"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...
On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote:

What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather
than have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool,
that they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement
that they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide
by it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool
can be made smaller.

Is that a good idea?

I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in
enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the
licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule
part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the
licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules.

Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter.....
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over
the
NCVEC plan for a number of reasons.

I'll take that to mean you do not
support the "signed statement" idea, Carl?

What's interesting about the NCVEC
proposal is that if you remove the "signed
statement" bad idea, and the "no home-
brew/30 volt final" bad ideas, and the
"additional unnecessary widening of the
phone bands at the expense of CW/data"
bad idea, and the "special beginner
callsign" bad idea, you wind up with a
proposal that's pretty darn close to the
ARRL one. (Yeah, I know about the 5
wpm for Extra thing).

As to support of ARRL petition...
I'll let Carl speak for himself (although I believe we both agree).
Specifically, I support the ARRL petition almost 100%.
The ONLY aspect of the ARRL petition I disagree with is
(as you know already) the retention of a code test for Extra.

Personally, I think many of the provisions
of the NCVEC proposal actually insult beginners.

I agree completely.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:27:17 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

As to support of ARRL petition...
I'll let Carl speak for himself (although I believe we both agree).
Specifically, I support the ARRL petition almost 100%.
The ONLY aspect of the ARRL petition I disagree with is
(as you know already) the retention of a code test for Extra.

That's where I stand as well.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:28 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or
argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any
FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as
receiving stolen goods.

Not for the lack of us around whose office he lurked wanting that
action taken.....

Need we rehash this again ??

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the
NCVEC plan for a number of reasons.

Right. You are already an Extra and none of your amateur privileges
will be changed by any of the 4 new proposals. Not to worry.

Amateurs thought that once before...remember...!??!

In any case, any changes to Amateur Radio Service rules or regulations
DO affect ANY licensee, regardless of class or years licensed.

But, only the NCVEC petition calls for total elimination of the morse
code test. How does that square with the NCI position on code?

Why does it matter to you?

You are not an Amateur Radio licesee and anything that DOES happen will
not affect you in ANY case...

Steve, K4YZ

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:28 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or
argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any
FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as
receiving stolen goods.

Not for the lack of us around whose office he lurked wanting that
action taken.....

Need we rehash this again ??

What for...by your own statements you admit nothing
was done by the FCC? The fact that one or more
FCC attorneys may have wanted action taken doesn't
validate anything other than those FCC folks that
wanted action couldn't convince their management
that the case either had merit or was worth the time
and expense.
..
All the academic discussion of what may have been
the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means
nothing in the end.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
[snip]

The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code
technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of
studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than
the
much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the
beginners
themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to
bypass
the Novice. People are strange.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much
to
the
vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with
digital
modes, etc.

Carl - wk3c

I'm just amazed at how easily some can brush aside the monumental
waste of time learning the Morse Code and become.

Probably someone without a job, on disability, or retired.

Boy you certainly know how to jump to erroneous conclusions.

Welp, we had a sailor on here long ago who insisted that everyone else
devote as much time as it took to learn the code or stay the hell out
of ham radio.

Where did he learn the code? The Navy taught it to him while he
earned 3 hots and a cot, plus a paycheck.

I work a full
time job, which also entails travel further limiting my time.

So did I at the time I was learning the code. Lots of frustrating
work.

Payoff? I don't use it.

I found
learning Morse to be no more of a waste of time than studying theory.

I do. So much so that I used the description, "monumental waste of
time."

They
both take time and both are worthwhile.

Not to me.

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:
[snip]

I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over
the
NCVEC plan for a number of reasons.

I'll take that to mean you do not
support the "signed statement" idea, Carl?

Correct ... there is much about the NCVEC proposal that I don't like.

What's interesting about the NCVEC
proposal is that if you remove the "signed
statement" bad idea, and the "no home-
brew/30 volt final" bad ideas, and the
"additional unnecessary widening of the
phone bands at the expense of CW/data"
bad idea, and the "special beginner
callsign" bad idea, you wind up with a
proposal that's pretty darn close to the
ARRL one. (Yeah, I know about the 5
wpm for Extra thing).

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 hell of getting approved by the FCC.

As to support of ARRL petition...
I'll let Carl speak for himself (although I believe we both agree).
Specifically, I support the ARRL petition almost 100%.
The ONLY aspect of the ARRL petition I disagree with is
(as you know already) the retention of a code test for Extra.

Ditto ...

Personally, I think many of the provisions
of the NCVEC proposal actually insult beginners.

Ditto ...

I agree completely.

Ditto ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:26:48 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

What for...by your own statements you admit nothing
was done by the FCC? The fact that one or more
FCC attorneys may have wanted action taken doesn't
validate anything other than those FCC folks that
wanted action couldn't convince their management
that the case either had merit or was worth the time
and expense.
..
All the academic discussion of what may have been
the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means
nothing in the end.

Not being prosecuted or otherwise punished for an act doesn't mean
that the act didn't take place.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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 hell of getting approved by the FCC.


One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code
for extras. As the
treaty requirement is now gone, and no other service uses it, why
bother. The FCC isn't
in the business of giving out gold stars for the hell of it. Code isn't
a lid filter, as witness
14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there.