"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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)
(SNIP)

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

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

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 Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net...

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

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?

I don't think you're missing a thing, Bill...However the
"authors" of the petition you cite are certainly a bit shy of a bag
full...! ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in
om:

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

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

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?

I don't think you're missing a thing, Bill...However the
"authors" of the petition you cite are certainly a bit shy of a bag
full...! ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ


I think that reading section 21 is a bit like entering the twilight zone.
Somehow 'Area 51' comes to mind!

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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

Here's AG4RQ's response to my questions:

K2UNK Question: What does dropping code testing for General
or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a
very expensive enforcement nightmare."?

AQ5RQ Reply: Bill, the enforcememt nightmare would come
from instantly granting a quarter of a million or more
Techs HF privileges. We have intentional QRM on
the bands already. Add a quarter of a million Techs
to the bands, along with the resentment over this
whole code/no-code issue. What do you think will
happen?

K2UNK Question: Does RAF believe that if a General
or Advanced (K2UNK, mental goof, meant to say Extra)
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

AG4RQ Reply: Under the RAF proposal, the only Generals
and Extras (You said Advanced. I think you meant
Extra) would be those who passed a code test. We
want to keep licensing requirements for General and
Extra as is, with a 5 wpm code test.
----------------

Clearly section 21 is anything BUT clear as to what RAF
believes...IMHO.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Here's AG4RQ's response to my questions:

K2UNK Question: What does dropping code testing for General
or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a
very expensive enforcement nightmare."?

AQ5RQ Reply: Bill, the enforcememt nightmare would come
from instantly granting a quarter of a million or more
Techs HF privileges.

Quarter million? More like 322,000, since the ARRL-proposed free upgrade would
go to all Techs and Tech Pluses.

OTOH there's no indication of how many would actually use the new privileges.

We have intentional QRM on
the bands already.

Haven't heard any on CW, myself...

Add a quarter of a million Techs
to the bands, along with the resentment over this
whole code/no-code issue. What do you think will
happen?

How will anyone know who is who just from a callsign? There's sure to be some
resentment no matter what.

Some fun facts:

If either the ARRL or FAR proposals are enacted, about 322,000 Techs and Pluses
will have more HF/MF. Not just 'phone but CW and data. The ARRL proposal
spreads them out over most of nine bands while the FAR proposal concentrates
all 322,000 into half of 160, small slivers of 80 and 40, and a bit more of 10
and 15. And no 'phone on the bands between 2 and 25 MHz.

Which proposal do you think will maximize crowding and resentment?

Comparisons to the old Novice are not valid because there were far fewer than
322,000. It's clear that one reason ARRL proposed the upgrade to General was to
*avoid* crowding.

K2UNK Question: Does RAF believe that if a General
or Advanced (K2UNK, mental goof, meant to say Extra)
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

AG4RQ Reply: Under the RAF proposal, the only Generals
and Extras (You said Advanced. I think you meant
Extra) would be those who passed a code test. We
want to keep licensing requirements for General and
Extra as is, with a 5 wpm code test.
----------------

He didn't understand the question?

It's clear from the proposal that all license classes would be allowed to use
Morse. Not an issue.

Clearly section 21 is anything BUT clear as to what RAF
believes...IMHO.

I think it's pretty clear. The FAR/RAF? proposal was written as a reaction to
the ARRL proposal, and is similar in some ways but offers drastically less
HF/MF (space and bands) to hams who haven't passed a code test.

The big question, then, comes down to this:

If it is accepted that Element 1 will be removed for at least some classes of
licenses with HF privs, (note that "if", folks!) is it preferable to:

A) limit them to small parts of a few bands that are relatively unpopular,
particularly during sunspot minima years

or

B) allow them significant access to all HF/MF bands?

Personally, I don't think the 5 wpm code test is a real "barrier" to anyone,
given the wide range of accomodations now in place and the training methods now
available. But if it's going to be dropped for some license classes, it seems
to me that B makes more sense than A.

IOW, ARRL would spread the free upgradees out and give them a smorgasboard of
options, FAR would concentrate them and give them a restricted diet.

Which do you think makes more sense?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

Here's AG4RQ's response to my questions:

K2UNK Question: What does dropping code testing for General
or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a
very expensive enforcement nightmare."?

AQ5RQ Reply: Bill, the enforcememt nightmare would come
from instantly granting a quarter of a million or more
Techs HF privileges.

