KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


Perhaps it would be better if everyone were to just tell you that the
plan was the best thing they ever saw?



A lot of people have told me exactly that, but I'm sure there are some who
share your view that I'm out to lunch. Life's a bitch, and then I'll die
and they'll give my call sign away.

Do you really think I ever said you were out to lunch?. If I disagree
with portions of you plan, that's a big part of why we're here; I've
pointed out what I don't like (and even some parts I thought were
okay).....Wow, I'm a thoroughgoing *******, eh!

Your responses have been belittling and insulting for the most part. If
statements like "lifes a bitch..." and "that's a novel idea" as a
synonym for stupid and definition games are the best supporting
arguments you can make for your proposal, it isn't going to go too far.

Sobeit!

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


What does Jim's story have to do with license testing?


Simple.

It shows that the FCC has very wide authority to set license test criteria,
including
such concepts as "character" and "discipline". Merely passing the tests is not
the only requirement for a license grant.

Normally the FCC assumes that all applicants for a ham license are "of good
character" unless there is a reason to suspect differently.

I think FCC could indeed legally implement Hans' one-shot learner license with
its upgrade-or-out provision. Their argument would be that someone who was a
ham for 10 years and yet c/wouldn't pass the full-privs test simply didn't have
the required "character" or "discipline" to stay in the ARS.


Hoo, I wonder how that would stand up in the courts! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote:
And the efforts of REACT and its members are commendable. However, any
public service performed is informal in nature, not the result of any
regulatory stipulation imposed by the FCC or federal government. There is
nothing in part 95 that mandates public service like that found in part
97.


OK, Dwight quote paragraph and section that states that amateurs MUST do
public service.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

It shows that the FCC has very wide
authority to set license test criteria,
including such concepts as
"character" and "discipline". (snip)

Nonsense. It would be virtually impossible to test character or discipline
in a radio license test. The FCC hasn't done it and probably wouldn't ever
attempt to do so.

Point is, FCC has a wide latitude as far as testing and license requirements
goes. You may not like the concept but The Congress does.

Didja know that in 1940 FCC required all US hams to either sign a loyalty oath
or turn in their licenses? While not exactly a "character test", you can bet
that some hams' backgrounds were checked.

Such things seemed far-fetched a few years ago. Not any more.

Nice talking to you, Jim.

You too, Dwight.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Brian wrote:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

It should be obvious, Bill. US ham radio is all about "working
DX on HF with CW."

Same old song, huh? You wrote it and you're the only one singing it.
HF amateur radio is many things to many people, but you aren't one of
them.

Thank God for small favors ! ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ

So you think God is keeping Len out of the amateur radio service?

It may well be, Brian. After all, the man has declared a several
decades old interest in amateur radio but he can't bring himself to act
upon the interest. Our modern "Moses" may not be able to enter the
promised land.

Dave K8MN

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"N2EY" wrote

What mode are those "foul mouthed yahoos" using? It isn't CW.....

Jim obviously isn't a DX'er, or he'd know about the infamous "pileup
police"
shenanigans regularly heard around 14.023 +/-. I could send you some .wav
files that aren't even fit to air on rrap.

73, de Hans, K0HB



You actually spend time recording it, huh? Wow, I am not so show I would
look forward to retirement.

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Unfortunately, I believe I have heard
the story of which Jim speaks...or at
least one exactly like it. (snip)


Okay, I'll try one more time. Please read back over what I've said.
Nothing was said by me about a denial of license based on other grounds.
We
were talking about license testing and everything I said had to do with
license testing. What does Jim's story have to do with license testing?
Instead, not able to respond to the actual question raised (character
testing within the license tests), Jim has deceitfully, but clearly
successfully, introduced another subject (denial of license) to undermine
my
earlier statements about license testing.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


I thought he'd been responding to your analogy that "character" is not
something to be tested for (paraphrasing there). Sorry...

