(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Let's debate: Should Amateur Radio be made a free for all?
From: (N2EY)
Date: 5/10/2004 7:16 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Despite supporting Code testing, I am also of the mind that once the
majority has spoken, it's time to move on.

Which majority?

What happened at WRC-2003 was *not* the abolition of code testing.
Instead, the treaty was modified so that each country decides for
itself what its code testing requirement will be. A country can have
no code testing, some code testing, or universal code testing for an
amateur license, and still be in accordance with the treaty.

This may seem a semantic point but it's not. A sizable number of
countries insisted on the wording that was finally adopted.

Therein lies your majority, Jim.

Where?

The majority of countries who sent reps voted to change S25.5. Doesn't
matter how many people or hams a country has, each gets one vote.
That's not a majority of *people* or hams, it's a majority of
*governments*.

And let's not kid ourselves...there's been a growing number of people,
wether they commented directly to the FCC or not, that is in favor of doing
away with Code testing.

Sure. I say they are a small but noisy *minority*. Heck, there's been
a group in existence for more than 8 years that says its sole purpose
is the elimination of code testing. Membership is absolutely free and
non-expiring, does not require a ham license or other qualifications
except agreement with the single stated goal. And yet in those 8 years
they have recruited maybe 5 or 6 thousand total members, world-wide.

Some "majority".

Again...I don't agree with it, but it's out there and unless there's some
epiphany at FCC, it will become the law of the land in some time, if not "due"
time.

The fat lady ain't sung yet. Frankly I am amazed that after the Report
and Order for 98-143 we still have Element 1 - but we do.

I just hope we (you, I, other Code test/use supporters) can move in
some constructive way to minimize the damage.

Been doing that for years, Steve.

They could have pre-empted all this by stating something to the effect
of
"based upon recent previous commnets on the subject, we are suspending the
requirement for Element 1 for access to HF licensure"....But
noooooooooooo...

The majority of comments to 98-143 *supported* code testing. In fact,
the majority of comments to 98-143 supported *at least* 2 code test
speeds. Based on the majority of those comments, we'd still have at
least 12-13 wpm.

Look at the comments on the various petitions since July - what is the
majority saying?

I agree.

Tell it to the noisy minority.

But the FCC has almost always been a left-leaning agency, and
will continue to be so.

WHOA THERE!

FCC a "left-leaning" agency? You gotta be kidding!

Let's look at the past 20 years or so:

- FCC created VE system and public question pools. Turned over 99% of
the testing functions to unpaid volunteers to "get the government off
your back". Reduces the size of government and regulatory complexity.
Is that what "the left" usually does?

- FCC created medical waivers because a Republican president wanted to
do a King a favor.

- FCC deregulated broadcast radio ownership under a Republican
administration because it would help Business and reduce regulatory
complexity. Is that what "the left" usually does?

- FCC pushes a spectrum-polluting broadband technology under a
Republican administration because it would supposedly help Business.
Is that what "the left" usually does?

Those are just the high points. The trend is clear: Less regulation,
more "free market" ideology, little concern about pollution of a
limited natural resource. Is that what "the left" is all about, or
"the right"?

I have no doubt that they will act to lose the code
tests. Thier previous comments have already set the tone for what they plan
on doing, comments to the contrary.

I disagree. If that were really the case, they could have simply
stated that based on the detailed discussion of 98-143 and their
previous Report and Order that the last remaining reason for Element 1
(the treaty) was gone and they could now simply dump it. There were
two petitions to do just that filed soon after WRC-2003. Yet we are
obviously headed for an NPRM cycle and it will probably be 2005 or
even 2006 before we know the outcome. If the FCC's mind was made up,
why the delay?

Thirdly, I think that when the dust settles they will just do what they
were going to do anyway. Eliminate Element 1.

Maybe. Or maybe not. If a resounding majority say they want Element 1,
things might go differently.

I see one of four things happening.

First of all is nothing. But the FCC never does "nothing", even when
it's the best course of action in the first place.

