In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Of course! But if you wait too long, the opportunity may be lost. ......
If you wait too long, FCC could move on to the NPRM process
before you ever get the petition sent in.

Did I miss something?

No, but I did. Thank you for clearing up your thinking on your
method of presenting your proposal, Hans.

Is this the last NPRM that FCC will issue in Amateur
Radio matters?

Of course not! But once FCC does so (probably some months after ARRL does its
proposal), it will be a while before they want to reopen that can of worms
again.

Of course I could be mistaken on that. I thought that FCC would simply dump
Element 1 via Memorandum Report and Order soon after S25.5 changed. At most I
thought there'd be a quickie NPRM. But instead it looks like we're in for a
long ride.

The current salad bowl of 14 (15?) petitions is primarily concerned with
Morse testing for HF access. I've already commented on that matter.

So did I.

Perhaps my preference for doing a job once rather than nickel-and-diming it to
death is showing in that I think a more comprehensive approach (like your
proposal) is better. But that's just me - and it's *your* proposal anyway.

The changes I'd like to see in the Amateur Radio service are only mildly
concerned with Morse Code, but primarily concerned with the fundamental
licensing structure of our service. I don't want that issue lost in the
cacaphony of noise surrounding the Morse Code testing issue, so if I do
submit a petition it will be timed to avoid being confused as a "Morse Code"
petition.

I can certainly understand and respect that approach even if I don't agree with
it 100%.

My main concern is that if you wait until the Morse Code test issue noise dies
down, it may be a long wait *and* there may be an addy-tood of "oh no, we're
not going to reopen THAT can of worms again". Meanwhile, really bad proposals
like the "21st Century" ideas may take the stage, or even be enacted. As much
as I disagree with some parts of your proposal, it is infinitely preferable to
the "21st Century" concepts.

So it becomes clear to me now that you will submit it to FCC when you know the
time is right - which is not right now.

73 de Jim, N2EY

How true.

N9PGE wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 05:23:14 -0500, Arf! Arf! wrote:

K0HB, the perfect argument against code.


KE4TEW, the perfect argument against licensing felons.

In article t, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
m

First off, there's bound to be disagreement about what constitutes a
"rational relationship"

Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an
incentive,
what do we use?

If we use power (as Hans suggests), there's little incentive for QRP
and
low power folks to upgrade.

The irony, however, is that I would bet most people that
are dedicated QRPers are much more tehnically oriented
to begin with and more likly to upgrade.

Agreed!

And you can bet that most dedicated QRPers are also primarily CW ops.

On the other hand,
IF a QRPer is content with the entry level power limits
and doesn't choose to upgrade, what's the harm?

Depends on the observer, really.

OK, as yourself as the observer, what's the harm?

The purpose of any incentive license system is to offer rewards for learning
more. More spectrum (more room to play in) is one reward that is *almost*
universal. More power, IMHO, is far less of an attraction.

One can
look at all those that don't upgrade today...even with
spectrum privileges as the enhancement...to see folks that
are content at their current license level and are also good
hams.

Yet there are those who claim that large numbers of "technically
oriented" hams *would* upgrade except for the "barrier" of the
code test......

And you well know I'm not one of those that make that claim.

Of course! But NCI has long made it one of their selling points. "Bring amateur
radio into the 21st Century" et al.

And since we're supposed to use the minimum power
required by the situation anyway.....

True, but the FCC has never made a big case of checking to
see that everyone is running at the least practical power.
Additionally, I suspect the FCC concern on the "least power"
is driven more by those running "big" power rather than
anyone run a basic rig of 100 watts or less.

Exactly. Also there's the interference considerations.

If we use modes as the incentive, which modes do we use for the
incentive?

I don't see modes as an incentive.

Then there's not much left.

There's also the question of enforcement. You can tell right away if
someone is outside their allocated spectrum, but power is another
issue.

Yet it has been an aspect of Novice license for over 50 years.
I agree the enforcement would have its problems, but I suspect
the gross violations could be detected (e.g. if limit is 200 watts
and someone is running a kilowatt).

Depends on the antenna and conditions. On HF I have heard amazing
signals from QRP stations because of really good antennas. And
really poor signals from QRO stations because of poor antennas.

But (IMHO) an occasional "great signal" would never be the only thing
the FCC relied on for a notice of power violations.

Of course.

In the end, I believe "most"
hams want to operate legally and will do so.

That's because it's part of the tradition and culture of amateur
radio to do so, not because of large amounts of enforcement. I'm all
for more and better enforcement, but it's clear that those who think
Riley can do it all are mistaken.

Agreed.

Yet some have tried to sell us on the idea that enforcement is the be-all
and end-all. For example, the "21st Century" authors.

Those that might run
double their allowed power (say 400 when limited to 200) are
only fooling themselves.

Big difference between 400 vs. 200 hp under the hood, or between 80
MPH and 40 MPH on the highway. But it's only 3 dB on the air. Tough
concept for some...

Exactly my point. The FCC would likly focus on 1000W vs 200W,
not the cheater running 400.

Or even 10,000W...

What is the technical competency difference between an Extra
operating SSB with a TS440 in the 80m Extra voice segment vs a
General
operating the same rig at say 3.885Mhz?

Not much!

Not any as I see it.

Exactly.The difference is in operating skills and knowledge.
The Extra part is where the DX often goes.

Maybe we could tie some power limits to frequency
spectrum which would then create a valid reason to not allow
a lower level licesnse in that spectrum slot.

I'm not sure what you're proposing. Do you mean having some parts of a
band allowed 1500 W and others only, say, 150 W, as is done now in the
Novice parts of 80/40/15?

Something to think about. Consider the discussion a "green-light"
session. No proposal get's immediately shot down while trying to
draw out as many new ideas/concepts as possible.