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

I understand Kim's point. Lets try
it from this perspective. If you're one
of the millions of immigrants entering
this country, the speech we use on
the radio, and on the radio tests, in
this country is not already in the
"toolbox." And Spanish certainly isn't
in the "toolbox" of many other Hams
in this country. So, even if you ignore
any skills needed for the voice modes
(however minor), there is still some
validity in Kim's argument. Spanish is
use more often the CW in this (snip)


Wow! See what happens when you edit a sentence without checking it
afterwards. That last sentence should read "Spanish is used" and "more often
than CW."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

No sweat, Dwight. Only the very petty folks will nitpick about minor
spelling errors or grammatical misuses on USENET. (Usually in an
attempt to compensate for the invalidity of their own statements.)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

I hate to say it, Jim, but this is one
of those intangibles that fall under
the catagory of "if you don't get it,
I can't explain it to you."

Kim's got it, but doesn't like it. I
can respect that. Bill's got it too,
but doesn't appear to want to let
on that he's got it. (Broken record
mode: But the FCC..., but the
FCC..., but the FCC...) Dwight?
No comment.


Bert: I just noticed this. I cannot believe you said that. I cannot
believe you are acting like that. I *GET* that you like CW testing and you
should *GET* that I don't. THAT is all there is to *GET*. It's that
simple.

Kim W5TIT


Excuse me, Bert. Before you continue discussing whether I "get"
something
or not, read back over what I've actually said and notice that absolutely
none of it had anything whatsoever to do with the separate issue raised by
Jim. We were talking about license testing. My comments had to do with
license testing. Jim changed the subject to license denial based on other
grounds. I've made no comments on that subject.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"JEP" wrote:

Service means just that. Broadcasters
have to do public service to keep
broadcastings. Why do you think they
do PSA's. No money involved, they
do it free. (snip)


Nonsense.

I just love how you so cavalierly proclaim other's opinions and/or
statements as "nonsense." Kim was right on target re. same.

What public service is performed by those in the Citizens Band
Radio Service?

Gee, the Office of Homeland Security disagrees with you, Dwight. Should
your
statement be labeled as "nonsense" or just plain "ignorant?"

The newsgroups "rec.radio.shortwave" and "rec.radio.cb" were again
deleted
from this reply (off-topic in those newsgroups).

Good call.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

73 de Bert
WA2SI



BERT. I still can't believe I am seeing this!! YOU are getting way too
upset...LOL

Kim W5TIT

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

I understand Kim's point. Lets try
it from this perspective. If you're one
of the millions of immigrants entering
this country, the speech we use on
the radio, and on the radio tests, in
this country is not already in the
"toolbox." And Spanish certainly isn't
in the "toolbox" of many other Hams
in this country. So, even if you ignore
any skills needed for the voice modes
(however minor), there is still some
validity in Kim's argument. Spanish is
use more often the CW in this (snip)


Wow! See what happens when you edit a sentence without checking it
afterwards. That last sentence should read "Spanish is used" and "more
often
than CW."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

No sweat, Dwight. Only the very petty folks will nitpick about minor
spelling errors or grammatical misuses on USENET. (Usually in an
attempt to compensate for the invalidity of their own statements.)

73 de Bert
WA2SI


OK, I see...you're getting up early, too. ; ) ROFLMAO...

Kim W5TIT

"Bert Craig" wrote:

(snip) The discussion I was engaged
in w/Bill, K2UNK, concerned the
"character" aspect of Morse code
testing. (snip)

(snip) Well Dwight, the above is the
issue that Bill, JEP, Kim, Jim, and I
were discussing. Get it yet?


However, I wasn't discussing anything with Bill, Jep, Kim, or you. I
responded to something Jim had said and we had exchanged several messages on
that subject (with the subject clearly stated).


I do notice that this is not the first
(or tenth, for that matter) time you've
joined into a thread, (or a branch
thereof) pulled the subject in a
different direction, and then whined
about a response by claiming that
what you said had nothing to do
with a "separate" issue.


In case you haven't noticed, the subject you're discussing isn't the
subject listed in the subject line of this thread. The subject you're
discussing spun off from that original discussion, as the subject Jim and I
were discussing spun off from yours. That's fairly typical of newsgroup
discussions. Therefore, I think it's fairly important to know what is being
discussed before making comments, especially comments about the participants
(not the subject, but the participants - you said, "Kim's got it, (snip)
Bill's got it too, (snip) Dwight No comment."). Enough said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bert Craig" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

(snip)

I just love how you so cavalierly
proclaim other's opinions and/or
statements as "nonsense." Kim
was right on target re. same.


