In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...
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.

That's one way to look at it.
(insert standard "I'm not a lawyer and the following is just my layman's
opinion" disclaimer HERE)

Here's another:

Perhaps what Bash did *was* illegal, and prosecutable under the rules at the
time. Maybe the top folks decided not to go after Bash because (choose any
number of the following):

- they made a dumb mistake
- they were planning to publicize the Q&A anyhow
- they wanted to focus on other areas of enforcement
- they didn't think they could win
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would bring other things to light,
such as the limited size of the pool actually in use
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would sell more of his books and
encourage imitators to do the same thing

All the academic discussion of what may have been
the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means
nothing in the end.

I disagree. It's an example of how things used to work, or not work.

Most of all, the fact that no enforcement action was taken does not mean there
was no violation. If a driver zips past a police radar setup at, say, 15 mph
over the posted limit but the police don't go after that driver, a violatiuon
still occurred. The police in that particular case just decided not to go after
the violator, for whatever reason.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 28 Mar 2004 23:58:20 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Perhaps what Bash did *was* illegal, and prosecutable under the rules at the
time. Maybe the top folks decided not to go after Bash because (choose any
number of the following):

- they made a dumb mistake
- they were planning to publicize the Q&A anyhow
- they wanted to focus on other areas of enforcement
- they didn't think they could win
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would bring other things to light,
such as the limited size of the pool actually in use
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would sell more of his books and
encourage imitators to do the same thing

You left out the real reason - the person who had the obligation
to carry any prosecution forward (long since retired and deceased)
was an expert in ducking anything that looked like work.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...

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

Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97
clearly states "Morse Code."

William wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...

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


Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97
clearly states "Morse Code."

They are administering the "Morse Code" exam using the Farnsworth
method. Where does part 97 state the Farnsworth method cannot be used?

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.

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

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

Because hams *do* use it. Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

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

[expletive deleted]

of it.

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

Code isn't a lid filter,

*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.

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

You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

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. 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!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one).

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical

In your opinion, anyway.

Mine and that of many others, including at least one communications attorney
and engineer.

and arguably illegal at the time.

a legal argument in academic concept only. Since the FCC
never tested the legality, the legal issue is moot.

That's like saying that if someone drives 85 mph in a 65 mph zone and is not
prosecuted for it, that the violation is an academic concept only.

The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have.

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

Ditto my last.

Do you think it was ethical to obtain information the way Bash did?

Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and
copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies.

Not at all.

It would be the equivalent of a techer using the SAME
test questions over and over again and in recognition of same, a
frat house eventually compiles a list of those questions based on the
memory of those frats that had taken the tests before.
Nothing
about what bash did is equivalent to sneaking into the teacher's
office.

What's the difference? If the teacher left the door and his/her desk unlocked,
and there was an unmonitored copy machine in the office, would it be ethical
for a student to sneak in, find the test, make a copy and put everything back
as it was? Why or why not?

But let's use your analogy and see where it leads.

Suppose the university had an "honor system" policy that specifically
prohibited divulging what was on a test. Would it be ethical for a frat to
compile question lists?

Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that
would be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with
other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with
FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of
the study guides.

In the end it made no difference.

It makes a difference in that ARRL followed the rules and Bash did not.
Bash obtained his materials by other methods,

And those methods were NEVER chalenged as to the
means being legal or not.

Just as some drivers go way over the limit and yet never get a speeding ticket.

and his books did not explain how
the material was obtained.

As if anyone buying the Bash books cared.

I know hams who did care.

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.

How about this, then:

There was a time (several decades long) when ham license exams were given by
mail if the ham-to-be met certain criteria. The written exams were sent to the
volunteer examiner (no capitals) in a sealed envelope with a lot of
instructions explaining how the materials were to be handled. Included in those
instructions were warnings not to divulge the contents of the test.

Would it have been unethical to make a copy of the test? Why or why not?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one).

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

So did the Q&A book folks.

How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information?

The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have.

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

So did the Q&A book folks.

How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information?

Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and
copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies.

So did the Q&A book folks.

One more time:

How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information?

Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that would
be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with
other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of
the study guides.

