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

(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

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

(Bert Craig) wrote in
om:

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.

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

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.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

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

"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 in
:

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?


Not atall. I think the current theory tests are reasonable

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?

It's a pretty silly idea. If we can let someone on the air with a Tech
licence today, then why not 11 years later? Time limitations have always
been artificial. I may think it's a waste if someone stays a Tech for
decades. I will almost certainly encourage them to upgrade, but I don't
think their licence should be cancelled.


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?


They can actually do that on CB, FRS, etc. I have no problem with that. Of
course, there are tight limitations on what they can do, designed to
ensure that they are harmless with their lack of knowledge, and
unfortunately often ignored on 27 MHz.

Why is a Technician Plus class licensee qualified to do anything
allowed by the rules on 2 meters, but not on 20 meters?

Because they know a bit less, and their signals will mostly only be heard
locally, hence limiting the potential effects. Granted that the additional
privileges of the Tech+ are not entirely consistent with that theory.

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

The General doesn't impart much in that way. The Extra does, however
require a better knowledge of radio theory.

I'm not sure that the present licence classes are very well tailored, but
politically it could be hard to change.

Personally, I'm in favour of a two tier system, where those who pass the
easier test stay above 30 MHz, or at least above 28 and maybe with access
to 1.8, but I don't actually think it's going to happen quite like that.
Too much inertia.


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.


Agreed

I was just commenting why I don't think a 'hams only' poll is the right
idea

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


It is, however, important that others could file a comment if they wanted
to.

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

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