It's a matter of opinion, Bert. From my perspective, it is nonsense. Of
course, it doesn't become so just because I say it. Others, including you,
are obviously free to have a different opinion.


What public service is performed by
those in the Citizens Band Radio
Service?

Gee, the Office of Homeland Security
disagrees with you, Dwight. (snip)


I ask a question and you respond by saying DHS disagrees.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

And the efforts of REACT and its
members are commendable. However,
any public service performed is informal
in nature, not the result of any regulatory
stipulation imposed by the FCC or
federal government. There is nothing in
part 95 that mandates public service like
that found in part 97.

OK, Dwight quote paragraph and section
that states that amateurs MUST do public
service.


Okay, Dee, show me where I said Amateurs "must" do public service. Part 97
offers that as one purpose of the ARS and gives us the mandate (authority)
to do so (ARES and so on), but it certainly isn't required.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote


You actually spend time recording it, huh?


Common practice when working weak signals in DXpedition mode. (Didn't you
often wonder why some DSP rigs have that little 'snippet catcher' in them?)

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

I hate to say it, Jim, but this is one
of those intangibles that fall under
the catagory of "if you don't get it,
I can't explain it to you."

Kim's got it, but doesn't like it. I
can respect that. Bill's got it too,
but doesn't appear to want to let
on that he's got it. (Broken record
mode: But the FCC..., but the
FCC..., but the FCC...) Dwight?
No comment.


Bert: I just noticed this. I cannot believe you said that. I cannot
believe you are acting like that.

Why sure I said it…and I'm not even "acting." (As in pretending, get
it? That was a joke…a little levity.)

I *GET* that you like CW testing and you should *GET* that I don't.

I fine with that and stated as such. To clarify, you can substitute
"Kim's got it, (it being my opinion) but doesn't agree with it."

THAT is all there is to *GET*. It's that simple.

Not in my opinion. IMNSHO, folks are a tad too quick to remove the
character aspect from many daily activities, both professional and
personal. How many times have you heard "It's just business, nothing
personal" or "It's unfortunate, but it's the bottom line that
matters." Usually when you hear these words, it's in conjunction with
actions that are going to adversely affect somebody's life. I've seen
folks that have put in twenty plus loyal years of some seriously hard
work for a company and get released just so the bottom line showed a
ten percent profit margin as opposed to nine. (IOW, double instead of
single digit growth.) While there are many valid "business" reasons
that can be quoted to defend this, there are some moral or "character"
issues involved here. I know it wasn't always like this and at some
point in history loyalty was rewarded with loyalty at many companies.
That's a professional example.

At 5-wpm, I don't believe for one nanosecond that Element 1 is about
forcing people to become "proficient" in a mode, whether they plan on
using it OTA or not. Perhaps 13 or 20, but certainly not 5-wpm. The
FCC actually has some references to character, Jim, N2EY has provided
an example. I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

Furthermore, I think that many of the folks want to do away with the
character aspect solely to remove a valid argument against the removal
of Element 1. ("But the FCC…, but the FCC…, but the FCC…") Just like
the professional who don't want to feel bad about "making the
unpopular decision" or following "good business practice" while
legitimately shafting good employees. So now we have a whole
generation of young folks that are prepared to enter the workplace,
possibly "earn" their way into a position where they can do some harm,
but won't care because they were taught that it's ok to step on and
use others as long as it fits a prescribed business plan. What'll it
be like in another sixty or seventy years?

It ain't so simple, Kim…at least not to this observer. Character means
something…in all of life's aspect. A hobby and/or service called
Amateur Radio is just one of them.

Kim W5TIT

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
Enough said.

Agreed...por fin!

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

I understand Kim's point. Lets try
it from this perspective. If you're one
of the millions of immigrants entering
this country, the speech we use on
the radio, and on the radio tests, in
this country is not already in the
"toolbox." And Spanish certainly isn't
in the "toolbox" of many other Hams
in this country. So, even if you ignore
any skills needed for the voice modes
(however minor), there is still some
validity in Kim's argument. Spanish is
use more often the CW in this (snip)


Wow! See what happens when you edit a sentence without checking it
afterwards. That last sentence should read "Spanish is used" and "more
often
than CW."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

No sweat, Dwight. Only the very petty folks will nitpick about minor
spelling errors or grammatical misuses on USENET. (Usually in an
attempt to compensate for the invalidity of their own statements.)

