, let's
say Canine Capture Technician. Then after gaining the skill and experience
to capture 5 dogs per minute, they be allowed to run for office at some more
responsible level, all the way up to President, and only those already
elected would be allowed to vote for them? What a concept!

How about the electorate considering qualifications?

The fact that you have an amateur license suggests
that you will have an opinion about amateur radio
regulation, but it gives no credence in and of
itself whether your opinion is or is not worthy of consideration.

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

...we could go on and on....

No we couldn't.

In general, what happens to the amateur radio service has a greater effect
on
licensed amateurs and those who want to be licensed amateurs than on the
general public.

But we weren't talking about "in general".

OK - then talk about the specific case of a specific poll, which was
what WA2SI was proposing.

Wahtoosey was proposing a poll
to vote on the code test as a qualfication for entry (to HF). Since you
"already have yours", such a poll (were it binding on FCC) would not effect
your entry into amateur radio, but would have a far greater effect on those
not yet licensed (the general public).

Who said it would be binding on the FCC?

And remember the other conditions of the poll: *Any* ham would have
the same vote.

Thus we could much more convincingly
argue that you should *not* be eligible to vote in the poll, but the general
(non-licensed) public *should* be eligible.

By that same logic, you should not be allowed to propose your
two-class learner permit system, because you've already "got yours".
And you "got yours" under far less draconian rules than you propose
for others.

One word: motivation.

Ah, yes, the old "motivation" card. We dealt with that back in 1996 at

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....mn.org&oe= U
TF-8&output=gplain

I wasn't online back then. Besides, would you want things to always
remain as they were in 1996?


Who are the people who would want to participate in a one-time survey on
Morse
code testing but who cannot even pass the Technician written test?

Wahtoosey

WHO?

didn't suggest a 'survey'. He talks about a poll where people
vote and democracy rules.

Is that bad? Are you against direct democracy and polling of those
most affected?

And the discussion was not about those who 'cannot even pass'. It was about
those who (for whatever reason of their own) have not become licensees.

You're avoiding the central issue. I think you know that if such a
poll were actually taken, you might not like the results.

More of your "I've got mine, now you get yours" mindset showing.

Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage others to EARN theirs. Is that bad?
Shall I apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly by while others
try to trash a community I belong to?

Not gonna happen, Hans. No matter how much you try to twist what I
wrote.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage others to EARN theirs. Is that bad?
Shall I apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly by while others
try to trash a community I belong to?


Well, I knew it would all eventually get down to that simple statement.

(To focus "on topic", the question was if there should
be a vote on whether or not the FCC should retain
Morse code as a test for HF licensing.)

N2EY asserts he has EARNED his HF access, presumably because he passed a
Morse test, and he encourages others to EARN it by the same means. I
support his right to have that opinion, and he need not apologize for it.

What I do not support is his assertion that 'others' (IOW, those who do not
share his opinion on Morse testing) are trying to 'trash' amateur radio.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: N2EY pleads ignorance about the 1966 statement on this topic since he
was "not online", so I will take the liberty to repeat it here.




















-----

Hang around here long enough, and you will see someone write
something like:

" A really tough written test would surely separate those who
really have an interest in the hobby.", or..

" Other, more relevant, methods can establish an applicant's
dedication to the service.", or..

" ..... the key to maintaining the quality of hamming
is making it something to work for."

All of the above quotations, gathered from a recent thread,
were made by serious and well-intentioned licensees who want the
best for the Amateur Radio Service.

All of the above quotations also completely miss the mark, in
that they suggest that the examination process is the key to
ensuring that "the right kind of people" (those who are "worthy")
become licensed and, by extension, that "the wrong kind of people"
get filtered out.

First, the testing procedure is an "entrance" exam, not a
"graduation" exam.

Second, while "interest", "dedication", and "hard work" are
certainly hallmarks of good amateurs, the FCC and ITU regulations
do not specify levels of interest, dedication, hard work or other
measures of "worthiness" as requisites for a license. Therefor it
is not the function of the examination process to determine (even
if it could) if an applicant is "worthy" but rather to determine if
he/she is QUALIFIED to use the spectrum assigned. There should
be no "dumbing down", but neither can there be a requirement
that the examination process screens out lack of commitment.

