John Smith wrote:
K4YZ:

No. We are Americans first, fathers, good members of communities, etc...
about a hundred really important things--before we need ever list the
fact we are a ham...

I don't need "ham worship" and the guys who are drifting around after it
make me puke... that is just how it is with me...

I hang my master and Phd on the wall because those really did take hard
work and are truly a demonstration of proving myself a scholar... my ham
license hangs at the station because it is required by law!!!

I will give you a thousand reasons I am a worthwhile human being before
I ever get to the fact I am a viet vet and ham... those two things I
did for my own reasons... not really to serve any one else more than to
serve myself...

Even at 52 I come from an age when men were really men--it meant
something then to be a man, to protect the innocent, the weak, the
women, the children, American pie...

Today, I watch bellyachers lobby for more difficult barriers to be
placed in front of some--hell, I fought to make America the land of milk
and honey--and it is far different today than I would have it...

I can do one thing, and that is to "hand down" and pull up the ones who
will, all too soon, take my place--stand my responsibilities and hold
the reins...

One thing I wish to avoid until the day I die is becoming a bitter old
man decrying what a waste the youth are in this world--how deserving I
am--and how deserving all others--if you have not understood from my
words up to and at this point let me spell it out for you--SUCH "MEN"
make me sick and afraid it has all been for naught!

Warmest regards,
John

Well said, John. Steve is glory seeker, plain and simple. If it
doesn't come with a uniform, a badge, or a rank...

John Smith wrote:
My real name and call are held to protect the innocent (or guilty as you
prefer.)
I have had my station inspected a couple of times, and passed with
flying colors I might add, since my fellow amateurs frowned on me
chatting with truckers and general "undesirable types" on the Chicken
Band...
I am very familiar with hams finding out your call and attempting to use
the FCC as their private police... SOME are full of dirty tricks...

Warmest regards,
John

Careful, John. K4YZ is "dialing...." Hi, hi!

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

In other words the League has ducked out of the code test war
this time and put in the hands of the FCC.

They realize a no-win situation when they see it. Also, the ARRL
BoD has a wide range of opinions on the issue, so they came up
with a compromise and went on to other issues.

On one hand they really didn't have any choice, enough was enough. On
another hand that's the way things work in democracies.

'zactly, there's other issues to deal with.

Frankly, I'm simply amazed that FCC didn't just dump Element
1 two years ago when the treaty changed at WRC 2003. All they
needed was a one-paragraph Memorandum Report and Order saying
that they'd dealt with the issue back in 2000, and pending further
changes, everybody who passes any of the written tests
for a US ham license gets code test credit too. Or some such verbiage,
just like they did when they waived the code sending test.

My guess is that the FCC didn't move on the code test when the ITU
dropped the requirement because they had a major restructuring in mind
back then and decided to bundle any changes in the code test into the
overall restructuring package per the Incentive Licensing
restructuring.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

They did a big restructuring in the 1998-2000 time frame. Only became
effective April 2000. I don't think they really want a big shakeup of
the rules every couple of years.

Which is typical regulatory "behavior".

Yes, for some agencies. So you may be right.

Or they had
already decided to retain the code test into the future. With 98% of
the world's population still subject to code tests and given the small
number of countries which have abandoned the code tests it just might
be that the decision to retain the code test here was quietly carved in
stone 4-5 years ago.

Doubtful. The verbiage of the R&O for 98-143 pushed aside every reason
for code tests except one: the treaty. IIRC the phrase said there was
"no regulatory purpose" to code testing except compliance with the
treaty. Which would lead any logical person to think that if the treaty
requirement went away, there'd be no regulatory reason left, and the
FCC would dump Element 1.

But that was 5+ years ago....

Conversly though the waivers problem is still out
there . . .

Not really.

Recall that the only reason we got waivers back in 1990 was that
Papa Bush wanted to do the King of Jordan a favor. White House
tells FCC to fix the problem so the nervous guy can chat with
The Suffixless One on 20 ssb. FCC invents medical waivers, cites
treaty for 5 wpm, King and Papa Bush are happy, end of story.

But now the king is long gone. And there aren't any hams who are
heads of state that are asking Shrub for a favor.

Despite what the article sez, waivers weren't any work for the FCC.
The VEs handled the whole deal. Applicant gets a doctor letter,
VEs decide if it's genuine (basically that the signature came from
a real doctor) and do the paperwork.

FCC's only headache about waivers, IMHO, was the complaints from
some hams. FCC fixed their wagon - no more waivers.