Quarter million? More like 322,000, since the ARRL-proposed free upgrade
would
go to all Techs and Tech Pluses.

OTOH there's no indication of how many would actually use the new
privileges.

I believe there are a good number of family member techs
who probably have limited desire even to get on HF at all.

We have intentional QRM on
the bands already.

Haven't heard any on CW, myself...

I suspect any animosity would be short lived anyway.

Add a quarter of a million Techs
to the bands, along with the resentment over this
whole code/no-code issue. What do you think will
happen?

How will anyone know who is who just from a callsign? There's sure to be
some
resentment no matter what.

Some fun facts:

If either the ARRL or FAR proposals are enacted, about 322,000 Techs and
Pluses
will have more HF/MF. Not just 'phone but CW and data. The ARRL proposal
spreads them out over most of nine bands while the FAR proposal
concentrates
all 322,000 into half of 160, small slivers of 80 and 40, and a bit more
of 10
and 15. And no 'phone on the bands between 2 and 25 MHz.

Which proposal do you think will maximize crowding and resentment?

Good point.

Comparisons to the old Novice are not valid because there were far fewer
than
322,000. It's clear that one reason ARRL proposed the upgrade to General
was to
*avoid* crowding.

K2UNK Question: Does RAF believe that if a General
or Advanced (K2UNK, mental goof, meant to say Extra)
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

AG4RQ Reply: Under the RAF proposal, the only Generals
and Extras (You said Advanced. I think you meant
Extra) would be those who passed a code test. We
want to keep licensing requirements for General and
Extra as is, with a 5 wpm code test.
----------------

He didn't understand the question?

Agreed.

It's clear from the proposal that all license classes would be allowed to
use
Morse. Not an issue.

Clearly section 21 is anything BUT clear as to what RAF
believes...IMHO.

I think it's pretty clear. The FAR/RAF? proposal was written as a reaction
to
the ARRL proposal, and is similar in some ways but offers drastically less
HF/MF (space and bands) to hams who haven't passed a code test.

The big question, then, comes down to this:

If it is accepted that Element 1 will be removed for at least some classes
of
licenses with HF privs, (note that "if", folks!) is it preferable to:

A) limit them to small parts of a few bands that are relatively unpopular,
particularly during sunspot minima years

or

B) allow them significant access to all HF/MF bands?

Well put.

Personally, I don't think the 5 wpm code test is a real "barrier" to
anyone,
given the wide range of accomodations now in place and the training
methods now
available. But if it's going to be dropped for some license classes, it
seems
to me that B makes more sense than A.

Agreed.

IOW, ARRL would spread the free upgradees out and give them a smorgasboard
of
options, FAR would concentrate them and give them a restricted diet.

Which do you think makes more sense?

Agree again.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

Here's AG4RQ's response to my questions:

K2UNK Question: What does dropping code testing for General
or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a
very expensive enforcement nightmare."?

AQ5RQ Reply: Bill, the enforcememt nightmare would come
from instantly granting a quarter of a million or more
Techs HF privileges.

Quarter million? More like 322,000, since the ARRL-proposed free upgrade
would
go to all Techs and Tech Pluses.

OTOH there's no indication of how many would actually use the new
privileges.

I believe there are a good number of family member techs
who probably have limited desire even to get on HF at all.

Around here we had lots of "honeydew hams" in the '80s and '90s
(people who got ham licenses to keep in touch with family members, not
because they were interested in radio itself). Nice folks but many
disappeared when cell phones became cheap and good coverage. FRS/GMRS
took some othere. And some discovered they were interested in radio
for its own sake, too. I think that phenomenon is the main reason for
the somewhat-lower renewal percentage of Techs.

We have intentional QRM on
the bands already.

Haven't heard any on CW, myself...

I suspect any animosity would be short lived anyway.

For some it will never go away, just like the animosity over incentive
licensing or vanity calls or the ARRL or VEs or whathaveyou. For
others it
will simply be "done deal, move on".

Add a quarter of a million Techs
to the bands, along with the resentment over this
whole code/no-code issue. What do you think will
happen?

How will anyone know who is who just from a callsign? There's sure to be
some resentment no matter what.

There's also the possibility that there will be far fewer who will
actually
get on HF no matter what freebies are handed out. Look how much fuss
and
bother it is for some allegedly experienced people to put up a simple
wire
antenna, or to pass any amateur exams at all.