Certainly an option. But you'd face lots of opposition because it would mean
hams losing privs they have now.

But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional
technical knowledge with more privileges.

I don't oppose the concept, I oppose the illogical implementation.

We can agree to disagree about the logic.

But what should be used for an incentive besides spectrum?

I agree with Hans that power certanly can be and has been.

That's one possiblity.

Also, at the risk of being stoned, how has the Canadian
entry level license been going which restricts those hams to
commercial equipment only? Perhaps an entry level USA
license could have a restriction of commercial only rigs
"OR" hmebrew transmitter "IF" the homebrew has been
checked out and signed off as OK by an Extra class ham.

I'm not gonna throw any stones at ya, Bill. But please note how
I was asked to shut up a while back when I pointed out some logical
inconsistencies in the written testing....

Who wanted to shut you down?

Carl, WK3C, for one. I was pointing out that a strong case can be made that the
Tech test contains all the theory and safety knowledge needed, and that most of
the General and Extra tests can be shown to be "hoop jumping" exercises if one
cares to look at them that way. I was politely but firmly asked to shut up
about it,
lest someone actually use those arguments with FCC to get the writtens watered
down still more.

That's my recollection of the exchange, anyway.

We can discuss all we want. I'd
be careful, however, with certain ideas presented officially
to FCC.

Of course! But my main point was this: All of the arguments used against
the code test can also be reworded slightly and used against much of what's
in the written tests as well. It's already started.

The problem with such an "Appliance Class" license is that it cuts
off those who hold it from one of the main reasons for the ARS to
exist
in the USA. (Remember that the "basis and purpose" is an FCC/Part 97
thing and other countries have different ones, or none at all). Not
being *allowed* to homebrew, modify or repair one's own gear is
simply a bad idea. It would
*encouage* new hams to become even more dependent on manufacturers
rather than their own ingenuity.

I'll ask again, what IS the experience in Canada. What "bad" things are
happening or not happening?

I don;t know that Canada's B&P are the same as ours. One thing I do know is
that there are far fewer hams per capita there.

Some of the greatest experiences I have had in amateur radio have been
in
taking an idea and some parts and turning them into a working radio
station, then making contacts with that station. Started doing that
sort
of thing as a kid and never got out of the habit. Led me to EE
degrees, a
career and a bunch of other things. Never would have happened if I'd
had to use only "approved" gear.

But any "commercial" limitation would only apply to transmitters.
That still leaves receiver circuits, etc to experiment with.
In fact, no one needs any license to build and use their own
homebrew receiver.

True. But most manufactured ham gear these days is transceivers.
And one of the simplest practical projects for the beginner is a
simple low power transmitter. The "appliance" newcomer would be cut off
from such projects.

This isn't a minor point! One of the key factors in developing what I call
"practical radio skills" is being able to start with very simple projects and
work your way up to more complex stuff.

Allowing "homebrew" via an Extra certification process would
foster positive relationships and Elmering (IMHO).

Maybe. OTOH, having to get one's projects approved by another ham
slows
down the process enormously and could result in all kinds of trouble.

As above, not ALL projects would need approval. Also,
can you give an idea about "could result in all kinds of trouble.?"

Gladly. For one thing, the mere possession of an Extra license doesn't mean
the holder is necessarily qualified to judge the work of another ham *and*
said ham's ability to use a project.

For another, whose responsibility would it be if the "appliance" op got into
trouble with spurious emissions or such? Or got a shock?

Add
to that the fact that the current written tests are by no means
adequate
to ensure that all Extras know everything they need to know in order
to
sign off on another's work.

You just created Catch 22. Based on your perspective, even Extras
today shouldn't be allowed to homebrew without some additional
"certification" because the current Extra syllabus is inadequate to
ensure the Extra knows enough to homebrew.

Not at all! A homebrewer is responsible for the performace of his/her own
station. If there's a problem, guess who is responsible. Most hams will not
attempt a project beyond their ability for just that reason.

But to be responsible for someone else's work is a different thing entirely.
Particularly when the person you're responsible for is not under your
supervision.

And what problem does such an "Appliance Class" license really solve?
Do we have lots of problems here in the USA with homebrewing hams'
creations mucking up the bands and causing interference? I don't
think so.

I didin't say there was any problem. I merely suggested
another "incentive" that could better be tied to knowledge
at a certain license level.

My main concern is that we'd be setting up a new class of hams who
would be cut off from one of the main reasons to be a ham.

The problem, again one we agreed on before, is that granting
additional frequency spectrum doesn't rationally flow from the
additional knowledge required for the higher license class (e.g.
Extra vs General, General vs Tech.

It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter.

It only flows as to "pure incentive". It doesn't flow or relate
at all to the additional knowledge tested to pass the license.

Some of the knowledge does, such as HF propagation.

Yet the "only" difference between technicians not allowed
any HF and those allowed on the "novice" segments is a code test...
no additional knowledge of HF needed for Tech with code
to operate the Novice segments.

Sure - because that HF knowledge is tested in the written for Tech,
and was tested for in the Novice when it was available.

OK

Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill?
For that matter, what about the General?

Did I even hint at that.

Not at all!

The answer is basically no...although
I have NO preference for or against changing license structure
to a more rational basis for added privileges.

My point is simply that being anticodetest does *not* necessarily mean
someone
wants to water dwon the writtens or eliminate license classes.

THANK YOU Jim!

You're welcome.

I wish certain others in this newsgroup had the ability to
understand that.

But let's be honest about the situation, Bill. There *are* some folks
who
want to further reduce *written* testing. (Not me!) Just look at the
"21st Century" paper for one example - particularly the attitude it
projects.