73 de Bert
WA2SI


OK, I see...you're getting up early, too. ; ) ROFLMAO...

Kim W5TIT

I got up to go to work, had one foot out the door and...the machine
just called to me to check. ggg

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote

I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

I looked and looked and looked and looked and nowhere in 97.501, 97.503 nor
anywhere in S25 did I find any regulatory requirement to "demonstrate a
certain level of self-discipline" as part of the qualification procedures.
Is this another of those "test of worthiness" things that occasionally
floats to the surface around rrap?

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..

" I think it is effective at minimizing the undesirables.",
or..

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

And the efforts of REACT and its
members are commendable. However,
any public service performed is informal
in nature, not the result of any regulatory
stipulation imposed by the FCC or
federal government. There is nothing in
part 95 that mandates public service like
that found in part 97.

OK, Dwight quote paragraph and section
that states that amateurs MUST do public
service.


Okay, Dee, show me where I said Amateurs "must" do public service. Part
97
offers that as one purpose of the ARS and gives us the mandate (authority)
to do so (ARES and so on), but it certainly isn't required.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


your words we

"...There is nothing in part 95 that mandates public service like that found
in part 97."

tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or requi mandated desegregation
of public schools.

The way you have used the word conforms to usage number 2. Therefore, you
have stated that public service is required even though that may not be what
you meant to say.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
.net...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote


You actually spend time recording it, huh?


Common practice when working weak signals in DXpedition mode. (Didn't you
often wonder why some DSP rigs have that little 'snippet catcher' in
them?)

73, de Hans, K0HB


Never seen anything but a YAESU 890AT, my husband's. Well, OK, I've "seen"
others but haven't "looked" at them...

Kim W5TIT

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

I understand Kim's point. Lets try
it from this perspective. If you're one
of the millions of immigrants entering
this country, the speech we use on
the radio, and on the radio tests, in
this country is not already in the
"toolbox." And Spanish certainly isn't
in the "toolbox" of many other Hams
in this country. So, even if you ignore
any skills needed for the voice modes
(however minor), there is still some
validity in Kim's argument. Spanish is
use more often the CW in this (snip)


Wow! See what happens when you edit a sentence without checking it
afterwards. That last sentence should read "Spanish is used" and
"more
often
than CW."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

No sweat, Dwight. Only the very petty folks will nitpick about minor
spelling errors or grammatical misuses on USENET. (Usually in an
attempt to compensate for the invalidity of their own statements.)

73 de Bert
WA2SI


OK, I see...you're getting up early, too. ; ) ROFLMAO...

Kim W5TIT

I got up to go to work, had one foot out the door and...the machine
just called to me to check. ggg

73 de Bert
WA2SI


Yep. Been getting up at 4AM for so long that when I start regular work
hours again, it'll seem like vacation!

Kim W5TIT

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

That way, no one who was
interested would be forced off the air, but at the same time there would
be
incentive to get a full-privs renewable license.

If, after 10 years as a learner and exposed to mainstream ham radio they
can't qualify for a standard license, then another 10 years isn't likely to
be sufficient to become qualified.

That may well be the case, Hans. And since some Morse Code skill is
obviously part of being a qualified full-privileges radio amateur, it makes
sense that the standard license would include a Morse Code test.

I can't imagine "one who was interested" would fail to qualify in 10 years,
but if they didn't, well I guess there are other hobbies like finger
painting which might be less challenging and not require a federal license
to pursue.

Exactly.

So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?

73 de Jim, N2EY


The liberals will whine and wring their hands in dismay, but
life's a bitch sometimes.

In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:

Not in my opinion. IMNSHO, folks are a tad too quick to remove the
character aspect from many daily activities, both professional and
personal. How many times have you heard "It's just business, nothing
personal" or "It's unfortunate, but it's the bottom line that
matters." Usually when you hear these words, it's in conjunction with
actions that are going to adversely affect somebody's life. I've seen
folks that have put in twenty plus loyal years of some seriously hard
work for a company and get released just so the bottom line showed a
ten percent profit margin as opposed to nine. (IOW, double instead of
single digit growth.) While there are many valid "business" reasons
that can be quoted to defend this, there are some moral or "character"
issues involved here. I know it wasn't always like this and at some
point in history loyalty was rewarded with loyalty at many companies.
That's a professional example.

