In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"William" wrote in message
om...
Has the FCC "dissented" to the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code?

That is what I asked.

Has it not had the opportunity to intervene if it DID think that it
was
improper or illegal to use?

I believe that the FCC is unaware.

After nearly 20 years or so, the FCC is unaware?? Not hardly.

Unaware? I'd say so just on the Commissioners' statements
whooping and hollering about Access BPL at the back end of
NPRM 04-29. They are UNAWARE of the most basic things
about RF transmission lines. QED.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

The FCC was informed of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of
other
standard practices of the VE teams. FCC took no exceptions, and there
were
no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams. Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

AFTER the fact.

So what?

So all those years that it was in use WITHOUT a legal basis, that's
what.

VEs had used Farnsworth spacing BEFORE it was acknowledged
by the Commission.

How do you know?

Why don't you know?

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for
their
test need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.

Regardless of that, the Farnsworth spacing was used BEFORE it
had any legal basis.

How do you know that FCC was not contacted by the VECs? How do you know
what
method of code testing was used by FCC when they gave the tests?

If the FCC is going to require an exam for licensure, shouldn't the
public know what the requirements are?

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use
of
Farnsworth spacing.

Regardless of that, the Farnsworth spacing was used BEFORE it
had any legal basis.

Do you have any proof of that claim?

I didn't think so.

We've been through this before.

Jimmy likes to go over and over and over and over old subjects.
Maybe he figures he might win one of them during reruns... :-)

LHA / WMD

"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much
easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.

Sorry but it was published. If you missed it, that's your problem.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/1/2004 8:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/31/2004 5:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Does it matter?

Do you matter?

Of course I do. Just like you matter.

Now you're lying again. You've treated a whole parade of people on
rrap as if they were chewing gum or worse stuck to the sole of your
jump boots.

Too bad for you, Brain, that you can't see beyond your own wounded pride.

Of course it wouldn't BE wounded if you'd quit shooting yourself in the
foot in public all the time.

But you STILL matter, whether you beleive it or not.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/1/2004 12:35 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.

In which FCC or other pertient federal law or regulation were they
obligated to announce that they were, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much
easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.

Sorry but it was published.

Years later.

"William" wrote in message
m...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much
easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in
the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is
predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores
that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.

Sorry but it was published.

Years later.

Nope published from the beginning. You just didn't look the right places.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't
think
it has a snowball's chance in

[expletive deleted]

of getting approved by the FCC.

One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code
for extras.

That's the key question these days for any license requirement these days.
You make an excellent point.

Good...so far.

The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does FCC
get out of protecting hams from BPL interference?"

Then will we expect you to make that argument to the
FCC when you comment?

HECK NO, BILL!

The answer to that question could very well be "Gee, we *don't* get anything
out of protecting hams from BPL - so we won't!".

As the
treaty requirement is now gone,
and no other service uses it, why bother.

Because hams *do* use it.

Yet hams do NOT need to pass a CW test to be
allowed to use morse.
If a "no-code" tech decides to operate
morse on VHF, they are free to do so without ever being
tested. If the ARRL proposal gets the nod, the same would
be true for Novice and Generals on HF also.

There are all sorts of things hams are allowed to do without being tested, or
without being tested in depth. For example, a ham who passed the tests before,
say, PSK-31 was invented is still allowed to use that mode without being
tested. But that does not mean no test is needed, or that the current tests
should not have PSK-31 in them because the old tests didn't.

Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

And certainly not to any extent that one would expect
any ham to need to know code to read or operate
with nay of those other services. By the way...what
other services are you thinking of?

There is still some maritime Morse code use, and it is used for ID in some
applications.

The FCC isn't
in the business of giving out gold stars for the

[expletive deleted]

Jim, even I am not offended by "hell"
It was a joke, Bill ;-)

of it.

Not about "gold stars". About qualifications.
Of course there's differences of
opinion on what qualified means.

The retention of a 5 wpm test for Extra in light of no
code for all others makes even less sense.

I disagree. Morse code is the second most popular mode in amateur radio. For
even the most privileged license to require no skill in its use makes no sense.

Code isn't a lid filter,

*No* test is a perfect "lid filter".

No test is in any way a lid filter...as you note below.

You misunderstand what I wrote.

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

Particularly not a test given one time.
There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through
much
more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not filtered
out by those testing and education systems.

I repeat...NO test is a lid filter.

If that's true, why have tests at all?

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

as witness
14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there.

You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

Are you assuming all the 14.313 loonies had code medical
waivers?

Nope - but neither is it safe to assume that none of them did.

Remember this:

All those folks on 14.313, 3950, W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams that
included the rules and regulations. Most of them passed multiple written
exams,
yet they broke the rules anyway. So obviously those written tests aren't a
perfect lid filter either.

Note that I wrote "perfect lid filter".

Shall we dump the rules and regs from those
written exams because they didn't do the job?

oh wait, that's what NCVEC is proposing for the entry level!

A point we agree on.

Exactly.


73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't
think
it has a snowball's chance in

[expletive deleted]

of getting approved by the FCC.

One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code
for extras.

That's the key question these days for any license requirement these
days.
You make an excellent point.