Don't get me wrong here folks. I believe that the examination
process ought to be rigorous enough to determine proper knowledge
and skills so that a new licensee does not inadvertently trash the
bands, hurt themselves, or harm other users/uses of the spectrum,
but I have no expectation that the examination can filter out
"unworthy" applicants.

Even if it could, who then would become the arbiter of
"worthy"?








: Not gonna happen, Hans. No matter how much you try to twist what I
: wrote.
:
: 73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in news:20031121082829.07578.00001764@mb-
m25.aol.com:

In article , Alun
writes:

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.

Who are the non-hams who are interested in the code test issue?

73 de Jim, N2EY




Anyone who has been thinking of becoming a ham, I would imagine

Maybe a fellow like Leonard H. Anderson! He's been mulling it over for
decades.

Dave K8MN

"KØHB" wrote:

"N2EY" wrote

However, no matter how interested someone is in politics, that person can
*only* vote where he/she resides. IOW the price of voting is having to
join a
community by living there.

Your analogy remains flaccid. Amateur radio exists in the community in
which we all live. It has an effect on all of us, whether we are licensed
or not, and the regulations concerning qualification to participate in it
even more so.

I can't agree, Hans. My cousin lives down the road a few miles and runs
the local pharmacy. Ham radio has no effect on his life at all. He has
several employees. They too are completely uneffected by amateur radio.
None of them know anything about amateur radio or care a whit about
amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote

My cousin lives down the road a few miles and runs
the local pharmacy. Ham radio has no effect
on his life at all.
.....
None of them know anything about amateur
radio or care a whit about amateur radio.


And you still allow him to remain your cousin! You should be ashamed!

73, de Hans, K0HB

N2EY wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...

"N2EY" wrote


However, no matter how interested someone is in politics, that person can
*only* vote where he/she resides. IOW the price of voting is having to
join a community by living there.

Your analogy remains flaccid.


Your description of my analogy remains inaccurate.

ahhh, flaccidity!


Amateur radio exists in the community in
which we all live. It has an effect on all of us, whether we are licensed
or not, and the regulations concerning qualification to participate in it
even more so.


The regulations affect those who are hams the most.

I always thought that self determination was a good thing.

My friend, W4OYI, ex-President of ARRL, compares the ARS to a public park; a
place in the spectrum set aside for citizens to pursue the avocation of
radio.


That's a passable analogy.

In most of the public parks I know, what you can do is limited. And
you need a permit/license to do certain things in the park.


What you are proposing is that persons already in this 'park' by
virtue of having paid some entry price be the only ones allowed to vote on
the conditions under which other citizens can fully participate in every
area of park activities. IOW, "I got mine, now you get yours, and then you
can vote."


No, that's not it at all. You misunderstand what Bert and I are
saying.

Not to mention, a drastic oversimplification of the whole subject.
Comparison of a technical avocation such as the ARS to something like
buying a pavilion permit so you can have a picnic in one, falls apart
pretty quickly.


What we're saying is that on the single issue of continued Morse code
testing, it would be interesting to know what the opinions of *all*
licensed US hams, (not just a vocal minority) really are. That
includes amateurs of *all* license classes, not just those who have
passed a code test.

But they might not like what they hear.

To use your park analogy, it's like polling those who actually use a
park whether a specific change should be made.

DOH!

Nowhere is it proposed that the ability of others to comment would be
changed.

Of course this is simply a discussion point because there's no one who
would actually pay the expenses to conduct such a poll.

Or consider the recent election of a movie actor with no experience as a
government official to the governorship of California.

Are you suggesting that "experience as a government official" should be a
qualification for election to office in the USA?


Nope.

I'm saying that I find it incredible that the allegedly most qualified
candidate for the highest office in the most populous and most in debt
state in
the Union is a movie actor with no real experience as a government
official.

I think it fits like a glove! Loonyland is a unique place, and needs to
be governed by unique people.


The Constitution contains
no such language.


I know. And nowhere do I say it should be a requirement. But do you
*really* think the new governor is going to better than the old one?

He has more experience wit' the ladies!

Am I the only one that sees the amazing hypocrisy in that little gem?

a whole bunch of snippage


You're avoiding the central issue. I think you know that if such a
poll were actually taken, you might not like the results.