Those that truly want to "further reduce written testing" are but
a handful and, except for W5YI, who you may put in that
category, they don't speak at all for a significant majority of
hams (IMHO, YMMV)

But majority doesn't matter - remember? If they can make their case,
the mere fact that most hams oppose it won't mean a thing. Just
like with code tests....

Their argument that most hams use manufactured equipment that requires
no critical operating adjustments is pretty hard to argue against on an
"avoidance of interference" basis.

One of its rallying cries is that we need more new hams at any cost,
and not only is the code test scapegoated as a barrier, but also the
written test. That paper came from a NCVEC committee, too, and you can
bet they will push that agenda.

Has that paper been submitted as official NCVEC input to the FCC?

Not yet. But I understand that it appeared in the December issue of CQ.

(Anybody got a copy, btw?)

The paper outlines their plan in detail. In fact they imply that we hams should
*not* offer proposals or petitions until FCC issues an NPRM!

A lot of things we thought impossible have come to pass. Heck, FCC
never imagined that cb would get out of their control...

In hindsight, the FCC certainly should have seen it coming.

Of course! But they didn't. They simply could not imagine that what
happened to cb could occur. It was simply not part of their mindset,
even though all of the indications were there.

Water over the dam.

But a lesson to be learned! If it happened to cb, it could happen to ham radio.

The big mistake,
in my opinion, was the failure of the FCC to take into account the
basic "plug-n-play aspect of CB, the multitude of sales outlets via
Radio
Shack (Tandy), and the constantly lowering of CB set costs, especially
once they became all solid state.

All of those things were considered *desirable* by the FCC! The whole
reason
that service was created by FCC was so that Everyman could get on the
air with inexpensive, easy-to-set-up-and-use radios for personal,
short-range communications. Particularly mobile.

And if that's not bad enough, lookit BPL.

The main point of all this is that FCC wasn't and isn't an infallible
bunch that Knows What Is Best For Radio. Let alone what is best for
ham radio.
They're simply the folks in charge, who have the unenviable task of
balancing
all the competing demands, and doing it with limited resources and
under various forms of pressure.

So it's up to us hams to make our case and set our path, not FCC.

That's why I am in ARRL and have been so since before NCI was
even created.

Me too. Member since 1968. When Feb QST shows up, it will be the 445th issue
I have received as a member.

I'll restate my position on the purpose of NCI as it
relates to me. Once the code testing is actually gone, then I'll
cease to be an NCI member as the goal will have been achieved.
If any of the other NCI directors/members want NCI to
continue on a different, expanded purpose, they will do so
without me.

Understood!

But it has always been stated that once the code test goal was reached, NCI
would simply cease to function at all in those countries.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

So what is your likly timetable for submission?
After an ARRL submission?
If yes, how soon after?

Bill,

I think that the answer to all of the above questions is:

"When Hans thinks the time is right"

There is a risk of submitting beyond a point where the FCC has
already digested the 14 or probably will be 15 submissions and
then posts a NPRM. By that time any new proposals aren't
likly to get any attention...IMHO.

Agreed! But that's included in the above answer.

I'm not speaking for Hans - the above answers are IMHO.

73 de Jim, N2EY

WA3MOJ wrote in message ...

Isn't that special, a vanity call for a no code dummy.

Another class A jerk. Not so special. Plenty of 'em in amateur radio.

In article , Brian says...

WA3MOJ wrote in message ...

Isn't that special, a vanity call for a no code dummy.

Another class A jerk. Not so special. Plenty of 'em in amateur radio.

Don't call Dwight that, he is special.

There are just over 57,600 licenced amateurs here in Canda, out of a
population of around 31,000,000 - a similar ratio your US amateur
population vs. total population.

There are two licence classes in Canada: Basic and Advanced. The
Basic licence is limited to, among other things, commercially built
transmitting equipment manufactured specifically for use in the
Amateur Radio service (homebuilding of all other types of equipment is
permitted). An Advanced licence removes this restriction.

For further info, please refer to the Industry Canada Radio
Information Circulars, accessible via the following web site:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf05478e.html

RIC-3 details the licence class info above.

73, Leo

On 11 Jan 2004 21:12:42 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
snip

The problem with such an "Appliance Class" license is that it cuts
off those who hold it from one of the main reasons for the ARS to
exist
in the USA. (Remember that the "basis and purpose" is an FCC/Part 97
thing and other countries have different ones, or none at all). Not
being *allowed* to homebrew, modify or repair one's own gear is
simply a bad idea. It would
*encourage* new hams to become even more dependent on manufacturers
rather than their own ingenuity.

I'll ask again, what IS the experience in Canada. What "bad" things are
happening or not happening?

I don;t know that Canada's B&P are the same as ours. One thing I do know is
that there are far fewer hams per capita there.
73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

Frankly, soldering has never been
a strong point with me...yet I've been able to do quite well
technically in my career as well as ham radio. I can "get by"
but prefer to have others do some of the connector soldering
chores for me.

That argument can be applied to almost any part of any proposed test.


Additionally, a soldering test, especially a PL-259 would be
too subjective a determination. Even soldering can't be learned by
all hams. Would we then have a soldering waiver for blind hams
or other hams handicapped by some affliction that didn't allow
them to ever pass a soldering test?

Bob Gunderson, W2JIO, demonstrated that blind people could
do all sorts of radio construction. Blind himself, he devised ways
to do almost every imaginable radio task without sight - including
tasks like soldering and reading meters. And this was before WW2.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


How much Spanish do you hear on the ham bands being used by US hams?


A lot.

Not nearly as much as you hear Morse code, though...

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

btw, we *don't* test all hams for Morse skill now.

Rephrased then... we DO test all hams that have or want a license
to operate HF for morse skill... but hey, maybe we should
reinstitute waivers again since the treaty is no longer
mandating the 5 wpm which the FCC never waivered before.