Not true. FCC has repeatedly done "nothing" in response to a proposal.
Remember when the CSVHS petitioned for some narrow-bandwidth VHF
subbands? FCC said no.

Secondly is to completely drop Code testing for all levels of licensure.
I am hoping-against-hope that they DON'T do this, but I am afraid that it is
EXACTLY what they will do.

Maybe.

Third is to drop the Code test for the General and leaving in the Code
test for the Extra. This is what I hope will happen.

I hope they keep it for HF at the very least. I think it would be best
if Element 1 were required for all ham licenses.

Lastly is creating a new, Code-free HF license between the Technician
Plus-level folks and the General.

Why?

Why not just create a new entry-level license ("NewNovice",
"Communicator", "Basic", whatever), then close off the Tech and Tech
Plus?

Existing Novices (all 32K of them) get the new entry license via
grandfathering. Existing Techs and Pluses keep all VHF/UHF and get the
same entry level HF as the new entry-level license.

What's the problem with that scenario?

However I can't see the FCC creating a NEW
license when they just went through all the hoop-laa of paring it down to
three.

Look at the ARRL petition. They essentially reinvent the Novice, same
name, new privs. Exisitng Novices get the new privs. Some version of
that can fly.

If they did this, I'd give the present Code-tested Generals access to
the Advanced Class sub-bands and let the new folks have the current General
allocations, minus the WARC bands and 160 meters.

Too complex.

Why? Why not..?!?!

There's been what...a half dozen petitions in the last five or six years
asking for the same thing and the FCC keeps thumbing thier noses at it...I
don't understand why since the Novice license hasn't generated much interest
since 1987

Because the FCC sometimes *does* do 'nothing'. That's the point.

Whole bunch of reasons. One is the "nobody loses" thing - where do the
Novices and Tech Pluses go if the "Novice bands" become 'phone?

Slide 'em down - it was done before. 80 M novice used to be 3700-3750,
40 M Novice used to be 7150-7200.

Or give them General class CW privs at 200W on 80/40/15/10. Why not?

The question should be "where are they now?"...Access them to the General
class non-phone bands on the same bands they have allocations on
now....3525-3750, 7025-7150, 21025 to 21200 and 28000 to 28.300.

Sure. In fact give 'em WARC bands while we're at it. Why not?

Another is the basic reason we have subbands-by-mode in the first
place. If the US phone subbands are widened, there's less room for CW
and the data modes. It amounts to rewarding the use of
spectrum-inefficient modes, and penalizing the use of
spectrum-efficient modes. And the DX 'phones will move still further
down the band to get away from the US QRM.

I agree.

So write and submit a petition to FCC. Everybody's doing it....

73 de Jim, N2EY

And yet in those 8 years
they have recruited maybe 5 or 6 thousand total members, world-wide.

Some "majority".

5or 6 Thousand, yea right, since NCI refuses to provide the correct INFO, they
might as well say 40 Million, since no proof is required. My guess probably
more like 200 to 300 hundred.

Subject: Let's debate: Should Amateur Radio be made a free for all?
From: (N2EY)
Date: 5/12/2004 10:45 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Let's debate: Should Amateur Radio be made a free for all?
From: (N2EY)
Date: 5/10/2004 7:16 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Therein lies your majority, Jim.

Where?

The majority of nations voting to drop the Code.

The majority of countries who sent reps voted to change S25.5. Doesn't
matter how many people or hams a country has, each gets one vote.
That's not a majority of *people* or hams, it's a majority of
*governments*.

True...But the tide'd been turning for a decade...More, really...

I just hope we (you, I, other Code test/use supporters) can move in
some constructive way to minimize the damage.

Been doing that for years, Steve.

Yep. Mentoring new Hams...VE tests...Cutting Lennie off at the the
knees...

But the FCC has almost always been a left-leaning agency, and
will continue to be so.

WHOA THERE!

