RM-10867 - ARRL, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6516083735




RM-10870 - NCVEC, 3 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6516082208



RM-10868 - AG4RQ, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6515783299


73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...


RM-10867 - ARRL, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6516083735




RM-10870 - NCVEC, 3 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6516082208



RM-10868 - AG4RQ, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6515783299


73 de Jim, N2EY

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people realize
that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It demonstrates a
lack of consensus in the ham community, which could cause the FCC to do
exactly nothing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 3/23/2004 8:20 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: m

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people realize
that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It demonstrates a
lack of consensus in the ham community, which could cause the FCC to do
exactly nothing.

Naaaaaa.....They'll do "something", mostly because it's expected of them,
not because it's necessarilly needed or appropriate to do so.

The smartest thing they COULD have done was defuse all the controversy in
the first place and "suspend" further code testing when S25.5 was
modified...especially since that was the way they were already leaning in the
first place, public opinon notwithstanding.

And the second smartest thing they could have done was meld the Novice and
Advanced Class licenses into the three remaining classes. The whole purpose
of "Restructuring" was to administratively streamline the FCC's
workload...Sooooooooo...Why leave two whole classes of licenses out there with
no possibility of making new ones? They should have just taken a one-time
swipe at clearing the database then.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 3/23/2004 8:20 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: m


How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people realize
that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It demonstrates a
lack of consensus in the ham community, which could cause the FCC to do
exactly nothing.


Naaaaaa.....They'll do "something", mostly because it's expected of them,
not because it's necessarilly needed or appropriate to do so.

The smartest thing they COULD have done was defuse all the controversy in
the first place and "suspend" further code testing when S25.5 was
modified...especially since that was the way they were already leaning in the
first place, public opinon notwithstanding.

All of which is refreshingly like my "as little as needed" suggestion.


And the second smartest thing they could have done was meld the Novice and
Advanced Class licenses into the three remaining classes. The whole purpose
of "Restructuring" was to administratively streamline the FCC's
workload...Sooooooooo...Why leave two whole classes of licenses out there with
no possibility of making new ones? They should have just taken a one-time
swipe at clearing the database then.



Maybe I should write up and add my ides to the mix.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 3/23/2004 9:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Maybe I should write up and add my ides to the mix.

Why not, Mike...It IS March, ya know...! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
...
Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 3/23/2004 8:20 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: m

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people realize
that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It
demonstrates a
lack of consensus in the ham community, which could cause the FCC to do
exactly nothing.

Naaaaaa.....They'll do "something", mostly because it's expected of
them,
not because it's necessarilly needed or appropriate to do so.

The smartest thing they COULD have done was defuse all the
controversy in
the first place and "suspend" further code testing when S25.5 was
modified...especially since that was the way they were already leaning in
the
first place, public opinon notwithstanding.

And the second smartest thing they could have done was meld the
Novice and
Advanced Class licenses into the three remaining classes. The whole
purpose
of "Restructuring" was to administratively streamline the FCC's
workload...Sooooooooo...Why leave two whole classes of licenses out there
with
no possibility of making new ones? They should have just taken a one-time
swipe at clearing the database then.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Keeping the classes has the advantage that they could easily be re-opened if
they should decide that they made a mistake. It's happened in the past.
With today's computerized databases, it just isn't that difficult to keep
the "orphaned" classes. I suspect within the next few years, the Novice
licenses will diminish greatly anyway due to lack of renewal.

The simplest thing would have been to simply decide how many, if any,
classes would keep the code and leave the structure otherwise unchanged.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

Keeping the "orpahned" classes has the advantage
that they could easily be re-opened if
they should decide that they made a mistake.

Three classes is plenty and I doubt there's
any regrets at reducing the number of licenses.
It remains now as to what the best three are
to be as per the RRL and NCVEC which are
pretty much unified as to eliminating Tech and
Advanced. Does any other country also have
three classes?

With today's computerized databases, it just isn't that difficult
to keep the "orphaned" classes.

It isn't just record keeping...it is also about keeping
the rules and regs that are unique to those two
classes on the books and subject to enforcement.
Of course, another means is to leave Advanced and,
rather than a free upgrade, just indicate that the
privieges for Advanced are now identical to
Extra.

I suspect within the next few years, the Novice
licenses will diminish greatly anyway due to lack of renewal.

There are only about 32K now.

The simplest thing would have been to simply decide how many, if any,
classes would keep the code and leave the structure otherwise unchanged.

That has been done by ARRL (three classes and
only Extra would be code tested) and NCVEC (three
licenses and NO code test at all).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people realize
that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It demonstrates
a
lack of consensus in the ham community, which could cause the FCC to do
exactly nothing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Gee Dee, you say that as if that's a bad thing. Perhaps that's the idea. ;-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
. net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people
realize
that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It
demonstrates
a
lack of consensus in the ham community, which could cause the FCC to do
exactly nothing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Gee Dee, you say that as if that's a bad thing. Perhaps that's the idea.
;-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI


I want a decision to be made one way or the other. Hanging in limbo does
none of us any good. Regardless of the FCC's decision, I will continue to
encourage and support the study of code. As my own experience and abilities
grow in its use, I find it ever more worthwhile. I just wish I had the
discipline to carve out more time for it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...


RM-10867 - ARRL, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6516083735




RM-10870 - NCVEC, 3 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6516082208



RM-10868 - AG4RQ, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6515783299


73 de Jim, N2EY


How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people realize
that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It demonstrates a
lack of consensus in the ham community, which could cause the FCC to do
exactly nothing.


All things I had taken into account in my prediction! I remember how
incredulous some were at my idea of how long it would take. My "4 years
to change" may have even been optimistic!

And yes, there is a decided lack of consensus in the Amateur community,
especially when a sizable percentage of us (perhaps even a majority)
prefer that Morse testing be kept, in direct opposition to the way
things are likely to go!

- Mike KB3EIA -