Perhaps!

But by the same token, why not waivers for some of the written tests?
Since it doesn't require any more technical knowledge to operate
on, say, 3.755 than it does on 3.995....

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article et, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

btw, we *don't* test all hams for Morse skill now.

Rephrased then... we DO test all hams that have or want a license
to operate HF for morse skill... but hey, maybe we should
reinstitute waivers again since the treaty is no longer
mandating the 5 wpm which the FCC never waivered before.

Perhaps!

But by the same token, why not waivers for some of the written tests?
Since it doesn't require any more technical knowledge to operate
on, say, 3.755 than it does on 3.995....

If that's something you want to do, feel free to file the petition.

Cheers :-) :-)

Bill K2UNK

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

WA3MOJ wrote in message
...

Isn't that special, a vanity call for a no code dummy.

Another class A jerk. Not so special. Plenty of 'em in amateur radio.

He might be the cb-plusser that paid Broose to upgrade. :-)

[that makes two like him fer sure... :-) ]

WMD

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

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

Since no one is prohibited from doing
public service, no authorization is
needed. (snip)


To do the types of public service we're authorized to do (MARS, RACES,
and
so on), authorization is required.

Sec. 97.407
(a) No station may transmit in RACES
unless it is an FCC-licensed primary,
club, or military recreation station and
it is certified by a civil defense organization
as registered with that organization, or it
is an FCC-licensed RACES station. (snip)

Care to show me where Part 95 authorizes CB'ers to operate a station at
all similar to a RACES station? What about a MARS station? What about
operations serving government agencies and others? In fact, show me where
Part 95 authorizes any activity beyond the recreational use of those
frequencies.



That is an authorization to operate on those frequencies and an
authorization to operate the station not an authorization to do public
service. There is a difference. And to do MARS or CAP, it is not the FCC
that authorizes you but other agencies and services. But I repeat that is
authorization to use the frequencies not authorization to do public service.
RACES is the same way. You have to be authorized for RACES operation but
that is not the same as authorizing one to do public service. RACES is a
very specific organization with very specific goals and tasks.

You do not and never have needed an authorization to do public service.
Where in the rules does it say that I need the FCC's authorization to do
communications at a walk-a-thon? Where in the rules does it state that I
need FCC's authorization to be part of the team that deployed here in the
Michigan area during the August power blackout? Where in the rules does it
say that I need the FCC's authorization to join ARES. Nowhere. The list
could go on and on.


(snip) It is a recognition of what we
do and the value of what we do. It is
a good and solid justification to use
for the continued existence of amateur
radio. Nothing more.


Sadly, far too many in Amateur Radio today have that attitude towards
public service.

Most of do follow the personal commitment to participate in public service
since it is not only a long and time honored tradition but the right thing
to do. That does not change the fact that there is no mandate to do so.

Right...and folks who ain't got no ham license or morse code
test passings don't do the right thing and are bad citizens.

Hoo hah...

WMD

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , "KØHB"
writes:

"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..
.
"My opinion is that any obstacle you put in the way to any
achievement guarantees that only those with dedication and
strong interest will get there."

All of the above quotations, gathered from rrap threads, 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" might
be 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. Therefore 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 applicants who lack
"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. I am not even suggesting that Morse testing is a
"good thing" or a "poor idea". But I have no expectation that
ANY examination can filter out "unworthy" applicants who lack
the proper dedication or motivation.

Sounds eminently reasonable to me...


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

Heh heh heh heh...EVERY self-righteous person who insists
that all MUST do as they did...:-) :-) :-) :-)

The regulars in here already have done that...

LHA

EVERY one of them (the self-righteous), to a man have done so.

Well, at least there's "consistency" there.

A consistency of thick mud.

WMD

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

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

(snip) Even sense 3 would be a
requirement as when one is given an
assignment, you are supposed to
carry that assigment. It is not just a
suggestion or desireable activity. If
a person or group does not carry
through on an assignment, then that
assignment is given to a group who
will.


Dee, I've repeatedly explained to you what was meant by the word
mandate.
Nothing is required or mandatory in the context used. Likewise, without a
stated obligation, there is nothing required or mandatory in giving an
assignment or task to someone (or in giving authorization to someone). If
you still cannot understand this, I suggest you look carefully at the
words
"mandate," "assigns," "authorization," and so on, including the synonyms.
I
have nothing more to say on the matter.


I repeat, Part 97 does NOT mandate
in any way shape or form that amateurs
participate in public service.


Sorry, but public service is at the very heart of the basic and purpose
of
the Amateur Radio Service (as described in 97.1). And, while there is
nothing mandatory about it, the mandate (authorization) to do so still
remains. Likewise, I have nothing more to say on this matter.


Again nothing in Part 97 gives amateurs a mandate in any sense of the
meaning of the word. It does NOT in any section of Part 97 authorize us to
do or assign us to do public service. So you remain wrong. I've just
finished reviewing Part 97 and it's not there. In 97.1 it is "recognition
and enhancement of the value..". That is not a mandate, that is not
authorization, that is not an assignment. It is a way of justifying
allowing us to continue to have the frequencies and privileges that we enjoy
but that is not a mandate.

We will all laminate your words and keep them in our wallets...
especially for the next morseperson demanding that morse
code testing be kept for similar reasons... :-)

WMD

In article ,
(JEP) writes:

LHA
You are a bitter little person and do not play well with others.

Stebe, quit trying to be somebody else. :-)

...and quit stealing phrases, sweetums, you get negative points
for plagiarism.

Perhaps you need something of a higher level in you life.

"Higher level?" Heck and darn, the NOISE level in here is already
too high!

Try Jesus instead of all of this negative stuff.

Sounds good but I already did that a long time ago.

