"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.

In article , Alun
writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote in
et:

"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

On 16 Nov 2003 01:28:42 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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.

Suppose someone did, indeed, poll everyone with a US ham license.

First question: who is going to front the six figures required to
send out the ballots even by bulk mail? The FCC?

No way - contrary to urban legend, for the last 10 years or so, all
government agencies pay full postage rates on everything they mail -
except for Congressional mailings, of course.

"What is your opinion of code testing for an amateur license?"

1) It should be totally abolished
2) It should be required only for Extra
3) It should be required only for Extra and General
4) It should be required for any license with HF privileges
5) It should be required for any amateur license
6) No opinion/don't care

Or you might find that the majority opinion was 6). What happens in
that case?

Or it's a tie between #6 and no response ???

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On 16 Nov 2003 01:28:42 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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.

Suppose someone did, indeed, poll everyone with a US ham license.

First question: who is going to front the six figures required to
send out the ballots even by bulk mail? The FCC?

No way - contrary to urban legend, for the last 10 years or so, all
government agencies pay full postage rates on everything they mail -
except for Congressional mailings, of course.

"What is your opinion of code testing for an amateur license?"

1) It should be totally abolished
2) It should be required only for Extra
3) It should be required only for Extra and General
4) It should be required for any license with HF privileges
5) It should be required for any amateur license
6) No opinion/don't care

Or you might find that the majority opinion was 6). What happens in
that case?

Or it's a tie between #6 and no response ???

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

No response would probably be the commonest item even if the ballots come
with return postage paid by the government.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 16 Nov 2003 01:28:42 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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.

Suppose someone did, indeed, poll everyone with a US ham license.

First question: who is going to front the six figures required to
send out the ballots even by bulk mail? The FCC?

Never happen. And with return postage guaranteed it could get close to seven
figures.

No way - contrary to urban legend, for the last 10 years or so, all
government agencies pay full postage rates on everything they mail -
except for Congressional mailings, of course.

Isn't it neat how Congress passes all sorts of rules for everyone else but
exempts itself from those very rules? Classic case of "do as I say, not as I
do"...

"What is your opinion of code testing for an amateur license?"

1) It should be totally abolished
2) It should be required only for Extra
3) It should be required only for Extra and General
4) It should be required for any license with HF privileges
5) It should be required for any amateur license
6) No opinion/don't care

Or you might find that the majority opinion was 6). What happens in
that case?

Or it's a tie between #6 and no response ???

'zactly. But I don't think it would be that bad.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(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.

"Rupert" wrote in message

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.

Regulatory matters are not decided by ballot or popularity polls. They are
decided by an unemotional look at the facts and what is in the public
interest. Thus the *quantity* of comments on the petitions is of no
consequence --- all that matters are the facts and arguments presented. Most
of the comments I have read are noticeably short on persuasive arguments for
either side of the issue.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Even if it were decided by "vote", the vote would be by the entire
citizenry, not only those few already favored with a license.

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

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On 16 Nov 2003 01:28:42 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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.

Suppose someone did, indeed, poll everyone with a US ham license.

First question: who is going to front the six figures required to
send out the ballots even by bulk mail? The FCC?

No way - contrary to urban legend, for the last 10 years or so, all
government agencies pay full postage rates on everything they mail -
except for Congressional mailings, of course.

"What is your opinion of code testing for an amateur license?"

1) It should be totally abolished
2) It should be required only for Extra
3) It should be required only for Extra and General
4) It should be required for any license with HF privileges
5) It should be required for any amateur license
6) No opinion/don't care

Or you might find that the majority opinion was 6). What happens in
that case?

Or it's a tie between #6 and no response ???

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

No response would probably be the commonest item even if the ballots come
with return postage paid by the government.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Bottom line, who cares since the entire concept
is a joke anyway and stands NO chance of ever
happening.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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

"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.