FCC a "left-leaning" agency? You gotta be kidding!

Let's look at the past 20 years or so:

- FCC created VE system and public question pools. Turned over 99% of
the testing functions to unpaid volunteers to "get the government off
your back". Reduces the size of government and regulatory complexity.
Is that what "the left" usually does?

In this case, yes...

That it "reduced" the workload at FCC was incidental in my opnion, Jim.
That it markedly lowered the bar for the effectiveness of the written tests to
actaully insure some degree of technical competence was as left as you can get
without falling off the Huntington Beach pier.

- FCC created medical waivers because a Republican president wanted to
do a King a favor.

- FCC deregulated broadcast radio ownership under a Republican
administration because it would help Business and reduce regulatory
complexity. Is that what "the left" usually does?

And who gained the majority of benefit from that move?

- FCC pushes a spectrum-polluting broadband technology under a
Republican administration because it would supposedly help Business.
Is that what "the left" usually does?

The supposed "help" would be to those living in rural or under-served
areas, Jim. At least that's the pitch being pushed.

Those are just the high points. The trend is clear: Less regulation,
more "free market" ideology, little concern about pollution of a
limited natural resource. Is that what "the left" is all about, or
"the right"?

I have no doubt that they will act to lose the code
tests. Thier previous comments have already set the tone for what they
plan
on doing, comments to the contrary.

I disagree. If that were really the case, they could have simply
stated that based on the detailed discussion of 98-143 and their
previous Report and Order that the last remaining reason for Element 1
(the treaty) was gone and they could now simply dump it. There were
two petitions to do just that filed soon after WRC-2003. Yet we are
obviously headed for an NPRM cycle and it will probably be 2005 or
even 2006 before we know the outcome. If the FCC's mind was made up,
why the delay?

Like I said...Bureaucrats. The more paperwork and the more
administratively burdensome, the better.

Thirdly, I think that when the dust settles they will just do what they
were going to do anyway. Eliminate Element 1.

Maybe. Or maybe not. If a resounding majority say they want Element 1,
things might go differently.

I see one of four things happening.

First of all is nothing. But the FCC never does "nothing", even when
it's the best course of action in the first place.

Not true. FCC has repeatedly done "nothing" in response to a proposal.
Remember when the CSVHS petitioned for some narrow-bandwidth VHF
subbands? FCC said no.

If they said "no", they "did nothing"...Or do you consider the act of
saying no to be the "something"...?!?!

Secondly is to completely drop Code testing for all levels of
licensure.
I am hoping-against-hope that they DON'T do this, but I am afraid that it
is
EXACTLY what they will do.

Maybe.

Third is to drop the Code test for the General and leaving in the Code
test for the Extra. This is what I hope will happen.

I hope they keep it for HF at the very least. I think it would be best
if Element 1 were required for all ham licenses.

I do too, but like I said...the die's cast. This is what "people" want,
so now they've gotten it.

Lastly is creating a new, Code-free HF license between the Technician
Plus-level folks and the General.

Why?

Why not just create a new entry-level license ("NewNovice",
"Communicator", "Basic", whatever), then close off the Tech and Tech
Plus?

Existing Novices (all 32K of them) get the new entry license via
grandfathering. Existing Techs and Pluses keep all VHF/UHF and get the
same entry level HF as the new entry-level license.

What's the problem with that scenario?

However I can't see the FCC creating a NEW
license when they just went through all the hoop-laa of paring it down to
three.

Look at the ARRL petition. They essentially reinvent the Novice, same
name, new privs. Exisitng Novices get the new privs. Some version of
that can fly.

Like I said...I can't see the FCC creating a new (or re-opening the
old...) level of licensure...I was just offering it as an option.

If they did this, I'd give the present Code-tested Generals access to
the Advanced Class sub-bands and let the new folks have the current General
allocations, minus the WARC bands and 160 meters.

Too complex.

Why? Techs would get VHF and above. The new "X" class would get old
General phone priv's minus WARC and 160. What's "too complex" about it....???