This morning I eliminated the middleman and talked directly to
God. God must have been rather busy but his answering
machine worked...I got this wonderful posting from an anonymous
twit to liven my day! :-)

So much energy needs to be
focused on getting you to Heaven instead of bothering these nice people.

You flip out or get some bad yellow?

"Nice people?!?" HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get some help sweetums. Get a name while you're at it...

WMD





JEP

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Of course! But if you wait too long, the opportunity may be lost. ......
If you wait too long, FCC could move on to the NPRM process
before you ever get the petition sent in.

Did I miss something?

No, but I did. Thank you for clearing up your thinking on your
method of presenting your proposal, Hans.

Is this the last NPRM that FCC will issue in Amateur
Radio matters?

Of course not! But once FCC does so (probably some months after ARRL does its
proposal), it will be a while before they want to reopen that can of worms
again.

Of course I could be mistaken on that. I thought that FCC would simply dump
Element 1 via Memorandum Report and Order soon after S25.5 changed. At most I
thought there'd be a quickie NPRM. But instead it looks like we're in for a
long ride.

So, as the "insider" you don't consider consideration of the "ARS
Community" to be important?

Just on the petition comments alone, FCC has nearly twice the
documents that 98-143 had already and NO NPRM has yet been
issued.

If and when an NPRM on code-testing appears, the commentary
received is going to be gigantic in my estimation. It will make the
four-year-old-plus comments on 98-143 seem paltry in comparison.

The current salad bowl of 14 (15?) petitions is primarily concerned with
Morse testing for HF access. I've already commented on that matter.

So did I.

There are 4,661 documents on the 14 petitions. What is your
percentage of the total?

Perhaps my preference for doing a job once rather than nickel-and-diming it to
death is showing in that I think a more comprehensive approach (like your
proposal) is better. But that's just me - and it's *your* proposal anyway.

Perhaps you don't care to spend the time and effort to reply/comment
on all 14 petitions?

Did the FCC "lose" some of your comments? I don't see 14 comments
under your name. [it's all public, you know, no "google" needed...]


My main concern is that if you wait until the Morse Code test issue noise dies
down, it may be a long wait *and* there may be an addy-tood of "oh no, we're
not going to reopen THAT can of worms again". Meanwhile, really bad proposals
like the "21st Century" ideas may take the stage, or even be enacted. As much
as I disagree with some parts of your proposal, it is infinitely preferable
to the "21st Century" concepts.

Hiram forbid EVER taking the US amateur radio service "into the
21st century!"

Morse code uber alles! Marsch, marsch, marsch...

WMD

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

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.

Sorry but that makes NO sense.

FCC does NOT require any licensed radio amateur to use morse
code modes over and above any other allocated mode. Ergo, there
is no allocation requirement to satisfy.

Further, it makes NO sense that morse code skill "qualifies" any
radio amateur for "full privileges" on HF/MF bands. That is an
artificiality lobbied (successfully) for by olde-tyme morsemen.

True. The two CW/Morse Code only segments in the ARS priveleges are
in the entry level, No Code Tech portions of the ARS.

Actually those sub-bands are open to nearly all classes. Problem is,
"real hams" only work DX on HF with CW. :-)

If US amateur radio service were named "Artificial Radiotelegraph
Service," then it would make sense.

beep, beep

LHA

Ah sure hope we think the next restructuring through, and have it make
sense.

I dunno. The "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service" name change would
be appropriate. It's the last US radio service to require absolute CW
testing for entry into the sacred halls of hiram. Tradition. Honor.
All in line with The Service and that sort of pomp.

I can just imagine the front yard at Newington at sunset. All the
"servicemen" assemble in ranks...the League flag is lowered slowly...
W1AW fires up and plays the Retreat tatoo over the public address.
All salute the gold-plated J-38 on its marble pedastel.

Snif. All that emotion.

WMD

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
To do the types of public service
we're authorized to do (MARS,
RACES, and so on), authorization
is required.

Sec. 97.407 (snip)


That is an authorization to operate
on those frequencies and an
authorization to operate the station
not an authorization to do public
service. (snip)


"That is authorization to operate on those frequencies" to do what, Dee?
The only answer is "public service" in this context. When it comes to
Amateur Radio, we perform our public service using the Amateur Radio
frequencies. And the FCC is the governing agency that says what is
authorized on those frequencies (not everything is - your license is not a
blank check to do what you want with the Amateur frequencies). For example,
when it comes to the walk-a-thon you mentioned, the FCC has set rules on
what is and isn't authorized in that situation. The same with your power
blackout situation. And the same with ARES. In other words, you are only
allowed to use your radio in situations authorized, and in the manner
authorized. One situation authorized is public service.


(snip) That does not change the fact
that there is no mandate to do so.


Again, the words mandate and authorization are synonymous.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


Again, the words mandate and authorization are synonymous.


Not in any dictionary I can find, nor in Roget's.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Reality doesn't care what you believe.

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
To do the types of public service
we're authorized to do (MARS,
RACES, and so on), authorization
is required.

Sec. 97.407 (snip)

That is an authorization to operate
on those frequencies and an
authorization to operate the station
not an authorization to do public
service. (snip)

"That is authorization to operate on those frequencies" to do what, Dee?
The only answer is "public service" in this context. When it comes to
Amateur Radio, we perform our public service using the Amateur Radio
frequencies. And the FCC is the governing agency that says what is
authorized on those frequencies (not everything is - your license is not a
blank check to do what you want with the Amateur frequencies). For example,
when it comes to the walk-a-thon you mentioned, the FCC has set rules on
what is and isn't authorized in that situation. The same with your power
blackout situation. And the same with ARES. In other words, you are only
allowed to use your radio in situations authorized, and in the manner
authorized. One situation authorized is public service.

