"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.