The Church of St. Hiram is sacrosanct, can do no wrong.

If you say so, Len ;-)

Bash obtained his materials by other methods, and his books did not explain
how the material was obtained.

So did the Q&A book folks.

How did the "Q&A book folks" gather their information?

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

Poor baby. You are mad as heck and you can't stand it anymore!

I'm simply stating an opinion on what Dick Bash did. Do you think his actions
were legal? Do you think they were in the best interests of amateur radio?

Take Bash to civil court then, nothing stopping you from trying.

Actually, there is:

- Statute of limitations
- Rules changes since then

Avenge all foes! Sound the hue and cry!! Love the ARRL!!!

Well, you're staying right on topic, Len. You're wrong yet again.

That done, maybe you can fight against "J. K. Lasser's Your Income
Tax" annual publications.

Why?

I really think you ought to review Title 17, USC, Copyrights. If you
do, you will find that the United States government cannot
copyright its own works.

It's not about copyrights at all.

That's been in the United States Code
for quite a while. The ARRL did not need to "seek any permission"
for republishing any FCC public material. They still don't need to,
just repro it and mention the source. No fees, nothing. Anyone
can.

Then what's your problem?

There's a legal area that is a "grey area" for many on what
constitutes "ownership" of test materials. I'll leave that up to
attorneys and judges to thrash out...

In the instructions for the by-mail test I took for Novice, their were explicit
directions not to copy or divulge the contents of the test. The signatures of
the applicant and the volunteer examiner certified compliance with all of those
instructions. Most of us took them very seriously. Bash didn't.

Of course you wouldn't know about that, never having had an amateur license of
any type...

JJ wrote:

William wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...

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



Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97
clearly states "Morse Code."


They are administering the "Morse Code" exam using the Farnsworth
method. Where does part 97 state the Farnsworth method cannot be used?

Don't do it, JJ! Brian will argue that one for weeks!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

JJ wrote:

William wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...

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




Such as the ARRL VEC administering Farnsworth exams when Part 97
clearly states "Morse Code."



They are administering the "Morse Code" exam using the Farnsworth
method. Where does part 97 state the Farnsworth method cannot be used?


Don't do it, JJ! Brian will argue that one for weeks!

- Mike KB3EIA -


A lot of people like to argue a point even if they are wrong.

N2EY wrote:

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]


Okay, didn't think that word was that expletive. The FCC allows it.
And heard it
in church today....



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.

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

Was going to say "less heat from congressmen", but the BPL lobby will
take care of that....




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



Because hams *do* use it. Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

If a ham decides to use it, he can then learn it. Perhaps some of the
old novice subbands
can be informally reserved for fumbling beginners to QSO with elmers
willing to train
them. They may need to use phone on another frequency to assist the
learning process.
Shouldn't be a problem as long as one doesn't talk *and* send code at
the same exact
time (there's a rule saying not to use more than one slice of bandwidth
(frequency) at a time).
Split band and split mode is okay.




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



[expletive deleted]



of it.



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

Also what qualifications are really needed for the license. As if I
need more knowledge to
operate on 14.155 vs 14.277MHz.... Knowledge of rules, electrical and
RF safety, how
to identify and resolve RFI problems (which includes transmitter and
receiver theory), knowing
what constitutes intentional interference vs accidental QRM, what
"Pecuniary interest" means
and that that rule actually protects the ham bands from being invaded by
business users....

VHF and above users have limited range, and thus cannot cause global
disruption. HF
users can. So maybe that's an argument to restrict novices to VHF and
above, or low
power HF.

As the FCC allows us to take the covers off our transmitters, and lets
us homebrew
them as well, we should be expected to pass a test to demonstrate basic
knowledge
of how this stuff works, and what sort of problems can be caused by mis
designed or
mis adjusted equipment.




Code isn't a lid filter,



*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.



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



You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

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

Those clowns knew full well that they were breaking rules. "Oh, you
mean I can't use expletives,
maliciously interfere, and not ID?" I don't know the answer as to how
to construct a lid filter
in the license testing process. But the FCC said itself that things did
not degrade after restructuring
(5wpm generals and extras set loose on HF). Once everyone learned to
fix their newbie type errors.