Dwight, throughout ALL of Title 47, Code of Federal Regulations,
the word "service" is a regulatory term used to denote the type
and kind of radio activity being regulated.

Too many self-enobling amateurs wish to wrap themselves in the
finery of some kind of "patriotism" or "good works" and say they
do their hobby activity "for the public good."

AMATEUR radio is, de facto, a hobby, a recreational activity
involving radio transmission, done without pecuniary interest.

There should be NOTHING WRONG with having a fun hobby just
to have a hobby. One hundred seventy thousand members of the
AMA use a number of 72 MHz frequencies for model radio control.
That's purely a recreational activity. Not one whit of "public
service" about it, no dreaming about being a "service to the nation"
by using those allocated, authorized radio frequencies.

Anyone thinking that amateur radio is "primarily about public
service" is deluding themselves and/or living in a fantasyland of
daydreams. Amateur radio is a hobby. It was never anything
else and it may never be anything else. Why should it be more
than a hobby?

I've never needed a "license" to do jury duty, yet I've done it four
times. I've never needed a "license" to be a court witness yet
I've done that once. I've never needed a "license" to contribute to
a charity or be a hospital volunteer or anything else to do REAL
public/civic service. Anyone physically capable can do all of those
things without any "license" or "special authorization/allocation"
by some "authority."

The five volumes of regulations on Title 47 C.F.R. concern normal
operation of all the US civil radio services, its operators, and the
structure and activities of the FCC. The authorization/allocation of
ALL services is specifically stated therein. For those wishing to
get into REAL public service radio, that is mostly in Part 90 under
Public Safety Radio Services.

Part 97.1 "Definitions" does NOT specifically "authorize public
service" nor is it in any way some kind of Important Noble Medal
surrogate to wear/show-off/brag-about. 97.1 is basically old,
standard political boilerplate CHAFF, words to use as political
radar screening (a time-honored American law tradition even if
the names of it vary) to INFER a raison d'etre for the radio service.

Political chaff is very important in lawmaking. It carries with it a
fantastic amount of emotional baggage...but all that baggage is
essential to the creation of whatever the law is defining. A
particular activity being legislated cannot readily exist without all
that baggage. That kind of baggage gets politicians elected and
it lets those politicians enact legislation that is so "important"
to some of the citizenry.

While all the radio amateurs - and especiall the league - were busy
thumping their gorilla chests to beats of self-importance rhythm,
the AMA quietly lobbied for, and got a number of R/C frequencies.
Not for any national "public service" to "do good works" or anything
else except make several thousand model hobbyists happy. Nothing
in there about "pioneering flight" or anything else pretentious, just for
a recreational hobby, to have fun, to enjoy themselves.

The membership of the AMA is approximately equal to the member-
ship of the ARRL...170 thousand each. Isn't that curious? :-)

The AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) doesn't constantly
pretend to be anything else but a hobby membership organization,
affiliated internationally with other model hobby organizations. ARRL
on the other hand is terribly self-pretentious with a constant PR of
self-importance, "radio pioneering" and general self-grandeur.

Amateur radio transmissions fall under the federal laws concerning
United States civil radio. Such are given specific regulations by
the FCC. That isn't enoblement "to do the public good," it is merely
a separation of the various radio activities for regulatory purposes.

Trying to draw "conclusions, authorizations" from the first part of
Part 97 - for any reason - is like saying all politicians' statements
are "true." The definitions of 97.1 are just general statements,
political chaff (or any other spin-equivalent name you want) of the
old style to justify the existance of the radio activity in the political
arena.

LHA

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

And, while there is nothing mandatory about it,
the mandate (authorization) to do so still
remains.

Dwight, do you read and understand what you write prior to mashing the
send button?

If there is nothing mandat(ory) about something, how can it be a
mandate?

A mandate is a command, *requiring* a certain action.

An authorization is a grant of permission, but does not *require* an
action.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Len Over 21" wrote:

(snip) Anyone thinking that amateur
radio is "primarily about public service"
is deluding themselves and/or living in
a fantasyland of daydreams. Amateur
radio is a hobby. It was never anything
else and it may never be anything else.
Why should it be more than a hobby?


Of course, those quotes don't reflect anything said by me. Instead, I said
public service is a key component of the basis and purpose of this radio
service (97.1a).


(snip) I've never needed a "license"
to do jury duty, yet I've done it four
times. I've never needed a "license"
to be a court witness yet I've done
that once. I've never needed a
"license" to contribute to a charity or
be a hospital volunteer or anything
else to do REAL public/civic service.
Anyone physically capable can do
all of those things without any
"license" or "special authorization/
allocation" by some "authority."


Obviously, Len. We were talking public service relating to Amateur radio.
Nothing said precludes public service in some other means or manner.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"KØHB" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Again, the words mandate and authorization
are synonymous.


Not in any dictionary I can find, nor in Roget's.


Princeton University's WordNet...

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/

Click on "Use WordNet Online" and enter "mandate." Notice the word
"authorization" right next to it for the first definition. Notice the word
"mandatory" next to it for the second definition. Mandate and authorization
are synonymous in the context used.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Hans K0HB" wrote:

Dwight, do you read and understand
what you write prior to mashing the
send button?

If there is nothing mandat(ory) about
something, how can it be a mandate?


Mandatory is only one definition, or contextual sense, of the word
"mandate," Hans. There are others.


An authorization is a grant of
permission, but does not
*require* an action.


A mandate does not always "require" action. For example, a people can give
a mandate to their elected leaders, but those leaders are not required to
follow it. For example, the people can give a president a mandate to raise
taxes to finance schools, but he can finance those schools some other way.
In that sense, the people have their president an authorization to act, not
a requirement he must follow.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"KØHB" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Again, the words mandate and authorization
are synonymous.


Not in any dictionary I can find, nor in Roget's.