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines". I'm just about
certain that the more non-amateurs included in any poll, the lower the
support for Morse code, and vice versa.

Let's have NASCAR fans determine ARS policy. And we can determine
NASCAR's rules. 8^)

More of your "I've got mine, now you get yours" mindset showing.

Perhaps "I've got mine, here is yours, have fun!" would be more
appropriate?


Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage others to EARN theirs. Is that bad?
Shall I apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly by while others
try to trash a community I belong to?

Not gonna happen, Hans. No matter how much you try to twist what I
wrote.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote in
:

Alun wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in news:20031121082829.07578.00001764@mb-
m25.aol.com:

In article , Alun
writes:

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.

Who are the non-hams who are interested in the code test issue?

73 de Jim, N2EY




Anyone who has been thinking of becoming a ham, I would imagine

Maybe a fellow like Leonard H. Anderson! He's been mulling it over for
decades.

Dave K8MN


Sure, why not? I think the FCC should even take his point of view into
account.

"KØHB" wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote

My cousin lives down the road a few miles and runs
the local pharmacy. Ham radio has no effect
on his life at all.
.....
None of them know anything about amateur
radio or care a whit about amateur radio.

And you still allow him to remain your cousin! You should be ashamed!

The answer is quite simple. I get my prescriptions at cost.

Dave K8MN

Alun wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in
:

Alun wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in news:20031121082829.07578.00001764@mb-
m25.aol.com:

In article , Alun
writes:

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.

Who are the non-hams who are interested in the code test issue?

73 de Jim, N2EY




Anyone who has been thinking of becoming a ham, I would imagine

Maybe a fellow like Leonard H. Anderson! He's been mulling it over for
decades.


Sure, why not? I think the FCC should even take his point of view into
account.

The Commission is forced by law to accept his input. Nothing forces the
FCC to act on it.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil"

The answer is quite simple. I get my prescriptions at cost.

Are you retired Fed guys eligible for TMOP? Check it out. If you are,
you'll dump your cousin in a hurry.

73, Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) What we're saying is that on the single
issue of continued Morse code testing, (snip)

(snip) Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage
others to EARN theirs. Is that bad? Shall I
apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly
by while others try to trash a community I
belong to?


If what you're demanding to "earn" that license is unnecessary and based
on a false premise, then I think it is bad. You haven't established, at
least not to my satisfaction (nor the satisfaction of the ITU, FCC, and
several countries around the world), why Morse code is necessary (notice I
said necessary, not enjoyable) for ham radio today. And there is no truth
whatsoever to the premise that those without code skills in the ham radio
community are trashing anything. Instead, the vast majority are dedicated,
well-behaved, enthusiastic, participants of this community.

Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving, forward to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States sits
back and watches. Is this the actions of a modern, progressive, country with
feet planted firmly on today and eyes on the future? It's time to move on,
Jim. Morse code is going to be even less necessary in the future. As such,
Morse Code testing has no ligitimate place in that future.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
N2EY wrote:
(snip) Is that bad? Are you against direct
democracy and polling of those most affected?

(snip) You're avoiding the central issue. I think
you know that if such a poll were actually taken,
you might not like the results. (snip)

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines".
I'm just about certain that the more non-amateurs
included in any poll, the lower the support for
Morse code, and vice versa.


I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.
This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans). As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

As for myself, if you're going to ask Amateur Radio Operators if code
testing is necessary today to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service (as defined in Part 97) and serves some valid need as far as
the American public is concerned, then I would love to see the results of
that poll - it would be very interesting to see how many (or how few)
operators would actually place the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, and the needs of the American public, above their own desire to
keep a code testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bert Craig" wrote:

(snip) No, Alun. I really DO believe that
Amateur Radio operators should define
Amateur Radio. What a concept, eh?


And where does the rest of the American people fall into that, Bert? The
frequencies we use belong to all Americans, not just us. Do you plan to take
them into account when defining Amateur Radio, like the FCC must do when
regulating this radio service (including it's license requirements)?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Alun wrote in message . ..
Dave Heil wrote in
:

Alun wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in news:20031121082829.07578.00001764@mb-
m25.aol.com:

In article , Alun
writes:

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.

Who are the non-hams who are interested in the code test issue?

73 de Jim, N2EY




Anyone who has been thinking of becoming a ham, I would imagine

Maybe a fellow like Leonard H. Anderson! He's been mulling it over for
decades.

Dave K8MN


Sure, why not? I think the FCC should even take his point of view into
account.

Some of us are even counting on it. ;-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article , Alun
writes:

However, ham radio is not a job or a vocation, just a hobby.

For many hams that's true.

But does that mean there should be no standards or requirements to join?

I welcome the
unmotivated as much as I would welcome anyone else. Why shouldn't they
have fun too?

OK, fine.

What do you think of this idea, Alun:

Require all new hams to pass the Extra written in 10 years or less or they get
tossed off the amateur bands.

Is that a good idea or a bad idea?

If someone wants HF and doesn't want to learn code, why
should they bother to study for a VHF and above licence, when they could
be scuba diving or building model railroads or what have you? (Not hobbies
of mine, personally, but whatever turns you on). I know this is sacrilege
to true beleivers, but so what?

OK, fine.

If someone wants to operate radios rather than build them, why must they learn
a lot of theory stuff that they are not interested in? To suit someone else's
idea of what amateur radio should be?

Why is a Technician Plus class licensee qualified to do anything allowed by the
rules on 2 meters, but not on 20 meters? What special knowledge is imparted by
the General and Extra class written tests?

The notion that only hams should decide the future of ham radio is just
that, a notion. I can absolutely guarantee that it is not a point of view
shared by the FCC, and it makes little sense to me either. At the very
least all prospective hams have a vested interest, irregardless of the
reasons they don't have a licence, reasonable or otherwise. I'm sure the
FCC would cast their net a lot wider than that.

Actually the FCC won't cast their net at all. They don't do polls or surveys -
just comments, petitions and proposals.

How many comments did the last restructuring get - 2500? Almost all of them
were from already-licensed hams. Less than 1/2 of 1%, too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) What we're saying is that on the single
issue of continued Morse code testing, (snip)

(snip) Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage
others to EARN theirs. Is that bad? Shall I
apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly
by while others try to trash a community I
belong to?


If what you're demanding to "earn" that license is unnecessary and based
on a false premise, then I think it is bad.

OK, fine.

You haven't established, at
least not to my satisfaction (nor the satisfaction of the ITU, FCC, and
several countries around the world), why Morse code is necessary (notice I
said necessary, not enjoyable) for ham radio today.

You mean the code itself, or the test?

And there is no truth
whatsoever to the premise that those without code skills in the ham radio
community are trashing anything. Instead, the vast majority are dedicated,
well-behaved, enthusiastic, participants of this community.

I wasn't just talking about the end of code testing "trashing ham radio". There
are a lot of other bad ideas out there.

Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving, forward to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States sits
back and watches.

What's the count now?

How many countries have eliminated the code test, vs. how many have retained it
so far?

Is this the actions of a modern, progressive, country with
feet planted firmly on today and eyes on the future?

What does all that mean, exactly? Besides the removal of the last remaining
vestige of code testing?

It's time to move on, Jim.

To what?

Let's say that tomorrow FCC just dumps Element 1. One sentence: "Element 1 is
waived for all applicants, pending revision of the rules". Could happen,
y'know.

What happens next?

Morse code is going to be even less necessary in the future. As such,
Morse Code testing has no ligitimate place in that future.

My mileage varies on that...

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.
This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans). As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

Almost all Americans can become hams without a code test. Been that way for
almost 13 years.

As for myself, if you're going to ask Amateur Radio Operators if code
testing is necessary today to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service (as defined in Part 97) and serves some valid need as far as
the American public is concerned, then I would love to see the results of
that poll - it would be very interesting to see how many (or how few)
operators would actually place the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, and the needs of the American public, above their own desire to
keep a code testing requirement.

So you assume that the goals and purposes of the ARS are incompatible with any
code testing at all?

And let's consider a basic principle of Hans' "learner's permit" proposal:
forced upgrading.

If FCC adopted his proposal, all new hams would have to either get Extras
within 10 years or leave ham radio. He's said that if 80% of newcomers drop out
under such a system, that's OK with him.

IOW, a 5 wpm code test is an unreasonable burden, but having to pass the Extra
written within isn't.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

What special knowledge is imparted by
the General and Extra class written tests?