This sort of thing is also why CC&Rs have proliferated, and are actually
*supported* by many people. It comes from the bitter experience of
having neighbors who do not have shared community values to take
reasonable care of their properties. But ordinances and CC&Rs cannot
replace the spirit of being a good neighbor.

At 5-wpm, I don't believe for one nanosecond that Element 1 is about
forcing people to become "proficient" in a mode, whether they plan on
using it OTA or not. Perhaps 13 or 20, but certainly not 5-wpm. The
FCC actually has some references to character, Jim, N2EY has provided
an example. I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: There are very few prospective
hams who already know enough Morse Code to pass the test. And it cannot
be learned (in most cases, anyway) by reading a book or watching a video or
doing a bit of this and that here and there. So it takes a bit of "personal
investment" by the prospective ham, and the result is a skill specific to
amateur radio. I think that specificity is what bothers some folks.

Furthermore, I think that many of the folks want to do away with the
character aspect solely to remove a valid argument against the removal
of Element 1. ("But the FCC…, but the FCC…, but the FCC…")

FCC allows all sorts of things that are not in the best interest of the ARS. In
part this is due to lack of resources.

Does anyone think that BPL can't be bad for amateur radio because FCC is
allowing it?

Was it a good thing that FCC didn't go after that pop star or the network for
saying the F-word on broadcast TV?

Just like
the professional who don't want to feel bad about "making the
unpopular decision" or following "good business practice" while
legitimately shafting good employees. So now we have a whole
generation of young folks that are prepared to enter the workplace,
possibly "earn" their way into a position where they can do some harm,
but won't care because they were taught that it's ok to step on and
use others as long as it fits a prescribed business plan. What'll it
be like in another sixty or seventy years?

What's it like now? Remember Michael Milliken - "Greed is good"? Or how about
Enron, WorldCom, etc.? Those are just the folks who got caught.

It ain't so simple, Kim…at least not to this observer. Character means
something…in all of life's aspect. A hobby and/or service called
Amateur Radio is just one of them.

Exactly.

And to those who say "Who is to be the arbiter?" the answer is simple: Anyone
who proposes requirements - or the removal of them - is being the arbiter.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote


That way, no one who was
interested would be forced off the air, but at the same time there would

be

incentive to get a full-privs renewable license.

If, after 10 years as a learner and exposed to mainstream ham radio they
can't qualify for a standard license, then another 10 years isn't likely to
be sufficient to become qualified.


That may well be the case, Hans. And since some Morse Code skill is
obviously part of being a qualified full-privileges radio amateur, it makes
sense that the standard license would include a Morse Code test.

I can't imagine "one who was interested" would fail to qualify in 10 years,
but if they didn't, well I guess there are other hobbies like finger
painting which might be less challenging and not require a federal license
to pursue.

Exactly.

I can't imagein "one who was interested" not taking the time to learn
Morse code either, but if they didn't want to I gues there are other
things like wait around until it goes away, which might be less challenging!



So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?

73 de Jim, N2EY


The liberals will whine and wring their hands in dismay, but

life's a bitch sometimes.

"N2EY" wrote


So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?


I already did (as you knew perfectly well).

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

And the efforts of REACT and its
members are commendable. However,
any public service performed is informal
in nature, not the result of any regulatory
stipulation imposed by the FCC or
federal government. There is nothing in
part 95 that mandates public service like
that found in part 97.

OK, Dwight quote paragraph and section
that states that amateurs MUST do public
service.


Okay, Dee, show me where I said Amateurs "must" do public service. Part
97
offers that as one purpose of the ARS and gives us the mandate (authority)
to do so (ARES and so on), but it certainly isn't required.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


your words we

"...There is nothing in part 95 that mandates public service like that found
in part 97."

tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or requi mandated desegregation
of public schools.