Good...so far.

The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does
FCC
get out of protecting hams from BPL interference?"

Then will we expect you to make that argument to the
FCC when you comment?

HECK NO, BILL!

The answer to that question could very well be "Gee, we *don't* get
anything
out of protecting hams from BPL - so we won't!".

As the
treaty requirement is now gone,
and no other service uses it, why bother.

Because hams *do* use it.

Yet hams do NOT need to pass a CW test to be
allowed to use morse.
If a "no-code" tech decides to operate
morse on VHF, they are free to do so without ever being
tested. If the ARRL proposal gets the nod, the same would
be true for Novice and Generals on HF also.

There are all sorts of things hams are allowed to do without being tested,
or
without being tested in depth. For example, a ham who passed the tests
before,
say, PSK-31 was invented is still allowed to use that mode without being
tested. But that does not mean no test is needed, or that the current
tests
should not have PSK-31 in them because the old tests didn't.

Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

And certainly not to any extent that one would expect
any ham to need to know code to read or operate
with nay of those other services. By the way...what
other services are you thinking of?

There is still some maritime Morse code use, and it is used for ID in some
applications.

The FCC isn't
in the business of giving out gold stars for the

[expletive deleted]

Jim, even I am not offended by "hell"
It was a joke, Bill ;-)

of it.

Not about "gold stars". About qualifications.
Of course there's differences of
opinion on what qualified means.

The retention of a 5 wpm test for Extra in light of no
code for all others makes even less sense.

I disagree. Morse code is the second most popular mode in amateur radio.
For
even the most privileged license to require no skill in its use makes no
sense.

Code isn't a lid filter,

*No* test is a perfect "lid filter".

No test is in any way a lid filter...as you note below.

You misunderstand what I wrote.

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

Particularly not a test given one time.
There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through
much
more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not
filtered
out by those testing and education systems.

I repeat...NO test is a lid filter.

If that's true, why have tests at all?

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

as witness
14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there.

You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

Are you assuming all the 14.313 loonies had code medical
waivers?

Nope - but neither is it safe to assume that none of them did.

Remember this:

All those folks on 14.313, 3950, W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams
that
included the rules and regulations. Most of them passed multiple
written
exams,
yet they broke the rules anyway. So obviously those written tests
aren't a
perfect lid filter either.

Note that I wrote "perfect lid filter".

Shall we dump the rules and regs from those
written exams because they didn't do the job?

oh wait, that's what NCVEC is proposing for the entry level!

A point we agree on.

Exactly.


73 de Jim, N2EY


NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means
to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio. Further
testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by
awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and
development.

This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material tested
and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desireable priviliges not
to the type of material but to information and skills that they should have
but don't want to learn. This is the way society, in general, works.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't
think
it has a snowball's chance in

[expletive deleted]

of getting approved by the FCC.

One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code
for extras.

That's the key question these days for any license requirement these
days.
You make an excellent point.

Good...so far.

The problem is that it also applies in
other areas, such as "what does FCC
get out of protecting hams from BPL interference?"

Then will we expect you to make that argument to the
FCC when you comment?

HECK NO, BILL!

Thought that'd be the case.

The answer to that question could very well be
"Gee, we *don't* get anything
out of protecting hams from BPL - so we won't!".

Except they'd be violating there own charter to take
a totally hands off position.

As the
treaty requirement is now gone,
and no other service uses it, why bother.

Because hams *do* use it.

Yet hams do NOT need to pass a CW test to be
allowed to use morse.
If a "no-code" tech decides to operate
morse on VHF, they are free to do so without ever being
tested. If the ARRL proposal gets the nod, the same would
be true for Novice and Generals on HF also.

There are all sorts of things hams are allowed to do without being tested,
or
without being tested in depth. For example, a ham who passed the tests
before,
say, PSK-31 was invented is still allowed to use that mode without being
tested. But that does not mean no test is needed, or that the current
tests
should not have PSK-31 in them because the old tests didn't.

But the morse test is a skill test that someone can pass and
know nothing about the technical aspects of using morse
code. On a par with PSK-31, it would be like having
a keyboard test of sending PSK-31.

Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

And certainly not to any extent that one would expect
any ham to need to know code to read or operate
with nay of those other services. By the way...what
other services are you thinking of?

There is still some maritime Morse code use,

And the liklihood of any ham needing or using morse
code to engage in a contact with such a morse
maritime operation is nil.

and it is used for ID in some applications.

And why would any ham need to know morse to understand
such an ID?

The FCC isn't
in the business of giving out gold stars for the
of it.

Not about "gold stars". About qualifications.
Of course there's differences of
opinion on what qualified means.

The retention of a 5 wpm test for Extra in light of no
code for all others makes even less sense.

I disagree. Morse code is the second
most popular mode in amateur radio. For
even the most privileged license to require
no skill in its use makes no sense.

WHY? No one is required to exhibiit ANY specific skill
in the USE of any other mode. The fact that hams around
the globe use languages other than English doesn't require
any specific ham to exhibit or show an ability to speak
English or any other language.

Code isn't a lid filter,

*No* test is a perfect "lid filter".

No test is in any way a lid filter...as you note below.