Princeton University's WordNet...

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/

Click on "Use WordNet Online" and enter "mandate." Notice the word
"authorization" right next to it for the first definition. Notice the word
"mandatory" next to it for the second definition. Mandate and
authorization
are synonymous in the context used.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Circumlocutory, Dwight. I understood your implied intent by the use of the
word mandate and they did, too. ; )

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Circumlocutory, Dwight. I understood
your implied intent by the use of the
word mandate and they did, too. ; )


That's a mighty big word, Kim. Unnecessarily wordy? Perhaps.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Len Over 21 wrote:

Or just Attila the Ham (or "Atilla" if you speak Hunnish with a dialect)?

That'd be you, since you're the fellow who coined the terms "Atila" and
"beligerant", Leonard. You used both words more than once. Some
dialect.

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

This newsgroup is all about lets-pretend fish-story-tellers trying
to put down lots of other amateurs. All amateurishly.

You seem confused again, old timer. While you tell your fish stories
and put down radio amateurs, you aren't in fact a radio amateur.

I'm all for eliminating the morse code test from any radio license
examination. That's all.

"Go for it, EX purchasing agent..."

"Of course you did...right after you accepted the Presidential Medal
of Freedom for keeping Homeland Security safe through ham radio."

"Yeah, like a little few-page weekly is on par with the New York
TIMES."

"MODERN HF amateur radio: 'What was good in the 1930s is still
good in 2000s!'"

"Real ham radio is working DX on HF with CW."

"Quit trying to be a Host, sweetums. The only "host" you can be is
of a communicable disease."

"Go get some therapy."

Yep, it appears quite evident from the quoted material just from one of
your posts, Len. You just want to eliminate a code test.

Dave K8MN

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
To do the types of public service
we're authorized to do (MARS,
RACES, and so on), authorization
is required.

Sec. 97.407 (snip)


That is an authorization to operate
on those frequencies and an
authorization to operate the station
not an authorization to do public
service. (snip)


"That is authorization to operate on those frequencies" to do what, Dee?
The only answer is "public service" in this context. When it comes to
Amateur Radio, we perform our public service using the Amateur Radio
frequencies. And the FCC is the governing agency that says what is
authorized on those frequencies (not everything is - your license is not a
blank check to do what you want with the Amateur frequencies). For
example,
when it comes to the walk-a-thon you mentioned, the FCC has set rules on
what is and isn't authorized in that situation. The same with your power
blackout situation. And the same with ARES. In other words, you are only
allowed to use your radio in situations authorized, and in the manner
authorized. One situation authorized is public service.


(snip) That does not change the fact
that there is no mandate to do so.


Again, the words mandate and authorization are synonymous.


There is no authorization from the FCC required to do public service. We
have never needed government authorization to do public service. That the
FCC has simply formally recognized the value of amateur's public service
efforts does not constitute authorization to do public service. I've read
Part 97 beginning to end. All it authorizes is the use of specific
frequencies for specific license classes. It mandates meeting safety and
signal requirements and operational limits. The only words relating to
public service are simply those recognizing the fact of our value in public
service and encouraging us to continue.

You have just demonstrated how little you know about ARES and RACES.

RACES isn't allowed to function (except for limited practice sessions)
unless specifically activated and called to action by the government. The
FCC isn't even granting any more RACES station authorizations. They really
are not a public service group but instead are a volunteer civilian
auxiliary to the government. Thus RACES cannot do anything other than
follow the specific orders of the government when specifically activated.
They cannot do walk-a-thons or any other volunteer work or public service
work.

On the other hand, ARES is totally independent of the government and is
strictly an organization set up by and run by hams. The hams themselves
decide if, when and where they will do public service. ARES is not even
mentioned in the FCC rules. They can do any public service they want to so
long as they do not violate the FCC rules. The FCC has nothing whatsoever
to do with ARES.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...

Of course, those quotes don't reflect anything said by me. Instead, I
said
public service is a key component of the basis and purpose of this radio
service (97.1a).



I repeat the words in 97.1a amount only to a recognition of the fact that we
do public service and encouragement to us to continue. It is not an
authorization to do public service. We need no authorization whatsoever to
do public service. Amateur radio operators have always participated in
public service and have done so since before those words were incorporated
into the FCC rules. There is NO mandate. There is NO authorization.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"KØHB" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Again, the words mandate and authorization
are synonymous.


Not in any dictionary I can find, nor in Roget's.


Princeton University's WordNet...

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/

Click on "Use WordNet Online" and enter "mandate." Notice the word
"authorization" right next to it for the first definition. Notice the word
"mandatory" next to it for the second definition. Mandate and
authorization
are synonymous in the context used.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)


But that is not the context in which you used it. There is nothing in Part
97 authorizing us to do public service. Public service is briefly mentioned
but only in recognition and encouragement. Paragraph 97.1a does not
authorize any one to do a thing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Hans K0HB" wrote:

Dwight, do you read and understand
what you write prior to mashing the
send button?

If there is nothing mandat(ory) about
something, how can it be a mandate?


Mandatory is only one definition, or contextual sense, of the word
"mandate," Hans. There are others.


An authorization is a grant of
permission, but does not
*require* an action.


A mandate does not always "require" action. For example, a people can
give
a mandate to their elected leaders, but those leaders are not required to
follow it. For example, the people can give a president a mandate to raise
taxes to finance schools, but he can finance those schools some other way.
In that sense, the people have their president an authorization to act,
not
a requirement he must follow.



So quote the exact words from Part 97 that give us an authorization to do
public service. There is none. So regarding the FCC rules you have misused
the term.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee,

The belief that a mandate for anateur radio to participate in public
service communications is quite common - just did a quick search on
Google, and II have attached an ARRL reference as well as one amateur
radio club, who both clearly call it a "mandate".