The way you have used the word conforms to usage number 2. Therefore, you
have stated that public service is required even though that may not be what
you meant to say.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Here you go, Dee.

----------------------------
From: "ARRL Letter"
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:02:59 -0500
Subject: The ARRL Letter, Vol 22, No 47

============================================
==FCC REORGANIZES WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU

The FCC has announced a reorganization of its Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (WTB) "to more effectively support the
FCC's strategic goals--broadband, competition, spectrum, media, homeland
security and modernizing the FCC." The WTB administers the Amateur Radio
Service (Part 97) and amateur licensing, but the changes are expected to
be transparent to the amateur community. The Amateur Service now will be
administered by the newly named Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure
Division. D'wana Terry, formerly chief of the Public Safety and Private
Wireless Division, will head the new division.

"The bureau's portfolios have been redistributed along the lines of
strategic goals, consolidating similar functions to focus resources
better," the FCC said in a November 24 public notice. As a result of the
reorganization, which the FCC approved November 13, WTB expands from five
to six divisions: Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure, Spectrum
Management Resources and Technologies, Auctions and Spectrum Access,
Spectrum and Competition Policy, Mobility, and Broadband.

In addition to the Amateur Service, the Public Safety and Critical
Infrastructure Division will oversee Part 95, Marine, Aviation,
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Public Safety Fixed Microwave, Public
Safety and Private Land Mobile services and E911, among other areas.
Responsibilities moved elsewhere include Fixed Microwave (Part 101),
Instructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution
Service, and the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service.

The action reduces the scope and size of WTB's larger divisions and
eliminates separate branches below the division level, while retaining
their current functions. One of those was the Licensing and Technical
Analysis Branch, headquartered in the FCC's Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,
office. Among other tasks, that branch has handled the granting and
issuance of Amateur Radio licenses and the vanity call sign program.
Another was the Policy and Rules Branch at FCC Headquarters, which has
been the home of Bill Cross, W3TN, an FCC figure well-known within the
amateur community. Among other tasks, that branch has handled Amateur
Radio rule making petitions and Part 97 rules interpretations.

A potential plus of the new arrangement is that Cross now will work under
another amateur licensee, Mike Wilhelm, WS6BR, who will report to Terry.

The FCC said eliminating branches would promote greater management
flexibility in deploying resources and lead to a flatter, more flexible
organization without altering the bureau's overall mission. The Commission
said it was able to carry out the reorganization by redeploying existing
positions.

WTB Chief John Muleta said the reorganization will result in "a
mission-driven team that will be innovative in its approach to regulatory
policies and customer service."

============================================
Required 'claimer:
Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole or
in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be given to
The ARRL Letter and The American Radio Relay League.

"In addition to the Amateur Service, the Public Safety and Critical
Infrastructure Division will oversee Part 95" Hello.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article t, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?

I already did (as you knew perfectly well).

But only as a comment to another's proposal, not as a stand-alone petition.

73 de Jim, N2EY

btw, what's the promised delivery date for the '7800?

N2EY wrote:
In article t, "KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote


So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?

I already did (as you knew perfectly well).


But only as a comment to another's proposal, not as a stand-alone petition.


Hopefully Hans has a ready supply of replies for the FCC to use when
people comment on his petition. It just won't seem right to comment on
it there without being called stupid...oops, I mean novel! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"KØHB" wrote in message
.net...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote


You actually spend time recording it, huh?


Common practice when working weak signals in DXpedition mode. (Didn't you
often wonder why some DSP rigs have that little 'snippet catcher' in
them?)

73, de Hans, K0HB


Never seen anything but a YAESU 890AT, my husband's. Well, OK, I've "seen"
others but haven't "looked" at them...

Kim W5TIT

I sure hope this doesn't turn into a "I'll show you mine if..." thread.

;^)

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

And the efforts of REACT and its
members are commendable. However,
any public service performed is informal
in nature, not the result of any regulatory
stipulation imposed by the FCC or
federal government. There is nothing in
part 95 that mandates public service like
that found in part 97.

OK, Dwight quote paragraph and section
that states that amateurs MUST do public
service.