The Generals move up to the Advanced class allocations, and Extra's get
the new "farmed out" phone bands.

Another is the basic reason we have subbands-by-mode in the first
place. If the US phone subbands are widened, there's less room for CW
and the data modes. It amounts to rewarding the use of
spectrum-inefficient modes, and penalizing the use of
spectrum-efficient modes. And the DX 'phones will move still further
down the band to get away from the US QRM.

I agree.

So write and submit a petition to FCC. Everybody's doing it....

Yeah...one more glory hound seeking his fame and fortune in the "Federal
Register"... ! ! !

=)

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Let's debate: Should Amateur Radio be made a free for all?
From: (N2EY)
Date: 5/12/2004 10:45 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Let's debate: Should Amateur Radio be made a free for all?
From: (N2EY)
Date: 5/10/2004 7:16 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Therein lies your majority, Jim.

Where?

The majority of nations voting to drop the Code.

The majority of countries who sent reps voted to change S25.5. Doesn't
matter how many people or hams a country has, each gets one vote.
That's not a majority of *people* or hams, it's a majority of
*governments*.

True...But the tide'd been turning for a decade...More, really...

We really don't know what a majority of *hams* or *people* think -
just what a majority of *governments* voted for. Big difference.

I just hope we (you, I, other Code test/use supporters) can move in
some constructive way to minimize the damage.

Been doing that for years, Steve.

Yep. Mentoring new Hams...VE tests...

Exactly.

Cutting Lennie off at the the
knees...

Who?

But the FCC has almost always been a left-leaning agency, and
will continue to be so.

WHOA THERE!

FCC a "left-leaning" agency? You gotta be kidding!

Let's look at the past 20 years or so:

- FCC created VE system and public question pools. Turned over 99% of
the testing functions to unpaid volunteers to "get the government off
your back". Reduces the size of government and regulatory complexity.
Is that what "the left" usually does?

In this case, yes...

That it "reduced" the workload at FCC was incidental in my opnion, Jim.
That it markedly lowered the bar for the effectiveness of the written tests to
actaully insure some degree of technical competence was as left as you can get
without falling off the Huntington Beach pier.

You've got it exactly backwards, Steve. The whole purpose of the VE
system and published pools was to reduce the admin workload of the
FCC. Get unpaid volunteers to do the work that used to be done by paid
govt. employees. That's straight out of 'the right's' ideology of
minimal government and privatization. And it happened during a popular
Republican administration that was elected in large part to "get the
government off your back".

The idea that it lowered the standards was dismissed at the time by
those who wanted the new system.

- FCC created medical waivers because a Republican president wanted to
do a King a favor.

Can't blame that one on "the left"

- FCC deregulated broadcast radio ownership under a Republican
administration because it would help Business and reduce regulatory
complexity. Is that what "the left" usually does?

And who gained the majority of benefit from that move?

The Businesses (like Clear Channel) who were able to buy up lots more
radio stations and homogenize radio broadcasting. The investors who
sold the stations for big $$.

Listen to talk radio and see how many programs are on 'the left' vs.
how many are on 'the right'.

- FCC pushes a spectrum-polluting broadband technology under a
Republican administration because it would supposedly help Business.
Is that what "the left" usually does?

The supposed "help" would be to those living in rural or under-served
areas, Jim. At least that's the pitch being pushed.

That's the smokescreen that's being used to sell it. Who would really
benefit?

Most of all, the selling points are the same: Less regulation, free
market for Business, this will help The Economy, homeland security,
etc., etc.

Who appoints the Commissioners? Who personally endorsed the new
technology? WHo is seeking reelection in a few months?

Sorry, Steve, your theory of FCC as "left leaning" just doesn't hold
water. At least not for the past 20-odd years.

Those are just the high points. The trend is clear: Less regulation,
more "free market" ideology, little concern about pollution of a
limited natural resource. Is that what "the left" is all about, or
"the right"?