You misunderstand what I wrote.

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

I repeat, no test in any way is a lid filter.

Particularly not a test given one time.
There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through
much
more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not
filtered
out by those testing and education systems.

I repeat...NO test is a lid filter.

If that's true, why have tests at all?

The tests for ham radio are NOT intended to ferret out
idiots and jerks who, having passed a test, decide they
don't want to operate within FCC rules or the rules
of common courtesy.

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

Ditto my prior comments again.

as witness
14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there.

You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

Are you assuming all the 14.313 loonies had code medical
waivers?

Nope - but neither is it safe to assume that none of them did.

Agreed, but as long as one passed a code test of 13 or even 20
wpm, then your comment about waivers is invalid. Yes, some
may have gotton there with a waiver...but not all.

Remember this:
All those folks on 14.313, 3950,
W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams that
included the rules and regulations.
Most of them passed multiple written
exams yet they broke the rules anyway.
So obviously those written tests aren't a
perfect lid filter either.

Note that I wrote "perfect lid filter".

I repeat again, none of the ham tests today or in the
past ever had any expectation of keeping out 'lids'.
Knowledge of right and wrong itself has never
prevented some people from violating the law. We
see that everywhere...from petty criminals to such
well educated proffesions as legal, clergy, politics,
accountantants, medical...etc. No proffesion, regardless
of the knowledge one needs or is tested for to gain
entrance has ever been able to devise any specific
testing to exclude the equivalent of "lids." Perhaps
some professions (e.g. police) make a more concerted
effort via the use of pschological testing and evaluations
but even those don't screen all bad apples.

Shall we dump the rules and regs from those
written exams because they didn't do the job?

oh wait, that's what NCVEC is
proposing for the entry level!

A point we agree on.

Exactly.

BUT, again, knowledge of rules has never, in itself, served
as a deterent to people who choose to deliberately (note
I said deliberately, not by virtue of lack of knowledge)
break the rules.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/2/2004 7:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much
easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.

Sorry but it was published.

Years later.

Brain, you have yet to answer my question as to WHAT FCC or federal law
mandated any "declaration" about using Farnsworth methodology for code test
preparation.

You DO have an answer, don't you?

I've read Part 97 a couple times and find nothing there that mandates it.

And I am also awaiting your answer as to WHAT "specification" exists for
"Morse Code".

More assertions without validation? Or is it OPINION, expressed just
because you like to see your name in print...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/2/2004 7:51 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

In which FCC or other pertient federal law or regulation were they
obligated to announce that they were, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

What?

What are you talking about?

You're harrassing Dee about some perceived failure of the ARRL to
"announce" that they used "Farnsworth" methodology for code test preparation.

I want you to please provide some reference to a law, regulation or other
federal mandate that directed them to do so.

Also, since you are insinuating that some 'specification' has not been
met, I'd like for you to provide us with a URL or other reference to said
'specification' as to HOW a code test should be prepared.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means
to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio.

I guess it all depends on how we define "lid filter".

If it means that some sort of test is supposed to guarantee that everyone who
passes it will somehow be a fully qualified, skilled, courteous, law-abiding
radio amateur who will advance the state of the art, then there is no such test
and no test was ever intended to do that job.

But if it means that the test will help to insure that those who pass it have
at least some minimum level of qualifications (knowledge and skill) to be
hams....

It all boils down to what constitutes "basic knowledge to allow people into
[amateur] radio". For some that includes a basic test of Morse code skill, for
some others it does not. For some it includes technical and regulatory
knowledge and for others it does not.

Further
testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by
awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and
development.

Agreed - all the way back into the 1930s, when the Class A license was
invented. Or even earlier, if we count the old Amateur Extra First Class
license.

This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material tested
and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desireable priviliges not
to the type of material but to information and skills that they should have
but don't want to learn.

That's an excellent point, Dee. But it's exactly what some people call "jumping
through hoops", "hazing rituals", "giving out gold stars" and such.

Now we see the same arguments that were used against the code test being used
against the written test in the NCVEC proposal. How do we argue against it?

Unless I am mistaken, at least one of the folks behind the NCVEC petition
was/is on the NoCode International board. And the whole thing was clearly laid
out in the "21st Century" paper.

This is the way society, in general, works.

Agreed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/2/2004 7:51 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...


In which FCC or other pertient federal law or regulation were they
obligated to announce that they were, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

What?

What are you talking about?


You're harrassing Dee about some perceived failure of the ARRL to
"announce" that they used "Farnsworth" methodology for code test preparation.

I want you to please provide some reference to a law, regulation or other
federal mandate that directed them to do so.

Also, since you are insinuating that some 'specification' has not been
met, I'd like for you to provide us with a URL or other reference to said
'specification' as to HOW a code test should be prepared.

As a point of historical comparison, Steve, I wonder if "back in the
good ol' days" the FCC itself tested using Farnsworth Morse? Anyone know?

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:


NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means
to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio.


I guess it all depends on how we define "lid filter".


I'm not necessarily looking for a "lid filter". But I do believe that
having a certain minimum level of knowledge, be that Morse code testing
or the written testing, makes for ensuring that the applicant really
wants to be a ham and isn't just getting a license because they didn't
have anything else to do one weekend.

Obviously others differ.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't
think
it has a snowball's chance in

[expletive deleted]

of getting approved by the FCC.

One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code
for extras.

That's the key question these days for any license requirement these
days.
You make an excellent point.

Good...so far.

The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does
FCC
get out of protecting hams from BPL interference?"

Then will we expect you to make that argument to the
FCC when you comment?

HECK NO, BILL!

The answer to that question could very well be "Gee, we *don't* get
anything
out of protecting hams from BPL - so we won't!".

As the
treaty requirement is now gone,
and no other service uses it, why bother.

Because hams *do* use it.

Yet hams do NOT need to pass a CW test to be
allowed to use morse.
If a "no-code" tech decides to operate
morse on VHF, they are free to do so without ever being
tested. If the ARRL proposal gets the nod, the same would
be true for Novice and Generals on HF also.

There are all sorts of things hams are allowed to do without being tested,
or
without being tested in depth. For example, a ham who passed the tests
before,
say, PSK-31 was invented is still allowed to use that mode without being
tested. But that does not mean no test is needed, or that the current
tests
should not have PSK-31 in them because the old tests didn't.

Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

And certainly not to any extent that one would expect
any ham to need to know code to read or operate
with nay of those other services. By the way...what
other services are you thinking of?

There is still some maritime Morse code use, and it is used for ID in some
applications.

The FCC isn't
in the business of giving out gold stars for the

[expletive deleted]

Jim, even I am not offended by "hell"
It was a joke, Bill ;-)

of it.

Not about "gold stars". About qualifications.
Of course there's differences of
opinion on what qualified means.

The retention of a 5 wpm test for Extra in light of no
code for all others makes even less sense.

I disagree. Morse code is the second most popular mode in amateur radio.
For
even the most privileged license to require no skill in its use makes no
sense.

Code isn't a lid filter,

*No* test is a perfect "lid filter".

No test is in any way a lid filter...as you note below.

You misunderstand what I wrote.

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

Particularly not a test given one time.
There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through
much
more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not
filtered
out by those testing and education systems.

I repeat...NO test is a lid filter.

If that's true, why have tests at all?

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

as witness
14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there.

You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

Are you assuming all the 14.313 loonies had code medical
waivers?

Nope - but neither is it safe to assume that none of them did.

Remember this:

All those folks on 14.313, 3950, W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams
that
included the rules and regulations. Most of them passed multiple
written
exams,
yet they broke the rules anyway. So obviously those written tests
aren't a
perfect lid filter either.

Note that I wrote "perfect lid filter".

Shall we dump the rules and regs from those
written exams because they didn't do the job?

oh wait, that's what NCVEC is proposing for the entry level!

A point we agree on.

Exactly.


73 de Jim, N2EY


NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means
to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio. Further
testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by
awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and
development.

Radio licenses are just a regulatory tool used by the Commission.

Radio operator licenses were never, are still not any form of
academic certificates of achievement. The Commission is not
chartered by law to be an educational or academic agency.

Possession of a radio operator license, any kind, is proof only of
having passed a license test according to Commission regulations.

This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material tested
and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desireable priviliges not
to the type of material but to information and skills that they should have
but don't want to learn. This is the way society, in general, works.

In our [USA] society, laws and regulations have been decided largely
by political and legislative actions. Learning ability and qualifications
in the same are tested and graded by academic organizations. The
FCC is not an academic organization.

There is no evidenciary Divine Law which dictates certain avocational
radio activity "must" be done in a certain way or that certain skills
and knowledge "must" be possessed, nor is there any Divine
Judgement which ascertains the sagacity of such "musts." There are
only self-righteous, sanctimonious self-styled "radio gods" who
demand obediance to certain "rules" because they think all should
think like they do. Through political pressure, many of those "rules"
make it into codified law...ergo, it is "right." :-)

-------

Now back to more interesting amateur radio policy discussions
concerning immunization, medicine, and urban myths concerning
those, along with national policy on health care.

LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/2/2004 7:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much
easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is
predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.

Sorry but it was published.

Years later.

Brain, you have yet to answer my question as to WHAT FCC or federal law
mandated any "declaration" about using Farnsworth methodology for code test
preparation.

Brian did not bring this "declaration" up...that was another.

You are free to find your own sources of offical statements at the FCC
website using their own, publicly-available search facilities.

You DO have an answer, don't you?

You CAN do your own searches, but contentiousness is so much
easier to do, a sort of instant satsifaction of personal irritation.

I've read Part 97 a couple times and find nothing there that mandates it.

And I am also awaiting your answer as to WHAT "specification" exists for
"Morse Code".

97.3 (a) (27) - CCITT Recommendation F.1 (1984), Division B,
I. Morse code.

That is as stated in the 1 October 2003 printed form of Title 47 C.F.R.
available from the Government Printing Office. That same definition
existed in the October 2005 Code of Federal Regulations.

There are several adult education courses available in your area to
improve your personal reading comprehension skills.

More assertions without validation? Or is it OPINION, expressed just
because you like to see your name in print...?!?!