Okay, Dee, show me where I said Amateurs "must" do public service.
Part
97
offers that as one purpose of the ARS and gives us the mandate
(authority)
to do so (ARES and so on), but it certainly isn't required.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


your words we

"...There is nothing in part 95 that mandates public service like that
found
in part 97."

tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a
mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or requi mandated
desegregation
of public schools.

The way you have used the word conforms to usage number 2. Therefore,
you
have stated that public service is required even though that may not be
what
you meant to say.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Here you go, Dee.

----------------------------
From: "ARRL Letter"
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:02:59 -0500
Subject: The ARRL Letter, Vol 22, No 47

============================================
==FCC REORGANIZES WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU

The FCC has announced a reorganization of its Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (WTB) "to more effectively support the
FCC's strategic goals--broadband, competition, spectrum, media, homeland
security and modernizing the FCC." The WTB administers the Amateur Radio
Service (Part 97) and amateur licensing, but the changes are expected to
be transparent to the amateur community. The Amateur Service now will be
administered by the newly named Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure
Division. D'wana Terry, formerly chief of the Public Safety and Private
Wireless Division, will head the new division.

"The bureau's portfolios have been redistributed along the lines of
strategic goals, consolidating similar functions to focus resources
better," the FCC said in a November 24 public notice. As a result of the
reorganization, which the FCC approved November 13, WTB expands from five
to six divisions: Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure, Spectrum
Management Resources and Technologies, Auctions and Spectrum Access,
Spectrum and Competition Policy, Mobility, and Broadband.

In addition to the Amateur Service, the Public Safety and Critical
Infrastructure Division will oversee Part 95, Marine, Aviation,
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Public Safety Fixed Microwave, Public
Safety and Private Land Mobile services and E911, among other areas.
Responsibilities moved elsewhere include Fixed Microwave (Part 101),
Instructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution
Service, and the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service.

The action reduces the scope and size of WTB's larger divisions and
eliminates separate branches below the division level, while retaining
their current functions. One of those was the Licensing and Technical
Analysis Branch, headquartered in the FCC's Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,
office. Among other tasks, that branch has handled the granting and
issuance of Amateur Radio licenses and the vanity call sign program.
Another was the Policy and Rules Branch at FCC Headquarters, which has
been the home of Bill Cross, W3TN, an FCC figure well-known within the
amateur community. Among other tasks, that branch has handled Amateur
Radio rule making petitions and Part 97 rules interpretations.

A potential plus of the new arrangement is that Cross now will work under
another amateur licensee, Mike Wilhelm, WS6BR, who will report to Terry.

The FCC said eliminating branches would promote greater management
flexibility in deploying resources and lead to a flatter, more flexible
organization without altering the bureau's overall mission. The Commission
said it was able to carry out the reorganization by redeploying existing
positions.

WTB Chief John Muleta said the reorganization will result in "a
mission-driven team that will be innovative in its approach to regulatory
policies and customer service."

============================================
Required 'claimer:
Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole or
in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be given to
The ARRL Letter and The American Radio Relay League.

"In addition to the Amateur Service, the Public Safety and Critical
Infrastructure Division will oversee Part 95" Hello.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

OK Bert, show me where it says that Part 97 mandates public service. There
is nothing in this quote to that effect.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote
Okay, Dee, show me where I said
Amateurs "must" do public service.

your words we

"...There is nothing in part 95 that
mandates public service like that
found in part 97."

tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to
a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law;
decree or requi mandated
desegregation of public schools.

The way you have used the word
conforms to usage number 2. Therefore,
you have stated that public service is
required even though that may not be
what you meant to say.


I don't have time to waste on this, Dee. You know what Part 97 says, and
what it means (and therefore what I meant). A more complete definition of
"mandate" is...

Noun: mandate ('man'deyt)
1. A document giving an official instruction or command
2. A territory surrendered by Turkey or Germany after World War I and
inhabited by people not yet able to stand by themselves and so put under the
tutelage of some other European power
3. (politics) the commission that is given to a government and its
policies through an electoral victory

Verb: mandate (man'deyt)
1. Assign under a mandate; of nations
2. Assign authority to

I used mandate in the context that Part 97 assigns authority to Ham radio
operators to perform public service through ARES, community organizations,
and so on. There is nothing like that in Part 95. Obviously, there is
nothing in "assigns authority to" that is required.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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