Len Over 21 wrote:

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

Learn your history. ARRL fought that proposal. That was solely the idea of
the FCC.

The ARRL can do NO wrong, of course.

Evil is the FCC...of course.

Months from now, you'll state with much confidence that someone here
said such things. You will of course be correct. The someone was you.

FCC has been around since 1934...almost 70 years.

....not nearly as old as the League, is it?

ARRL doesn't grant amateur licenses although they think they "control"
it.

Who, beside you, believes such a statement?

FCC grants amateur licenses and is THE authority on U.S. civil
radio regulation.

Vote early and often...

Vote Leonard Kusinich!

Dave K8MN

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

Does the ARRL represent any of those interested in becoming a
radio amteur?

No, Lennie...but they represent folks interested in becoming
radio AMATEURS.

A TYPO! Lennie MUST be in RAGE ! ! ! He's MAD that folks even
LESS qualified than he percieves himself MAY be allowed to get on HF
soon!

SEEK HELP Lennie! That "rage" thing is burning you up!

Steve, K4YZ

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:54:28 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
On 22 Jan 2004 00:02:34 GMT, Alun wrote:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
igy.com:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

I did. As they get 7100-7200, any reason to have 'phone below 7100
goes away completely.

Except for us up North, perhaps - we have 7.050 to 7.100 allocated as
SSB on our 40M band plan. There are a few Canadian nets that operate
there regularily, as well as quite a bit of foreign DX.

Fortunately, our band plans are guidelines prepared by Radio Amateurs
of Canada - not federally mandated.

73, Leo


Do you really think you would like all the US amateurs jumping in down
there?? Remember the population difference. We have a tremendous amount of
activity on 40m voice on 7.150 to 7.300 until the broadcasts drive us off.
If we had SSB access to that 7.050 to 7.100 used by other countries, it
would be packed solid and nobody else could get in. Do you want that? Far
better to continue the battle to get the allocation extended to 7.300 for
all amateurs around the world.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Agree that the exclusivity of the 40M band should be extended to 7.300
- but that is likely quite a few years away. It will be a few more
years before the 7.100 to 7.200 segment is cleared of broadcast
stations. And, the bandwidth from 7.050 to 7.100 (at least from my
QTH) is relatively underutilized - not a great deal of CW or digital
traffic going on there.

Just thinking that it might provide some clear space for you to
operate if it was opened to phone in the US.

Personally, I don't mind having it as clear as it is right now at all!
There are, as I stated, some excellent DX opportunities there...

73, Leo

"KØHB" wrote in news:fZEPb.22599$zj7.10801
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Alun" wrote

From K0HB:

The governing regulation is §97.527 which allows, but does NOT
require,
VEC's to collect reimbursement for examinations. (In other words,
there
is no requirement that VEC's collect money for ANY examination.)
Collection of reimbursement is AUTHORIZED but it is not MANDATORY.

I don't think that qualifies as proof.

Since it is a citation of the actual federal rules, it is certainly more
convincing than your tenuous assertion that you "read somewhere".....

73, de Hans, K0HB











That's the problem though, isn't it? What we need is the statute, not the
rules, which prove nothing in the absence of Novice testing.

Alun wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in news:fZEPb.22599$zj7.10801
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"Alun" wrote

From K0HB:

The governing regulation is §97.527 which allows, but does NOT
require,
VEC's to collect reimbursement for examinations. (In other words,
there
is no requirement that VEC's collect money for ANY examination.)
Collection of reimbursement is AUTHORIZED but it is not MANDATORY.

I don't think that qualifies as proof.

Since it is a citation of the actual federal rules, it is certainly more
convincing than your tenuous assertion that you "read somewhere".....

That's the problem though, isn't it? What we need is the statute, not the
rules, which prove nothing in the absence of Novice testing.

So if I understand your view, you'd like to see a statute as proof that
the statute does not exist. Does that sum it up?

Dave K8MN

The ARRL's stand was now clear. Exclusive frequencies must be restored
to the Advanced and Extra class amateurs in order to give the Generals
an "incentive" to upgrade. Of course, what was left unsaid was that in
order to do so, frequencies would have to be taken away from the
General class hams."


All this so the top HAMs have something to gloat about.

All this so the top HAMs have something to gloat about.

Heres what so Stupid, there is nothing to prevent you from being a "TOP HAM"

In (Len Over 21) writes:


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

Actually I wonder if the ARRL petition isn't a crafty ruse. It will look
good to people who want what it proposes but has high odds of being rejected
by the FCC since the FCC has a long history of shooting down automatic
upgrades. They get the "attaboy" for "trying" and can then lay it at the
FCC's door when it fails even though they may want it to fail.

SHAME!

Thinking improper and vulgar thoughts about the ARRL!

Say 100 Hail Hirams as penance and sin no more.

LHA / WMD


You probably realized that Dee D. may be assuming the role of "devil's
advocate" here (by overplaying an idea to generate further discussion).
In other words, we might not want to take her words at face value until
she clarifies what she really means.

So, Dee D., what did you really mean to say above?

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

Alun wrote


That's the problem though, isn't it?


It's not a problem for me.

What we need is the statute, not the
rules, which prove nothing in the absence
of Novice testing.

The rule cited shows that there is not a requirement to charge a fee
for any license examination of any class.

If you think otherwise, then I guess the burden of proof lies with
you, not with me. I've made my case by citing the governing
regulation.

Good luck on this one now!

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Alun" wrote

I don't think that qualifies as proof.

Here is a direct quote from the "Amateur Radio Newsline" broadcast of
Sept 12th, 1993, where the hissy-fit of W5YI is described. Since K7UGA
left the Senate in 1986, long before this incident, it's unlikely that
he responded with legislation which required free Novice exams.

Sunuvagun!

de Hans, K0HB


" VEC UPSET ABOUT FREE NOVICE TESTS

The ARRL says that it will not charge applicants for Novice
tests. This even though the W5YI VEC has filed a complaint with
the FCC alleging that the League's VEC operation is in violation
of the rules because it refuses to charge applicants for these
tests.
But Fred Maia W5YI who operates the VEC bearing his callsign
claims that its a matter of uniformity. That all VEC's who use
what is called the annual method of figuring reimbursement are
required to charge an examination fee for every test it gives,
including Novice exams. The ARRL says that it plans to continue
its policy of administering Novice tests free of charge because
it believes that this policy is consistent with an FCC tradition
established back in the 1950's. This, as a way of making it easy
for youngsters to get entry level licenses.
The League's President, George Wilson, W4OYI says that the
whole thing is nothing more than one of the ironies that keeps
ham radio politics interesting. Wilson notes that VEC's have
always had the latitude to set their own fees. He adds -- and we
quote -- "Frankly, we see no compelling Federal interest in
whether or not a class of nine year olds ought to be charged for
taking an entry level ham radio exam."
But Maia and his W5YI VEC operation see it very differently.
In his September 1st issue of his W5YI Report newsletter Maia
says that the potential financial benefit to the League
resulting from its policy is to serious to be ignored. He says
that free examinations when all other VEC's charge, attract
applicants who are the potential purchasers of examination
preparation materials. Maia believes that the purchasing
decisions of these people may be unduly influenced by their
choice of VEC's.