You have been repeatedly informed of the existing regulatory
specifications of and about International Morse Code. For years.

There is no point in you trying to argue the same subject with
constant obvious contentious behavior and trying to promote
verbal battles that irritate others.

It is much better to concentrate personal efforts on very real,
serious problems facing your remaining "service" days, such as
Access BPL and a possible future regulatory restructuring of
amateur radio.

LHA / WMD

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

NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a
means
to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio.

I guess it all depends on how we define "lid filter".

I define it to be someone who operates poorly or
illegally on a deliberate basis (emphasis on deliberate).

If it means that some sort of test is supposed to guarantee that everyone
who
passes it will somehow be a fully qualified, skilled, courteous,
law-abiding
radio amateur who will advance the state of the art, then there is no such
test
and no test was ever intended to do that job.

Agreed.

But if it means that the test will help to insure that those who pass it
have
at least some minimum level of qualifications (knowledge and skill) to be
hams....

Which is the only purpose for the testing today and in
the past.

It all boils down to what constitutes
"basic knowledge to allow people into
[amateur] radio". For some that includes
a basic test of Morse code skill, for
some others it does not.

Correct, and the FCC has been pretty clear on the
point that morse as a skill is NOT needed, except to
be compliant with the now vacated treaty code
requireent for HF.

For some it includes technical and regulatory
knowledge and for others it does not.

I am one that agrees there should be both technical
and regulatory knowledge.

Further
testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by
awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and
development.

Agreed - all the way back into the 1930s, when the Class A license was
invented. Or even earlier, if we count the old Amateur Extra First Class
license.

No argument on that. It is clearly
the intent of incentive licensing.

This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material
tested
and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desireable priviliges
not
to the type of material but to information and skills that they should
have
but don't want to learn.

That's an excellent point, Dee. But it's exactly what some people call
"jumping
through hoops", "hazing rituals", "giving out gold stars" and such.

BUT code testing is a motor skills test, not a technical
nor regulatory one. No other mode is tested at the
use level as is morse code.

Now we see the same arguments that were used against the code test being
used
against the written test in the NCVEC proposal. How do we argue against
it?

You just do on the belief the FCC won't buy the NCVEC
proposal on that point.

Unless I am mistaken, at least one of the folks behind the NCVEC petition
was/is on the NoCode International board. And the whole thing was clearly
laid
out in the "21st Century" paper.

Fred W5YI is both NCVEC and an NCI Board Member.

For the record, I am also an NCI Bd member and I individually
oppose the NCVEC RM except as to it calling for a total
end to all code testing. On the NCVEC petition itself,
NCI, as an organization, has not taken any official
stand for or against.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Dee D. Flint wrote:





NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means
to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio. Further
testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by
awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and
development.

This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material tested
and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desirable privileges not
to the type of material but to information and skills that they should have
but don't want to learn. This is the way society, in general, works.

Who determines "skills they should have"? And why? And who says that
the FCC is to be
the enforcer? Things like "instrument ratings" for plane pilots from
the FAA make sense; that
you should prove that you know (via a test) that you know how to fly a
plane and land it
safely when it's foggy. Else you'll likely crash it and kill yourself
and all aboard. But requiring
extra knowledge of radio to be allowed to operate SSB on 14.160 vs
14.322 is kinda silly.
It's almost like forcing kids in high school to learn Spanish or French.
I had to take
Spanish in high school, and as I don't own a landscaping business or
such, it was a total
waste of time. Japanese or Chinese would have been a more useful
choice, but the
high school didn't offer those. Or better yet some form of technical
writing English class.
But writing was a real PITA back when I was in high school, no word
procesors or
computers then. or printers. How did people manage to bang out
typewritten papers
without errors?

Subject: Wrong Yet Again
, Len!
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/3/2004 10:03 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Also, since you are insinuating that some 'specification' has not been
met, I'd like for you to provide us with a URL or other reference to said
'specification' as to HOW a code test should be prepared.

As a point of historical comparison, Steve, I wonder if "back in the
good ol' days" the FCC itself tested using Farnsworth Morse? Anyone know?

Sure don't, Mike...I sat...they tested...I passed, that was all I was
concerned about! =)

I remember that it was "easy copy", and that's about it...

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 4/3/2004 1:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Brain, you have yet to answer my question as to WHAT FCC or federal law
mandated any "declaration" about using Farnsworth methodology for code test
preparation.

Brian did not bring this "declaration" up...that was another.

Not int eh current course of exchanges, it asn't.

You are free to find your own sources of offical statements at the FCC
website using their own, publicly-available search facilities.

You DO have an answer, don't you?

You CAN do your own searches, but contentiousness is so much
easier to do, a sort of instant satsifaction of personal irritation.

Sure I can.

But in these changes, Brain was making the assertion.

Or was that your hand up his backside making his mouth work again, Lennie?

I've read Part 97 a couple times and find nothing there that mandates
it.

And I am also awaiting your answer as to WHAT "specification" exists
for
"Morse Code".

97.3 (a) (27) - CCITT Recommendation F.1 (1984), Division B,
I. Morse code.

That is as stated in the 1 October 2003 printed form of Title 47 C.F.R.
available from the Government Printing Office. That same definition
existed in the October 2005 Code of Federal Regulations.