The tests aren't designed to 'impart' knowledge. They are designed to
determine if an applicant meets some predetermined minimum qualifications
for the level of license being sought. (I'd have thought you knew that.)



What do you think of this idea, Alun:

Require all new hams to pass the Extra written in 10
years or less or they get tossed off the amateur bands.

I don't know what Alun thinks, but I think it is a superb idea. In fact,
I've suggested it to the regulators.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote

IOW, a 5 wpm code test is an unreasonable burden, but having to
pass the Extra written within isn't.

You finally got it! Congratulations, Jim. That's almost absolutely
correct, and would be spot-on accurate if you change the word 'unreasonable'
to 'unnecessary'.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:


"Alun" wrote in message
...

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.


How would you then define the group to be polled? Even polling just
the licensed hams would be prohibitive in terms of postage as mentioned
in other posts.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure of
that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where you click
your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem, though.


Yeah I don't think they have internet access in their grave yards yet.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Alun
writes:

(Bert Craig) wrote in
. com:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
(Bert Craig) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
"Bert Craig" wrote in
t:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net...
Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS
documents on public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the
change, and how many want to keep the code.

Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if
there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed
hams. As long as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy)
frightens the bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for
those not yet licensed.

But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The
big bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their
no-code Tech ticket and executing a vote.

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To
give those "yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the
process.) and send a ballot out to all those licensed "of
record." Makes too much sense and requires some effort. IOW,
against the contemporary trend.

73 de Bert
WA2SI




Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are
just as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I.

I agree, Alun. The Technician license requires no code test.

73 de Bert
WA2SI


True, but some don't take it because they only want HF, not because
they couldn't answer the questions. All I'm saying is that they should
have a vote in any poll.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Hmm, sounds like a motivational issue. If you want HF, the road to the
General and Extra begins with the Technician exam...no matter what. If
they're truly "interested" in participating in participating in the
process of this change, you'd think the Tech exam would be...wait a
sec, lemme stop. I just remembered whom we're talking about. Kinda
sad. :-(

No, Alun. I really DO believe that Amateur Radio operators should
define Amateur Radio. What a concept, eh?

73 de Bert
WA2SI


Well, I guess that's a religeous issue, so I won't be able to convince you
otherwise.

If you look me up you'll see I'm an Extra, and you'll be able to figure
out that I passed 20 wpm. What you won't see, is that I've been a ham
since 1980, not 1992, as I'm not originally from this country.

Alun, with all due respect, such experience ist VERBOTEN in this
chat room.

The requirement to exist in this chat room requires a struct obediance
to morsemanship, tradition forever rooted in old ways back before all
the morseodist regulars ever existed.

However, ham radio is not a job or a vocation, just a hobby.

In this chat room, the REGULARS maintain a LIFESTYLE of devotion,
obediance to love honor and obey amateur radio in all its past glory.

LIFESTYLES take precedence over logic, common sense, and
anything else not associated with amateur radio (except Michael
Jackson, foreign policy, overall economic decisions by government
and partisan politics).

Ham radio to the regulars is far more than a vocation. Vocations
in radio are to be pejorated, denigrated, spat upon, reviled, made fun
of and other niceties of the TURF where chat room homies consider
their 'hood.

There are NO First Amendment "rights" for chat room homies.
Their only constitution is that of the ARRL. E pluribus Sumner..

I welcome the
unmotivated as much as I would welcome anyone else. Why shouldn't they
have fun too? If someone wants HF and doesn't want to learn code, why
should they bother to study for a VHF and above licence, when they could
be scuba diving or building model railroads or what have you? (Not hobbies
of mine, personally, but whatever turns you on). I know this is sacrilege
to true beleivers, but so what?

So, Alun, such heretical statements against the True Beliefs of the
morseodist chat room homies are, and will be, reviled, castigated,
denigrated, and shown the door with an angry last phrase of "don't
let it hit your ass on the way out!"

THIS venue is the chat room homies' TURF, Alun. Territorial imperative.

None can venture into this place unless they are of Groupthink,
secure in their Beliefs of the Group.

The notion that only hams should decide the future of ham radio is just
that, a notion.