Well?

I have no doubt that they will act to lose the code
tests. Thier previous comments have already set the tone for what they
plan
on doing, comments to the contrary.

I disagree. If that were really the case, they could have simply
stated that based on the detailed discussion of 98-143 and their
previous Report and Order that the last remaining reason for Element 1
(the treaty) was gone and they could now simply dump it. There were
two petitions to do just that filed soon after WRC-2003. Yet we are
obviously headed for an NPRM cycle and it will probably be 2005 or
even 2006 before we know the outcome. If the FCC's mind was made up,
why the delay?

Like I said...Bureaucrats. The more paperwork and the more
administratively burdensome, the better.

Maybe. Or maybe it's just not a high priority. Or maybe the commentary
supporting code testing *has* had an effect.

In any event, if the code test *is* dropped, it will be right in line
with "the right's" agenda of less regulation and more access. That's a
plain, simple fact.

Ask any no-code-test person if their agenda is liberal or
conservative. 99% will say it's the conservative thing to do - less
regulation, "free market of modes", etc.

Thirdly, I think that when the dust settles they will just do what they
were going to do anyway. Eliminate Element 1.

Maybe. Or maybe not. If a resounding majority say they want Element 1,
things might go differently.

I see one of four things happening.

First of all is nothing. But the FCC never does "nothing", even when
it's the best course of action in the first place.

Not true. FCC has repeatedly done "nothing" in response to a proposal.
Remember when the CSVHS petitioned for some narrow-bandwidth VHF
subbands? FCC said no.

If they said "no", they "did nothing"...Or do you consider the act of
saying no to be the "something"...?!?!

You just proved my point.

Secondly is to completely drop Code testing for all levels of
licensure.
I am hoping-against-hope that they DON'T do this, but I am afraid that it
is
EXACTLY what they will do.

Maybe.

Third is to drop the Code test for the General and leaving in the Code
test for the Extra. This is what I hope will happen.

I hope they keep it for HF at the very least. I think it would be best
if Element 1 were required for all ham licenses.

I do too, but like I said...the die's cast. This is what "people" want,
so now they've gotten it.

Lastly is creating a new, Code-free HF license between the Technician
Plus-level folks and the General.

Why?

Why not just create a new entry-level license ("NewNovice",
"Communicator", "Basic", whatever), then close off the Tech and Tech
Plus?

Existing Novices (all 32K of them) get the new entry license via
grandfathering. Existing Techs and Pluses keep all VHF/UHF and get the
same entry level HF as the new entry-level license.

What's the problem with that scenario?

However I can't see the FCC creating a NEW
license when they just went through all the hoop-laa of paring it down to
three.

Look at the ARRL petition. They essentially reinvent the Novice, same
name, new privs. Exisitng Novices get the new privs. Some version of
that can fly.

Like I said...I can't see the FCC creating a new (or re-opening the
old...) level of licensure...I was just offering it as an option.

They can do whatever they think practical.
If they did this, I'd give the present Code-tested Generals access to
the Advanced Class sub-bands and let the new folks have the current General
allocations, minus the WARC bands and 160 meters.

Too complex.

Why? Techs would get VHF and above. The new "X" class would get old
General phone priv's minus WARC and 160. What's "too complex" about it....???

The Generals move up to the Advanced class allocations, and Extra's get
the new "farmed out" phone bands.

So write up a proposal...;-)

Another is the basic reason we have subbands-by-mode in the first
place. If the US phone subbands are widened, there's less room for CW
and the data modes. It amounts to rewarding the use of
spectrum-inefficient modes, and penalizing the use of
spectrum-efficient modes. And the DX 'phones will move still further
down the band to get away from the US QRM.

I agree.

So write and submit a petition to FCC. Everybody's doing it....

Yeah...one more glory hound seeking his fame and fortune in the "Federal
Register"... ! ! !

=)

Why not? I know at least one "professional in radio" who has done
so...

73 de Jim, N2EY