In any event the "very expensive enforcement nightmare" scenario may
or may not become a reality.

Some fun facts:

If either the ARRL or FAR proposals are enacted, about 322,000 Techs and
Pluses
will have more HF/MF. Not just 'phone but CW and data. The ARRL proposal
spreads them out over most of nine bands while the FAR proposal
concentrates
all 322,000 into half of 160, small slivers of 80 and 40, and a bit more
of 10 and 15. And no 'phone on the bands between 2 and 25 MHz.

Which proposal do you think will maximize crowding and resentment?

Good point.

I think the ARRL BoD thought of it first. Or maybe I did, way back in
my
three-class proposal idea.

In fact, if we're gonna have a new entry class with HF, I say they
should have a piece of 160, and all of the WARC bands.

Comparisons to the old Novice are not valid because there were far fewer
than
322,000. It's clear that one reason ARRL proposed the upgrade to General
was to
*avoid* crowding.

K2UNK Question: Does RAF believe that if a General
or Advanced (K2UNK, mental goof, meant to say Extra)
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

AG4RQ Reply: Under the RAF proposal, the only Generals
and Extras (You said Advanced. I think you meant
Extra) would be those who passed a code test. We
want to keep licensing requirements for General and
Extra as is, with a 5 wpm code test.
----------------

He didn't understand the question?

Agreed.

It's clear from the proposal that all license classes would be allowed to
use Morse. Not an issue.

Clearly section 21 is anything BUT clear as to what RAF
believes...IMHO.

I think it's pretty clear. The FAR/RAF? proposal was written as a reaction
to
the ARRL proposal, and is similar in some ways but offers drastically less
HF/MF (space and bands) to hams who haven't passed a code test.

The big question, then, comes down to this:

If it is accepted that Element 1 will be removed for at least some classes
of
licenses with HF privs, (note that "if", folks!) is it preferable to:

A) limit them to small parts of a few bands that are relatively unpopular,
particularly during sunspot minima years

or

B) allow them significant access to all HF/MF bands?

Well put.

Thanks - and in that light, the thinking behind the various proposals
becomes
clearer.

Personally, I don't think the 5 wpm code test is a real "barrier" to
anyone,
given the wide range of accomodations now in place and the training
methods now
available. But if it's going to be dropped for some license classes, it
seems
to me that B makes more sense than A.

Agreed.

If I had my way there'd be at least 5 wpm code for all classes of
license. Why not?

IOW, ARRL would spread the free upgradees out and give them a smorgasboard
of options, FAR would concentrate them and give them a restricted diet.

Which do you think makes more sense?

Agree again.

I presume you prefer the ARRL scenario to the RAF one.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I believe there are a good number of family member techs
who probably have limited desire even to get on HF at all.

Around here we had lots of "honeydew hams" in the '80s and '90s
(people who got ham licenses to keep in touch with family members, not
because they were interested in radio itself). Nice folks but many
disappeared when cell phones became cheap and good coverage. FRS/GMRS
took some othere. And some discovered they were interested in radio
for its own sake, too. I think that phenomenon is the main reason for
the somewhat-lower renewal percentage of Techs.

Overheard on a 2m repeater in this area of the Ohio Valley yesterday:

"KC8--- this is KC8***, come back".

"KC8*** this is KC8--- . I have a copy on you. What's yer twenty?"

"I'm up here on the hill but you're scratchy. You must be overmodulatin
or somthing".

"Well I'm copyin' you pretty good considering the distance between us".

"Yeah, 4-Roger. It's pretty amazin' that these little hand held radios
will talk this far from each other".

It is a brave new world of amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message

(SNIP)

Personally, I don't think the 5 wpm code test is a real "barrier"
to anyone given the wide range of accomodations now in place
and the training methods now available.
But if it's going to be dropped for some license classes, it
seems to me that B makes more sense than A.

Agreed.

If I had my way there'd be at least 5 wpm code for all classes of
license. Why not?

Why not? Let's not open that issue all over again :-) :-)

IOW, ARRL would spread the free upgradees
out and give them a smorgasboard of options,
FAR would concentrate them and give them a restricted diet.

Which do you think makes more sense?

Agree again.

I presume you prefer the ARRL scenario to the RAF one.

Yes.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK