On 7 May 2004 06:51:21 GMT, Alun wrote:

Likely the FCC brearucracy just hasn't gotten around to it yet. They
have bigger fish to
fry, and will likely get to it when there's nothing better to do.

Sad but true. You only have to look at their home page to see where we are
in their priorities, i.e. not even on their radar atall.

Yes but....

The reality is that the "first hoop" at the Commission is the amateur
radio specialist - currently an individual named Bill Cross, a
licensed amateur, BTW. He's the successor to Johnny Johnston, W3BE.

His specialty is formulation of amateur radio rules and policy. Light
his fire, and see how fast the matter moves through the pipeline.

Sometimes it's better if the issue is "under the radar" so the
politicians who inhabit the Eighth Floor don't get involved with
photo ops and sound bites as they have been with BPL, for instance.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 7 May 2004 10:23:31 -0700, N2EY wrote:

It's been ten months and two days since WRC-2003 ended, and given
FCC's method of handling the issue it may well be another ten months
before we even get to the NPRM stage.

The NCI Petition for Rulemaking gave the FCC a quick out to drop
Element 1 immediately, with sufficient legal foundation to do so
without an NPRM (I read that part thoroughly, and it's right on the
mark).

The fact that it hasn't been done means that "someone's" fire hasn't
been lighted. This is a phenominon that I am all too familiar with
when dealing with The Monkey House whether from within or from
without.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Alun wrote in message . ..
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in
:

Subject: Let's debate: Should Amateur Radio be made a free for all?
From: Alun
Date: 5/8/2004 10:29 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in
:

If one reflects back on the history and demograpics of the
Amateur Radio
Service, there have been those who obtained licensure for a myriad of
reasons, but those who really get in it and stick with it have
recurring central interests...Two types come to mind. First are
those who are facinated by radio for radio's sake...Gadgets.


I don't think I've ever got over my facination with how radio waves
bridge huge distances. It still seems like magic even though I have
studied how it works.

Ditto! And altho I can "work" somone in Australia on the pooter,
I liken
it to fishing with hand grenades!...

It takes skill to drop that line in and coax "the big one" onto
the hook!

I am the same way with aircraft. I used to live at the junction
of two
low-level military training routes in Sequatchie County, Tennessee, and
was routinely treated to impromptu "airshows" courtesy of the United
States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. I could hear the "whistling"
of the engines coming up the valley and would run out to catch a
glimpse.

When the U.S. was gearing up for Kosovo, B-1B Lancers and F15
Eagles were
regulars along the route.

Most of the "active" folks are the gadget operators and ES
types, so let's
go to where they are rather than wait for them to find us..."Popular
Science" and "Popular Mechanics" magazine..."Journal of Emergency
Medical Services", "Emergency Medical Services", etc etc etc.


Agreed. Mind you, ads in Popular Mecanics are incredibly expensive

I agree, but what price would we pay if we lost Amateur Radio
altogether
due to low census? With the dollar-figures the ARRL posts every year
they can afford to put at least one full page ad in those mags per
quarter, at least!

Element 1 only adds access to about 2.5% of all Amateur
allocations.
Those that really wanted HF priviledges only saw the Code test as a
hurdle...Not a brick wall.

My recollection of hurdles in school sports is mostly of falling over
the bl**dy things, HI!

Jump higher, Alun! =)

73

Steve, K4YZ







I have short legs

You're a tad short in some other respects to . .

"Alun" wrote in message
...
(William) wrote in
om:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...

I have little sympathy for anyone who would claim that learning morse
at a speed of five words per minute is a lot of work or that it
requires a long time to learn.

Dave K8MN

Your sympathy was not solicited, and it or the lack of it doesn't
change the fact that for many, learning code at 5wpm is difficult and
takes a long time to learn. The real pity are all of the 20WPM
Code-Tape Extras that have never used code.


That would be me. Not just tapes, in fact I didn't find tapes to be a good
method of learning, but I've never attached a key to a rig. What was the
point of me learning 20wpm?

Discipline, knowledge, achievement...shall I go on? I know these are bad
words in today's "I just want what I want" world.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

I guess its just that I think your a puke.

(Dr Phil mode on )

Why do you think Lloyd is a puke?
(Dr Phil mode off )



Lloyd Davies - Time Lord and Talk show host
"On the Domestic Front"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/domesticfront/

Hows that? Most of the people doing that stupitidy are multiple guess
receive only cw test takers

Do you have some proof?

Learning code does not make the quality of the operator! Look at David Castle,
look at ex-WB2OTK, Roger Wiseman, etc.

Need I say more??


Lloyd Davies - Time Lord and Talk show host
"On the Domestic Front"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/domesticfront/

You see I am more interested in
putting down LLLlllllloooooyyyyyydddddd whenever I can.

Why?

What have I done to you?

I thought we buried the hatchet?


Lloyd Davies - Time Lord and Talk show host
"On the Domestic Front"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/domesticfront/

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On 7 May 2004 10:23:31 -0700, N2EY wrote:

It's been ten months and two days since WRC-2003 ended, and given
FCC's method of handling the issue it may well be another ten months
before we even get to the NPRM stage.

The NCI Petition for Rulemaking gave the FCC a quick out to drop
Element 1 immediately, with sufficient legal foundation to do so
without an NPRM (I read that part thoroughly, and it's right on the
mark).

I recall that even before any petitions were filed, both of us agreed
that if FCC "wanted to", Element 1 could be simply dropped once the
treaty changed. I believe the procedure is called "Memorandum Report
and Order" (could be some other name) but in any event a lot quicker
and simpler than a complete NPRM cycle.

The fact that it hasn't been done means that "someone's" fire hasn't
been lighted.

Right. Could also be that "someone" doesn't want to get in the middle
of the catfight and get scratched by both sides. In which case the
thing to do is to entertain all sorts of petitions, (we're up to what
- 17-18 of them so far?!) collect comments and reply comments and even
ex partes on each of them, and allow the whole thing to percolate
through the great bureaucratic machine. Then, when the flood of
petitions has been reduced to a trickle, issue an NPRM with long
comment time (like 98-143). Resolution of the issue could take years -
and every new petition just resets the clock.

IOW, don't hold yer breath. Lookit how long it took for the "incentive
licensing" proposals of the '60s to take place. First proposals in
1963, final plan in 1966, major changes in 1968 and 1969. And they had
far fewer proposals back then.

This is a phenominon that I am all too familiar with
when dealing with The Monkey House whether from within or from
without.

"Welcome To The Monkey House" ...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Alun wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in
om:


Alun wrote in message
...


The ITU requirement for a code test was dropped on July 5th, 2003, so
evidently a majority around the world agree with you.

A majority of the world's governments that bothered to attend and vote
on the issue.

And all they did was change the rules so each country can decide for
itself what is required - just like the written test.

Although a suggested standard for written tests was added at the same
WRC, it's really more of a suggestion than anything else. Countries
can have wide-ranging interpretations of what's "needed". For example,
do you think ol' JY1 and his family had to sit for written and code
exams that were equivalent to what US or UK hams had to pass for the
same privileges? Or do you think the US writtens compare with, say,
those in the UK?

If I'm not mistaken, getting a license in some countries *requires*
successful completion of an approved training course. (I know the
"Foundation" license has this requirement). Doesn't matter if someone
is a Ph.D. in EE, they have to attend and pass the ham radio classes
to get the license - even though such courses are not part of any
treaty and not required in many other countries.

Actually, they only have to do the practical assesments, it's not necessary
to attend the course.

"Practical Assesmants" - as in tests? What, exactly, is required?

Imagine the reaction here in the USA if the code test were dropped
*and* getting a license required attendance at an approved ham radio
training course. Not a "one day wonder" course such as was recently
the subject of an article on the ARRL website ("Is Your License Class
Efficient" or some such title), but rather a multisession course with
quizzes and a final test that were not from a published pool.

Point is, just because it's not in the treaty anymore doesn't mean all
countries will or should drop it.

Another point is that requirements vary from country to country, even
with CEPT and S25.5

I think the FCC will drop it, but they move at a snail's pace.

They're busy with other things. And perhaps they don't see what all
the fuss is about. After all, we're talking about a 5 wpm code test
that can be passed in a number of ways, with all sorts of adaptations
and accomodations (tone, volume, headphones, typewriter, flashing
light, Farnsworth, etc.) Add to this the fact that today there are
training aids undreamed of in the past - most of them free or quite
inexpensive.

I doubt if they even think about any of that

Why? Those accomodations and adaptations are all part of the rules. In
fact, a lot is left to the VE's judgement. For example, a *sending*
test can be substituted for the receiving test if the VEs think it is
justified.

I didn't think it would survive
for as long as a year after it was no longer needed, but it's only
nine months so far, so I could still be right.

I think you meant 'no longer required by treaty'. Whether something is
needed as a license requirement is purely a matter of opinion.

I meant both, since I agree with the FCC that it was only needed because of
the treaty

It's been ten months and two days since WRC-2003 ended, and given
FCC's method of handling the issue it may well be another ten months
before we even get to the NPRM stage.

That may be, although I still think it will be earlier than that. How do we
stand with the pool, BTW?

I just did an update. Google up the thread - WK3C wanted to change his
date!

Most of all, note that the 2000 restructuring did not result in lots
of new hams, even though the requirements for all classes of license
were lowered and the whole structure simplified.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think abolishing the code test will remove a block in the system, but
won't have much effect unless we actively do something to recruit new hams.
I don't really see much of that happening right now.

What would you suggest?

Here's what one ham is doing - and has been doing for years. I don't
know this ham personally, but he is right here in EPA. Note the
results and the reactions he gets. The following is a direct quote:

BEGIN QUOTE

I have had the privilege of teaching an after school activity, at the
local
middle school, for five years. I named it Tune in the World, and it
covers
many aspects of radio and television, and of course, pushes ham radio.
Each
year I have had several students, both boys and girls, obtain their
license
and try to help them continue on the hobby.

With this as my basis, I can tell you that 95% of the students were a
pleasure to work with and each year the district offers me a nice
salary to
teach the class and each year I decline it. Yes, it is a lot of work,
but
the students enjoy it and come away with a very positive idea of ham
radio.
The attention span varies, but I have found that I have to work at
making
sure I have an interesting program and that no part of it goes on and
on and
on. I set the rules at the first meeting and have not had any serious
problems. (My son and his friends have been my biggest problem.)

If one expects the students to sit in their chairs and listen to a
presentation for an hour, after being in school all day, they good
luck. I
combine power point presentations, live demonstrations, parts of ARRL
videos
short movies, simple building projects and computers. Interestingly,
the
students are always VERY interested in the Morse code and seem less so
in
modes connected with the computer.

I am not a STRONG disciplinarian, but we have rules and the kids obey
them
and something must be going right, a few kids who were in the previous
class
always take the next year's class and we always have 35 to 40
students. In
fact, my biggest problem is that other students want to join the class
after
it has been on a few weeks.

Last year at the last minute, I offer the Radio Merit Badge at Boy
Scout
Camp. I was given a terrible time and hoped for six kids. I had over
1/4
of the camp at the classes and more wanted to attend. We got a dozen
hams
out of that one.

So, if we want to get new, young hams, then think about reaching out
to the
Middle Schools, and Scout Camps. Just the camp alone, with eight
weeks of
camp, would produce between 80 and 100 new hams....with about 400
Scout
Camps in the USA, (Cub and Boy Scout) that would mean a very nice
increase
in our membership.

I do agree, that like every previous generation, the new hams need
help in
getting into the hobby and if nothing else, get their email address
and send
them info as well as forwarding the address to the ARRL, and local
clubs.
We can sit here and complain about the lack of young people in our
hobby, or
we can do something, or expect someone else to do it. Ahhh, it is
easier to
complain...right?

END QUOTE

Note particularly when he writes:

"the students are always VERY interested in the Morse code and seem
less so in
modes connected with the computer."

A block to the license process?

I guess the question is "What are YOU doing to recruit more hams",
Alun? The torch is being passed, and it is being passed to those that
"won" the code/no code debate.

Exactly.

I'm pretty new as a Ham, I try to recruit whenever possible, and will
welcome new hams regardless of their education. Some people might feel
otherwise at this point, having the wind knocked out of their sails, so
to speak.

My policy has always been that if they have the license, they're a
ham.

You guys won. You have the ball now. Using the NCI's polled membership
as an example, you now want to make all Technicians Generals, and
advanced, Extra's. A drastic reduction in entrance requirements seems to
be the rationale du jour for the brave new Amateur Radio Service.

Exactly!

And who can really argue against it? Remember the question "why does
someone have to learn code to operate voice"? Well, if you accept that
argument, then what do you say when someone says "Why does it take a
Technician license to operate legal limit SSB on 2 meters but a
General to do the same thing on most of 20 meters?" and "Since the
Technician written allows maximum authorized power on all authorized
modes allocated to hams above 30 MHz,why is more theory testing needed
to do the same thing below 30 MHz?"

Etc.

Really it's your ball and your game now. Godspeed!

Don't hold yer breath, Mike.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...

On 7 May 2004 10:23:31 -0700, N2EY wrote:


It's been ten months and two days since WRC-2003 ended, and given
FCC's method of handling the issue it may well be another ten months
before we even get to the NPRM stage.

The NCI Petition for Rulemaking gave the FCC a quick out to drop
Element 1 immediately, with sufficient legal foundation to do so
without an NPRM (I read that part thoroughly, and it's right on the
mark).


I recall that even before any petitions were filed, both of us agreed
that if FCC "wanted to", Element 1 could be simply dropped once the
treaty changed. I believe the procedure is called "Memorandum Report
and Order" (could be some other name) but in any event a lot quicker
and simpler than a complete NPRM cycle.

Yup! And do me that is the most damning indictement of the NCI crowd.
Simply petitioning to simply dropo Element 1 would have been consistent
with what we had heard their aims were all along.

But that wasn't quite enough was it?

The fact that it hasn't been done means that "someone's" fire hasn't
been lighted.


Right. Could also be that "someone" doesn't want to get in the middle
of the catfight and get scratched by both sides. In which case the
thing to do is to entertain all sorts of petitions, (we're up to what
- 17-18 of them so far?!) collect comments and reply comments and even
ex partes on each of them, and allow the whole thing to percolate
through the great bureaucratic machine. Then, when the flood of
petitions has been reduced to a trickle, issue an NPRM with long
comment time (like 98-143). Resolution of the issue could take years -
and every new petition just resets the clock.

With all the complicated petitinos out there, I think it is time to add
mine. Maybe in a year or so, when the initial furor dies down....

IOW, don't hold yer breath. Lookit how long it took for the "incentive
licensing" proposals of the '60s to take place. First proposals in
1963, final plan in 1966, major changes in 1968 and 1969. And they had
far fewer proposals back then.

I *really* like my prediction in the poll. 8^)


This is a phenominon that I am all too familiar with
when dealing with The Monkey House whether from within or from
without.


"Welcome To The Monkey House" ...

- Mike KB3EIA -