NOT here. This is morseodist TURF, their neighborhood. NONE may
challenge morseodist groupthink. NONE.

I can absolutely guarantee that it is not a point of view
shared by the FCC, and it makes little sense to me either.

Heresy.

All know that ham radio is governed by the BoD at Newington.

So it shall always be.

Amen.

dit dit

snip
Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving, forward
to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States
sits back and watches.

What's the count now?

I think they include at least the UK, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Australia (not until
Jan 1st). New Zealand may actually do it before Australia, as they have
said it would be before the end of the year, but have given no date. I am
pretty sure I have missed a couple out, too.


How many countries have eliminated the code test, vs. how many have
retained it so far?


Most do still retain it, but I think this has far more to do with
bureaucracy than intent

Is this the actions of a modern, progressive, country with feet planted
firmly on today and eyes on the future?

What does all that mean, exactly? Besides the removal of the last
remaining vestige of code testing?

It's time to move on, Jim.

To what?

Let's say that tomorrow FCC just dumps Element 1. One sentence:
"Element 1 is waived for all applicants, pending revision of the
rules". Could happen, y'know.


Probably will

What happens next?


Lots of upgrades, plus no-coders on 10m the next day

Morse code is going to be even less necessary in the future. As such,
Morse Code testing has no ligitimate place in that future.

My mileage varies on that...

73 de Jim, N2EY




73 de Alun, N3KIP

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
Actually the FCC won't cast their net at all. They don't do polls or
surveys -
just comments, petitions and proposals.

How many comments did the last restructuring get - 2500? Almost all of
them
were from already-licensed hams. Less than 1/2 of 1%, too.

Actually one could consider the opportunity to post comments as functionally
equivalent to a poll. Anyone can file a comment, licensed or not, citizen
or not. That's as democratic as it gets.

All interested persons have the opportunity to know that these issues are up
for comment since they are listed on publicly available government pages.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

IOW, a 5 wpm code test is an unreasonable burden, but having to
pass the Extra written within isn't.

You finally got it! Congratulations, Jim. That's almost absolutely
correct, and would be spot-on accurate if you change the word
'unreasonable'
to 'unnecessary'.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Having to pass the Extra is both unreasonable and unnecessary to be a ham or
remain a ham.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Alun wrote in
:

snip
Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving,
forward to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States
sits back and watches.

What's the count now?

I think they include at least the UK, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland,
the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Australia (not
until Jan 1st). New Zealand may actually do it before Australia, as
they have said it would be before the end of the year, but have given
no date. I am pretty sure I have missed a couple out, too.


How many countries have eliminated the code test, vs. how many have
retained it so far?


Most do still retain it, but I think this has far more to do with
bureaucracy than intent

Is this the actions of a modern, progressive, country with feet
planted firmly on today and eyes on the future?

What does all that mean, exactly? Besides the removal of the last
remaining vestige of code testing?

It's time to move on, Jim.

To what?

Let's say that tomorrow FCC just dumps Element 1. One sentence:
"Element 1 is waived for all applicants, pending revision of the
rules". Could happen, y'know.


Probably will

What happens next?


Lots of upgrades, plus no-coders on 10m the next day

Morse code is going to be even less necessary in the future. As such,
Morse Code testing has no ligitimate place in that future.

My mileage varies on that...

73 de Jim, N2EY




73 de Alun, N3KIP


This just in. The code test was abolished in Finland on the 1st of
November.

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

N2EY wrote:

(snip) Is that bad? Are you against direct
democracy and polling of those most affected?

(snip) You're avoiding the central issue. I think
you know that if such a poll were actually taken,
you might not like the results. (snip)

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines".
I'm just about certain that the more non-amateurs
included in any poll, the lower the support for
Morse code, and vice versa.



I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.

Well, I don't know if disagreeing with the point is intentionally
"missing it" but okay.


This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans).

If you want to be more precise, they belong to the world.


As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

How you gonna educate them? Most people wouldn't have a clue what we
would be talking about. Do you propose an education system without
either Pro or Anti-code bias?

Should this poll include more input altogether, such as business
interests that would probably prefer us pesky hams to just go away?

Would the results of a poll consisting of people who knew nothing about
the ARS be representative of anything.

How are you going to approach anything like a knowledgable poll pool?

- Mike KB3EIA -