Not sure where in the regs this is, or whether it is an interpretation
of the Part 97 sections already quoted.

73, Leo


ARRL:

http://www2.arrl.org/qst/features-columns.html :

Public Service: Our mandate from the FCC includes the need to put our
knowledge and equipment to use in service to our fellow citizens.
Every month you'll read about what your fellow hams are doing to
fulfill this promise of service to their communities.


Kentucky Amateur Radio Web Site - ARES Operator Registration

http://www.qsl.net/kyham/forms/aresreg.html

Thank you very much for having the desire to serve your community, and
help to fulfill Amateur Radio's FCC mandate of public service in time
of emergency.



On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:08:05 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"KØHB" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Again, the words mandate and authorization
are synonymous.


Not in any dictionary I can find, nor in Roget's.


Princeton University's WordNet...

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/

Click on "Use WordNet Online" and enter "mandate." Notice the word
"authorization" right next to it for the first definition. Notice the word
"mandatory" next to it for the second definition. Mandate and
authorization
are synonymous in the context used.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)


But that is not the context in which you used it. There is nothing in Part
97 authorizing us to do public service. Public service is briefly mentioned
but only in recognition and encouragement. Paragraph 97.1a does not
authorize any one to do a thing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Leo" wrote in message
...

Dee,

The belief that a mandate for anateur radio to participate in public
service communications is quite common - just did a quick search on
Google, and II have attached an ARRL reference as well as one amateur
radio club, who both clearly call it a "mandate".

Not sure where in the regs this is, or whether it is an interpretation
of the Part 97 sections already quoted.

73, Leo


ARRL:

http://www2.arrl.org/qst/features-columns.html :

Public Service: Our mandate from the FCC includes the need to put our
knowledge and equipment to use in service to our fellow citizens.
Every month you'll read about what your fellow hams are doing to
fulfill this promise of service to their communities.


Kentucky Amateur Radio Web Site - ARES Operator Registration

http://www.qsl.net/kyham/forms/aresreg.html

Thank you very much for having the desire to serve your community, and
help to fulfill Amateur Radio's FCC mandate of public service in time
of emergency.


These mistakes are quite common Leo and sometimes are fostered intentionally
just to make a good show. This is why every ham should read Part 97 from
beginning to end. The exact words in Part 97.1a are as follows (and this is
the only place public service is even mentioned.

97.1a
"Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur radio service to
the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly
with respect to providing emergency communications."

This wording certainly is no mandate or authorization. It's a recognition
of what we do and what we have always done. While public service is indeed
a time honored and honorable tradition and something that we should continue
to do, the FCC regs can hardly be construed to be either a mandate or an
authorization.

However, political grandstanding for selling your cause is also a long and
time honored tradition. I don't really agree with such actions (even on the
part of the ARRL) but calling a house a castle doesn't make it one.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee,

Agreed, the paragraph that you quote simply recognizes the value of
public service comms, no mandate or authorization is expressed or
implied.

I'm surprised, though, that an organization as large as the ARRL would
carry such a statement on their site without something to back it up -
an error, perhaps, or they found a lost FCC scroll, or ?

Has anyone emailed them to inquire just exactly where they got this
mandate idea from? I'm a ARRL member, and would be willing to do so
if you wish!

73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:55:30 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .

Dee,

The belief that a mandate for anateur radio to participate in public
service communications is quite common - just did a quick search on
Google, and II have attached an ARRL reference as well as one amateur
radio club, who both clearly call it a "mandate".

Not sure where in the regs this is, or whether it is an interpretation
of the Part 97 sections already quoted.

73, Leo


ARRL:

http://www2.arrl.org/qst/features-columns.html :

Public Service: Our mandate from the FCC includes the need to put our
knowledge and equipment to use in service to our fellow citizens.
Every month you'll read about what your fellow hams are doing to
fulfill this promise of service to their communities.


Kentucky Amateur Radio Web Site - ARES Operator Registration

http://www.qsl.net/kyham/forms/aresreg.html

Thank you very much for having the desire to serve your community, and
help to fulfill Amateur Radio's FCC mandate of public service in time
of emergency.


These mistakes are quite common Leo and sometimes are fostered intentionally
just to make a good show. This is why every ham should read Part 97 from
beginning to end. The exact words in Part 97.1a are as follows (and this is
the only place public service is even mentioned.

97.1a
"Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur radio service to
the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly
with respect to providing emergency communications."

This wording certainly is no mandate or authorization. It's a recognition
of what we do and what we have always done. While public service is indeed
a time honored and honorable tradition and something that we should continue
to do, the FCC regs can hardly be construed to be either a mandate or an
authorization.

However, political grandstanding for selling your cause is also a long and
time honored tradition. I don't really agree with such actions (even on the
part of the ARRL) but calling a house a castle doesn't make it one.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Leo" wrote in message
...
Dee,

Agreed, the paragraph that you quote simply recognizes the value of
public service comms, no mandate or authorization is expressed or
implied.

I'm surprised, though, that an organization as large as the ARRL would
carry such a statement on their site without something to back it up -
an error, perhaps, or they found a lost FCC scroll, or ?

Has anyone emailed them to inquire just exactly where they got this
mandate idea from? I'm a ARRL member, and would be willing to do so
if you wish!

73, Leo


Oh I wouldn't get too excited about it. Remember that among its other
functions, ARRL is a political entity. Political entities do use and abuse
the language. However note that even though the term is used on the
website, the study guides do not refer to public service as a mandate.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

There is nothing in Part 97 authorizing us to do public service.
Public service is briefly mentioned but only in recognition and
encouragement. Paragraph 97.1a does not
authorize any one to do a thing.

"Everything not specifically prohibited is mandatory."
--W5NET