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

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

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?

Paul, I appreciate your "guidance" in newsgroupism, but let's clear
the board and outline a few things -

1. Double-D has claimed that I am on her "killfile." That means
"she doesn't read any of my postings" for whatever righteous
reasons she has (such as puritanism and syncophancy of
some unclear "amateur ideals").

2. Killfiling may be good for removing those mouthing vulgarities
and obscenities ("deleting explitives" like 'heck' and 'darn') but
it is also an ostrich syndrome, burying one's head in the virtual
sand of righteous thoughts of the "ideal" so that "impure"
thoughts (differences from righteous personal opinions) are
filtered out.

3. Those who claim "killfiling" are irresistable open targets for
commentary, taking pot-shots against the syncophants, the
sanctimonious self-righteous self-propelled "experts" and
olde-tymers's ideas. In Double-D's case she has exhibited
Parentalism, that of treating others not thinking as she does
as "little children needing to be taught the Right way..."

4. Hunting Season is ALWAYS open on the Internet. If you wish
to "guide appropriate behavior," there are several in HERE who
are likely recipients of "guidance and counseling." QED.

5. For proper sanctimonity (sanctimoniousism?) of the self-righteous
olde-tymers, you and the newsgroup ruling triad (are you still one
of those?) should CLOSE the public access here, install a
monitor, demand a showing of "papers" for access. That is the
proper way to Control Thought. An ultimate in Ostrich Syndrome.

6. Obvious Pro-Code Test Advocates do NOT play "Devil's Advocate."
Those are hide-bound olde-tyme-thinking PCTAs who are not
only sanctimonious self-righteous self-important self-propelled
"experts" but are all seriously devoid of a sense of humor. They
are so stuck on the "proper" way to act that their rigidity
collapses in the slightest breeze of independent thought...and
they quickly lapse into anger (sometimes hatred) against the
independent person, oft-times jumping into puerile barbaric
behavior of using personal insults rather than arguing subjects.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum by all that is Google and DejaNews.

7. Independence of Thought is a cherished item in the United
States of America since its beginning a scant 228 years ago.
So much so that it is incorporated into the First Amendment
of our Constitution to make it clear what we citizens can say to
our government. By tradition and independent spirit, we
Americans also cherish being able to pot-shoot politician's
opinions and their political parties. ARRL is a political entity
as well as a publishing house and is NOT any sort of agency
of the federal government; they are more open for pot-shooting
than any feds despite the santimony expressed by their devout
followers of the Church of St. Hiram.

8. "The Devil made me do it." :-)

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:

Paul, I appreciate your "guidance" in newsgroupism, but let's clear
the board and outline a few things -

... (such as puritanism and syncophancy of....

The what?

commentary, taking pot-shots against the syncophants

Against whom?

Looks like you need some help with that clearing and outlining.

6. Obvious Pro-Code Test Advocates do NOT play "Devil's Advocate."
Those are hide-bound olde-tyme-thinking PCTAs who are not
only sanctimonious self-righteous self-important self-propelled
"experts" but are all seriously devoid of a sense of humor.

You know, Leonard, all of those adjectives could easily be used to
describe you.

Dave K8MN

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
...
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?


Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they
decide to do anything at all.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has
never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea
for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue
came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech
Pluses to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their
database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY


That theory works but for one major problem. Were talking about the 'gang
of fifteen' here. What makes you think they have enough sense?

Dan/W4NTI

In (N2EY) writes:


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

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact
thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take
at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O
for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer. Rather, it is just one of
the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better
consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like
Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's
band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's
desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official,
but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer,
is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY) writes:


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

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has
never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue
came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses
to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact
thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take
at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O
for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer.

Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea?

Rather, it is just one of
the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better
consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like
Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's
band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's
desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official,
but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer,
is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading.

I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or bad
idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial
release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000?

More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such a
burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element 3,
in order to get the next higher grade of license?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY)
writes:


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

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means
that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has
never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea
for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if
they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the
issue
came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech
Pluses
to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had
no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their
database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact
thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take
at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O
for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer.

Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea?

Here's your options:

We currently have essentially a 6 license system in place (even though
several licenses are no longer issued). To go from that system
to the one proposed by ARRL leaves three options as I see it:

1. The one-time free upgrade process as put forth by ARRL which takes
nothing away from anyone and immediately gets everyone into the
new 3 license system, or

2. Go to the new system but "grandfather" those on current but no
longer to be issued license classes which takes nothing from anyone but
presents a dual system of licenses, rules and regulations which would
likly exist for decades until those with licenses no longer being issued
as new ended up SK or otherwise dropped from our ranks or,

3. Implement the ARRL 3 licnense system and downgrade some
folks to new Novice (i.e. the Techs) or General (i.e the Advanced).
This last scenario takes away privileges and we all know how well
that went down in the late 60's Incentive Licensing implementation.

To me the answer is clear...and, I suspect so is it also to ARRL which
is why the proposal includes free upgrades.

Rather, it is just one of
the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better
consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like
Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's
band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's
desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official,
but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer,
is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading.

I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or
bad
idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial
release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000?

More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such
a
burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element
3,
in order to get the next higher grade of license?

See options 2 and 3 above.

Cheersm
Bill K2UNK

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY)
writes:


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

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means
that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has
never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea
for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if
they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the
issue
came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech
Pluses
to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had
no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their
database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact
thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take
at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O
for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer.

Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea?

Here's your options:

We currently have essentially a 6 license system in place (even though
several licenses are no longer issued). To go from that system
to the one proposed by ARRL leaves three options as I see it:

1. The one-time free upgrade process as put forth by ARRL which takes
nothing away from anyone

Hold on a sec.

Right now there are about 105,000 Extras. And we have a few slices of
choice kHz on 4 HF bands. In my experience, QRM in these subbands is usually
less than elsewhere in the same band because relatively few US hams have access
to them.

If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to
those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them
a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras.

Same situation for Generals.
elsewhere in the same band

and immediately gets everyone into the
new 3 license system,

But nobody says why that is such a big priority, when it wasn't 4 years ago.

or

2. Go to the new system but "grandfather" those on current but no
longer to be issued license classes which takes nothing from anyone but
presents a dual system of licenses, rules and regulations which would
likly exist for decades until those with licenses no longer being issued
as new ended up SK or otherwise dropped from our ranks

or upgraded! Have you forgotten that any of the closed off classes can
upgrade with the required tests? The fact that so few Advanceds have
upgraded in almost 4 years is quite interesting, don't you think? Number
of Advanceds is down by only about 16%, and that includes both upgrades
and expirations.

or,

3. Implement the ARRL 3 licnense system and downgrade some
folks to new Novice (i.e. the Techs) or General (i.e the Advanced).
This last scenario takes away privileges and we all know how well
that went down in the late 60's Incentive Licensing implementation.

Or

4. Do something else.

To me the answer is clear...and, I suspect so is it also to ARRL which
is why the proposal includes free upgrades.

Why should FCC allow free upgrades today, when they said no in 1999? What has
changed?

Rather, it is just one of
the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better
consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like
Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's
band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's
desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official,
but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer,
is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading.

I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or
bad
idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial
release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000?

More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such
a
burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element
3,
in order to get the next higher grade of license?

See options 2 and 3 above.

The rules for the 6 license classes are already in place. So what's the
problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY