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

I just read the proposal. Much of the code retention argument
is the same as was raised and dismissed by the FCC in
the R&O for 98-143...howvever, there is a section
21 that I have no clue what they are talking about. It reads:

"21. Finally, it should be noted that by removing the Morse
radiotelegraphy requirements from the General Class and
Amateur Extra Class licenses, the Commission would be
creating the groundwork for a socially divisive caste system
within the Amateur Service - the 'no-codes' versus the
'know-codes'.

We've had hams who never passed a code test since 1991. Where have these guys
been?

To some degree, this is already a fact in
some circles.

Oh?

Amateur radio, by its very nature, is a very
social pursuit. However, by removing telegraphy from the
requirements of the General Class and Amateur Extra
Class licenses as petitioned by some in the community,
the Commission is potentially embarking upon a mission
that is virtually guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare." End of Quoted material

Couldn't that same thing be said of almost anything? Multiple license classes,
vabity calls, operating awards.....

What does dropping code testing for General or
Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare."

I have no idea. I had no part in writing the thing, just in analyzing it.

Why not ask the authors? A few of them are all over eham.net

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

I don't see how, since that hasn't been the case for Techs.

What am I missing here?

I'm not sure what they're getting at, either.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net...

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

What am I missing here?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill, your question reminds me of a scenario painted by Steve, to
which TAFKA Rev Jim responded below. It is very enlightening to see
that after a decade of saying that the Morse Code Exam was no barrier
at all to the Amateur Service, he pipes in with a new theory - that a
Morse Exam is a disincentive to the use of CW on HF.

Thought you might enjoy the flip-flop.

bb
----------------
(William) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:
Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Why?
----------------

In article , Alun
writes:

The FAR is an organisation that raises money for college scholarships to be
paid to licenced hams.

This isn't them. It has six members. Look on eham.net under the discussion
about the ARRL being representative.

That said, do you know what's in their petition. I am curious.

It's 59 pages but it boils down to this, in no particular order:

- Three license classes: Tech, General, Extra. Basically the same test
requirements as today (including 5 wpm code for General and Extra)

- No change to General or Extra privs

- Novices get upgraded to Tech, Advanceds get upgraded to Extra, both for free
(no test).

- Techs and Tech Pluses merge, get all same privileges as listed below

- Techs retain all VHF/UHF

- Techs get 100W PEP on HF on parts of 160, 80, 40, 15 and 10. CW/data on all
those bands, 'phone on 160, 10 and 15.

Basically, they dropped the code test for Tech Plus privileges, added data on
the CW parts, and added a bit of 160 and 15 meter 'phone. Much less HF than the
ARRL proposal, and you need a Tech to get it.

I think the proposal is on AG4RQ's website.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 21 Feb 2004 03:17:03 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Just like the '60s all over again. A pile of proposals - watch FCC
pick a bit of this and a bit of that and make nobody happy.

Isn't that what a regulatory agency 'sposed to do? ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 21 Feb 2004 03:17:03 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Just like the '60s all over again. A pile of proposals - watch FCC
pick a bit of this and a bit of that and make nobody happy.

Isn't that what a regulatory agency 'sposed to do? ggg

I dunno, but it's what a lot of them do do.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 21 Feb 2004 03:17:03 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Just like the '60s all over again. A pile of proposals - watch FCC
pick a bit of this and a bit of that and make nobody happy.

Isn't that what a regulatory agency 'sposed to do? ggg

I dunno, but it's what a lot of them do do.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote


And K0HB hasn't even submitted his proposal.

Yes he has.

So we're not even close to an NPRM yet...

How did you reach that conclusion, oh great Imperial Pontificator?
FCC can issue an NPRM without considering input from ARRL, K0HB, or
Donald Duck.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Electric Smoke

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
m...
(N2EY) wrote


And K0HB hasn't even submitted his proposal.

Yes he has.


So is it up to 17 petitions?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

(Hans K0HB) wrote in
m:

(N2EY) wrote


And K0HB hasn't even submitted his proposal.

Yes he has.

So we're not even close to an NPRM yet...

How did you reach that conclusion, oh great Imperial Pontificator?
FCC can issue an NPRM without considering input from ARRL, K0HB, or
Donald Duck.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Electric Smoke


The first 14 petitions came in very quickly. The League's was late, but
will at least get read because of who they are. I think we can effectively
discount any further petitions, the FCC will just give them a quick glance.
So an NPRM may not be long in coming.

I guess my date in the pool will probably turn out to be too early, as it
doesn't allow enough time for comments on the NPRM. I will make one more
predicition, though, Element 1 will not survive the process.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote


And K0HB hasn't even submitted his proposal.

Yes he has.

Formally or as a comment?

So we're not even close to an NPRM yet...

How did you reach that conclusion, oh great Imperial Pontificator?

The same way you don't.

FCC can issue an NPRM without considering input from ARRL, K0HB, or
Donald Duck.

Sure - but they haven't. And there's no hurry.

73 de Jim, N2EY