October 2005?

What happened to 1984 when VE testing began?

There are several adult education courses available in your area to
improve your personal reading comprehension skills.

But why?

I read quite well, Lennie.

Well enough, in fact, ot ahve caught you and your surrogate in a number of
"newsgroup faux pas"

More assertions without validation? Or is it OPINION, expressed just
because you like to see your name in print...?!?!

You have been repeatedly informed of the existing regulatory
specifications of and about International Morse Code. For years.

But still you refuse to specifically cite it.

I have yet to see a single "specification" that dictates character
duration or spacing.

There is no point in you trying to argue the same subject with
constant obvious contentious behavior and trying to promote
verbal battles that irritate others.

If one does not want to be irritated, Lennie, then perhaps thye shouldn't
be making dumb assertions they can't validate.

It is much better to concentrate personal efforts on very real,
serious problems facing your remaining "service" days, such as
Access BPL and a possible future regulatory restructuring of
amateur radio.

I dare say my "personal efforts" in Amateur Radio far outstrip the
comments you've ever posted to EFCS, Lennie.

Steve, K4YZ

Robert Casey wrote in message ...
William wrote:

Cell on VHF? Must be something new.

Some company wanted to do that with low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites a few
years ago. They were eyeing 2m and 222 and 70cm, as well as other spectra.

Let's get Dyno-mite JJ's take on VHF cell phones.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

But writing was a real PITA back when I was in high school, no word
procesors or
computers then. or printers. How did people manage to bang out
typewritten papers without errors?

You had PAPER?!?




LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 4/3/2004 1:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Brain, you have yet to answer my question as to WHAT FCC or federal
law
mandated any "declaration" about using Farnsworth methodology for code test
preparation.

Brian did not bring this "declaration" up...that was another.

Not int eh current course of exchanges, it asn't.

You are free to find your own sources of offical statements at the FCC
website using their own, publicly-available search facilities.

You DO have an answer, don't you?

You CAN do your own searches, but contentiousness is so much
easier to do, a sort of instant satsifaction of personal irritation.

Sure I can.

But you show NO sign of it. Saying you "can do something"
doesn't mean you CAN.

You want to be contentious, aggressive, and generally bad.
THAT you have proved over and over and over again.

But in these changes, Brain was making the assertion.

Or was that your hand up his backside making his mouth work again,
Lennie?

See? There you go again with LIES and innuendo (apt homonym)
of homosexual behavior.

I've read Part 97 a couple times and find nothing there that mandates
it.

And I am also awaiting your answer as to WHAT "specification" exists
for
"Morse Code".

97.3 (a) (27) - CCITT Recommendation F.1 (1984), Division B,
I. Morse code.

That is as stated in the 1 October 2003 printed form of Title 47 C.F.R.
available from the Government Printing Office. That same definition
existed in the October 2005 Code of Federal Regulations.

October 2005?

1 October 1995. Have to check out your responses, see if there's
any regress.

I have both year's printed copies. Paid for one, other was free.

What happened to 1984 when VE testing began?

Did George Orwell write about it?

Or do you mean the CCITT document?

Check it out at the ITU website. You can order your own copy if
you wish. Lots of downloads there cost money and the revised
and re-nomenclatured document costs a moderate amount.

I have my copy. Paid for it.

Then you can find out exactly what the FCC definition reference
has in it.

If you do actually get one and read it, you will NOT find anything
describing "word rate." Indeed, you won't find a description of a
telegraphic "word."


There are several adult education courses available in your area to
improve your personal reading comprehension skills.

But why?

I read quite well, Lennie.

Well enough, in fact, ot ahve caught you and your surrogate in a number
of "newsgroup faux pas"

Of course...snicker...just like "ot ahve" that you wrote and did not
correct.

More assertions without validation? Or is it OPINION, expressed just
because you like to see your name in print...?!?!

You have been repeatedly informed of the existing regulatory
specifications of and about International Morse Code. For years.

But still you refuse to specifically cite it.

I have yet to see a single "specification" that dictates character
duration or spacing.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Not reading well at all.

The CCITT document referenced in 97.3 (a) (27) describes RELATIVE
dot-dash-spacing times.

Hello? Can you understand "relative?" Other than in a family way?

I've said two years ago that there's NO "word rate" or "word"
specification mentioned in Part 97, not even a reference to such
a document.

The latest print issue of Part 97 is 1 October 2003. You can get it
from the USGPO. Download on PDF is free, paper hardcopy costs
a bit. Ask around.

There is no point in you trying to argue the same subject with
constant obvious contentious behavior and trying to promote
verbal battles that irritate others.

If one does not want to be irritated, Lennie, then perhaps thye
shouldn't be making dumb assertions they can't validate.

"thye?"

It is much better to concentrate personal efforts on very real,
serious problems facing your remaining "service" days, such as
Access BPL and a possible future regulatory restructuring of
amateur radio.

I dare say my "personal efforts" in Amateur Radio far outstrip the
comments you've ever posted to EFCS, Lennie.

"EFCS?" Try Electronic Comment Filing System or ECFS.

Feel free to search the ECFS for how many comments I've actually
made and are on the public record. That is proof of filing, complete
to the entire contents.

Now go ahead and "prove" your "personal efforts" in amateur radio
so that there is no doubt of that effort. Sorry, you can't use the
general, no-detail, no-date "hostile actions" record...bragging is NO
proof.

And stay off the hundred-proof stuff. Don't drink and demod.

LHA / WMD

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 4/4/2004 1:22 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Or was that your hand up his backside making his mouth work again,
Lennie?

See? There you go again with LIES and innuendo (apt homonym)
of homosexual behavior.

Lennie...YOU are the one with the "homosexual behavior" propensities...

I was refering to the hand placed in the back of a puppet as the puppeteer
makes his mouth and head work.

Rethink YOUR innuendo, Putzy One.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/3/2004 8:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Too bad for you, Brain, that you can't see beyond your own wounded
pride.

Why do you s### on your fellow amateurs?

I don't.

Why do you find it necessary to make false assertions and use profanity in
a public forum?

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/3/2004 8:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 3/31/2004 8:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

VEs had used Farnsworth spacing BEFORE it was acknowledged
by the Commission.

How do you know?

Ouiji Board.

Steve, K4YZ

The Occult might be why you're so whacked out and angry with your fellow man.

I believe you to be dangerous.

The only thing I can't argue with you over, Brian.. Only because you
FINALLY worded something accurately and without profane adjectives to embellish
it.

It's not true, but you expressed an opinion.

Please try to remember the difference in future postings.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Alex Flinsch
writes:

Actually they assigned numbers to 4 petitions, you missed this one
RM-10869 - K4SX 18 September 2003

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...df=pdf&id_docu
ment=6515285430


Thank you, I missed that one at first.

73 de Jim, N2EY

But writing was a real PITA back when I was in high school, no word
procesors or
computers then. or printers. How did people manage to bang out
typewritten papers without errors?



You had PAPER?!?

I admit that I had better materials than Abe Linclon had (charred sticks
on slate). :-)

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Back in the olden days before Bash published his books, I imagine that
some ham clubs
had compiled remembered questions from FCC tests. To help members
upgrade.

I never encountered anything like that in any ham club. Closest thing to it was
that some clubs would lend out the ARRL License Manual and Ameco study guides
to members.

And
I suppose someone had snuck a peek at those mail in novice and tech
tests before the FCC
said everyone had to test at a field office (Early 1976 they decreed
that, so I had to test
at the FCC).

I never encountered that, either.

However, having said that, I personally much prefer the ARRL proposal to the
NCVEC one for the following reasons:

2) I don't like the "commercial gear only" part of the NCVEC petition
because it unnecessarily
discourages homebrew and tinkering - something that novices have *always*
been allowed (and
encouraged by 97.1) to do.
3) I don't like the "low voltage" only part of the NCVEC petition, because
it precludes the new
ham from getting a good hamfest deal on an older rig like FT-101,
TS-520/820, etc. for no good
reason (nothing stops them from building power supplies that use 110VAC or
220VAC on the
*primaries*, so what's the sense in this proposal.

A few questions on electrical safety and procedures on the test should
address this issue.
Besides, other than an FCC inspector paying a visit, how could be
enforced? The FCC
doesn't have the budget for that. Output power can be limited to say
100W. Easier to
enforce, as signal strength can be measured remotely (not foolproof,
maybe his beam is
aimed right at you). The power limit would avoid the RF exposure issue.

I agree 100%.

and,
4) I don't like the NCVEC to "put the mark of Cain" on the newbies with a
special, never-used
callsign block that makes them stand out as targets for those who are
disgruntled with ANY change.

The old Novice licensees got WN#XXX callsigns to designate them as
novices.

In some areas WV prefixes were also used. I'm not sure why.

Other than a
few bozos, everyone accepted them as legit hams. When you upgraded to
general, the FCC
replaced the N with A or B in your callsign. The FCC must have had an
internal use only
note as to which you'd get when they issued your novice call.

It was the sequence.

First FCC issued all the W#xxx calls. Novices got WN#xxx or WV#xxx and when
they upgraded the letter was just dropped.

When those were gone, the same sequence was done with K#xxx calls.

Then came WA, WB, etc. Since the license was only good for 1 or 2 years until
the mid 1970s, there was no chance that the entire sequence would be run
through.

Today, you
could get a vanity callsign with the
WN if you want, even if you're an extra. Wonder if WN2ISE was ever
issued? Someone did
have WA2ISE before I was issued it in 1976, as a tech (general written
and 5wpm).

A lot of it has to do with the FCC computer systems and their ability to handle
changes. My info says the ARS callsign database was first computerized in 1964.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

I said they elected to use the no-code Technician as their entry to ham
radio rather than the Novice license. Yes they took the Novice written but
not the code. Thus they "bypassed" the Novice license in the sense that
they never held a Novice license. They had basically two choices to enter
ham radio (unless of course they chose to do additional study and sit for
higher class tests at the same time).

1) They could take (and pass) the Novice written plus 5wpm and get a Novice
license.
2) They could take (and pass) the Novice written and Tech written and get a
no-code Tech license.

