In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid,
because there are bound to be both
supporting and opposing comments.

Avoid?????

Why, yes.

What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to
be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about
stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them?

Not here. But I don't know about in the much wider arena of petitions to the
FCC.

The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will
likely make it 15.

The comment and reply comment periods to all of those 14 petitions are long
past. ARRL hasn't started yet.

Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that
noise level?

What noise level? Right now there are no petitions/RMs/NPRMs on amateur license
requirement changes out there. Yours would have the comment stage to itself
right now.

Soon ARRL will have its board meeting, and then there will probably be a
proposal that will gather all kinds of comments. Obviously you don't want to
compete with that!

Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition
at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from
the rulemakers.

Of course! But if you wait too long, the opportunity may be lost. Considering
the way FCC tossed out 14 RM numbers in two batches of seven, if you wait you
may find your proposal batched with ARRL's. If you wait too long, FCC could
move on to the NPRM process before you ever get the petition sent in.

Happy Y3K,

And looking forward to Y4K

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"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.


(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.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

(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.

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.

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

That gives him absolute permission to behave as an

[expletive deleted]

off the radio.

Better than behaving that way *on* the ham bands. Which some of us are, and
lenover21 is not.

Is The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim really behaving that way on the air?

I certainly hope not, but he has been behaving strangely on R.R.A.P. of late.

(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.

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"N2EY" wrote
Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid,
because there are bound to be both
supporting and opposing comments.

Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems
to
be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about
stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them?

The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will
likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in
that
noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition
at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from
the rulemakers.

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

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

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

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.

73, Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE