"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

(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.

"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.

Alun wrote:


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.

Do you remember Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in
t:

Alun wrote:


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.

Do you remember Hank the Angry, Drunken Dwarf?

- Mike KB3EIA -



No. Can't say I do. Enlighten me!

"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

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

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 -