The prospective ham generally took the route 2 to enter ham radio rather
than route 1. Thus by that choice, the people themselves made the Tech
no-code the entry level license despite the fact that it was more difficult
than earning the Novice license. The restructuring in 2000 merely
formalized what had already occurred.

I agree except for one point: The decision was made by different people for a
number of factors, such as the *perceived* difficulty and the *perceived*
rewards.

Having earned my initial license in 1992 (Tech with HF), I'm quite familiar
with what was going on. The majority of people sitting for their first
license took the Tech no-code route to put off learning the code not because
of its two meter and VHF access. Prior to on-air experience, they simply
were not personally familiar enough with various ham activities to select
their entry route on the basis of the desireability of having 2m access.

Here in EPA, after about 1980 the predominant entry license was the Tech. This
was true even before it lost its code test. The reason was 2 meter/440 access,
which Novices didn't have. A prospective ham would see almost every ham with a
2 meter HT or mobile, ask "what license do I need to talk to you guys" and wind
up with a Tech. Code or no code.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Here in EPA, after about 1980 the predominant entry license was the Tech.
This
was true even before it lost its code test. The reason was 2 meter/440 access,
which Novices didn't have. A prospective ham would see almost every ham with a
2 meter HT or mobile, ask "what license do I need to talk to you guys" and
wind
up with a Tech. Code or no code.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as a government entity, is
not under any regulations of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). EPA operating on amateur radio bands is a violation of the
Communications Act of 1934.

The regulations covering civil radio and communications in the
United States is contained in Code of Federal Regulations, Title
47. The full-volume set or separate Parts may be ordered from
the United States Government Printing Office (USGPO) in paper
form or downloadable free from www.gpo.gov in either text or
scanned from printed form.

There you have it: A simple correction of your erroneous use of a
federal agency acronym. No acrimony, no name calling, the
names that of identification of the correct names and acronyms.
Plus a helpful suggestion for your self-education.



"Please state the nature of your medical emergency." - Zimmerman

LHA / WMD

Here in EPA, after about 1980 the predominant entry license was the Tech.


This


was true even before it lost its code test. The reason was 2 meter/440 access,
which Novices didn't have. A prospective ham would see almost every ham with a
2 meter HT or mobile, ask "what license do I need to talk to you guys" and


wind


up with a Tech. Code or no code.



The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as a government entity, is
not under any regulations of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). EPA operating on amateur radio bands is a violation of the
Communications Act of 1934.



Gotcha! Here "EPA" means "Eastern Pennsylvania". I'm in "NNJ",
northern New Jersey.
The country is divided up into around a hundred zones by the ARRL. For
radio contesting
and reception reports.

========================
I'm having roast rabbit for Easter dinner. :-)

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

I said they elected to use the no-code Technician as their entry to ham
radio rather than the Novice license. Yes they took the Novice written
but
not the code. Thus they "bypassed" the Novice license in the sense that
they never held a Novice license. They had basically two choices to
enter
ham radio (unless of course they chose to do additional study and sit for
higher class tests at the same time).

1) They could take (and pass) the Novice written plus 5wpm and get a
Novice
license.
2) They could take (and pass) the Novice written and Tech written and get
a
no-code Tech license.

The prospective ham generally took the route 2 to enter ham radio rather
than route 1. Thus by that choice, the people themselves made the Tech
no-code the entry level license despite the fact that it was more
difficult
than earning the Novice license. The restructuring in 2000 merely
formalized what had already occurred.

I agree except for one point: The decision was made by different people
for a
number of factors, such as the *perceived* difficulty and the *perceived*
rewards.

Actually that was what I was trying to point out and you've clarified it
quite nicely.


Having earned my initial license in 1992 (Tech with HF), I'm quite
familiar
with what was going on. The majority of people sitting for their first
license took the Tech no-code route to put off learning the code not
because
of its two meter and VHF access. Prior to on-air experience, they simply
were not personally familiar enough with various ham activities to select
their entry route on the basis of the desireability of having 2m access.

Here in EPA, after about 1980 the predominant entry license was the Tech.
This
was true even before it lost its code test. The reason was 2 meter/440
access,
which Novices didn't have. A prospective ham would see almost every ham
with a
2 meter HT or mobile, ask "what license do I need to talk to you guys" and
wind
up with a Tech. Code or no code.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I can see where that could easily be a dominant factor if the prospective
ham had some exposure to that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 4/5/2004 1:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Here in EPA, after about 1980 the predominant entry license was the Tech.
This
was true even before it lost its code test. The reason was 2 meter/440
access,
which Novices didn't have. A prospective ham would see almost every ham with
a
2 meter HT or mobile, ask "what license do I need to talk to you guys" and
wind
up with a Tech. Code or no code.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as a government entity, is
not under any regulations of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). EPA operating on amateur radio bands is a violation of the
Communications Act of 1934.

SNIP.

What a putz.

One more example of NO practical experience in Amateur Radio practice.

One more time Lennie hangs it out only to have it trampled on, wondering
why we are not blinded with his infinite wisdom and wonderous revelations.

You're an IDIOT, Anderson. Thanks for making sure we don't forget.

Steve, K4YZ