But FCC didn't do that, even after getting a pile of proposals
to do so. In a month or so it will be two years and there isn't
even an NPRM out yet. If they go the entire NPRM cycle, it
could be a year or more before the rules change - *if* they
change.

The NPRM is obviously enroute whether it shows up later this year or
sometime next year doesn't matter much and I expect it to be a real
gooder.

Maybe. Obviously no hurry, either. I should revive The Pool.

If past history is any indication, it'll be 2007 before we see new
rules
actually go into effect.

Gonna be some nuclear explosions in this NG when it finally
does get published. Heh.

Maybe. All depends what's in it. Suppose - just suppose - FCC
focused entirely on the license classes, subbands and writtens,
and left 5 wpm for HF access, same as now. Imagine the reaction...

Tune down the low ends of the HF bands, in the evenings when most
of the younger folks aren't tied up with work, school, kids, etc.
There's a lot more going on than the voice modes on the high ends.

Even in the phone bands the U.S. geezer nets are usually well up the
bands to accomodate the Generals, there's very little of that sort of
operating in the Extra/Advanced segments.

That's a fact.

Now if you're in the mood for wild speculation, here's some theories to
toss around:

"It'll Turn Into CB/Freeband!"

One of FCC's longterm headaches is outlaw operation - folks who don't
care what the rules are, they just fire up and get on the air
regardless.
Some are on the cb channels, many have freebanded their way all over
upper
HF.

Started about 40 years ago when 27 MHz cb got out of hand in the
mid-1960s,
really took off in the Smokey-avoiding '70s, and has been in the
background
ever since. Sometimes not so much in the background, either.

Enforcement is a real pain for FCC because they have to establish all
sorts of info besides some DF readings. And when they do nail somebody,
the defense is often simply "I didn't know, I won't do it again".

With licensed violators it's a different game because they ID, you know
a lot about them from various databases, and they've already agreed in
writing to let FCC in for inspection purposes.

So maybe FCC thinks that by reducing license requirements they can get
some of those freeband/cb folks licensed.


"The Revolution That Wasn't"

Over the years the claim has been made again and again that
"technically
knowledgeable" folks were being kept out of ham radio, or kept off HF,
by the license requirements. And how if those requirements changed,
we'd
have a techno-revolution on the ham bands.

A related claim is that we'll get lots more hams if a license is easier
to get.

20+ years ago, such claims might have made some sense, because nobody
knew better. But the lowering of test requirements hasn't brought a
brave new techno-world, nor a lot of new folks.

Remember the guy who used to preach here about "no setasides for
legacy modes" and "electronic paintball wars"? He'd tell us of the
"elitism" of 1x2 and 2x1 vanity calls, and how "better modes and
modulations" were the future.

Comes the restructure, and he goes from Tech Plus to Extra. Gets a
2x1 call, sets up a station (no homebrew, though) and proceeds to
chase DX on HF SSB. 70+ countries last I knew, prolly got DXCC in
the log by now.

FCC may be tired of all those claims by now, having seen none of them
pan out.


"BPL and RFI"

Perhaps FCC sees us hams as a pain the neck. We don't generate revenue,
we complain about RFI and line noise and such, and our signals get into
all sorts of things through no fault of ours. Put a highpass filter in
every TV set? Shielding that would cost a few pennies per unit? Sheesh.

And when a new technology comes along just in time to distract us (as
if broadband access will make the economy boom), who raises hue and
cry and won't shut up? Hams and their national organization.

So maybe FCC doesn't want lots of new hams on HF. Just that many more
complainers!


"What's The Big Deal?"

The code test today is but a shadow of what it used to be. Time was,
the only way to pass was to put down a solid minute of correct legible
copy. No going back and fixing up afterward. No CSCEs, no second tries
the same day, etc. All gone and not coming back.

The VEs are allowed a wide latitude in accomodations.

Farnsworth spacing is standard - because it's usually easier. But if
somebody wants "regular" 5 wpm, they can get it from most VEs.

High tone or low? Speaker, 'phones or flashing light? Pen, pencil,
typewriter? Just ask. Maybe you'll have to bring some hardware but
most VEs I've met will meet you more than half way.

It's even possible to substitute a sending test for the receiving test.

Yet with all this, there are complaints that it's "too hard". (See the
"Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper about grown people with
tears in their eyes 'cause they failed).

FCC may look at all this and just draw the line. Note how, in the 2000
restructuring, they outlawed multiple-choice code tests....


---

Nobody really knows but a few folks in FCC, and they ain't saying.

73 de Jim, N2EY

The freebanders I know and communicate with simply freeband to escape
the code, most are young college kids who start experimenting with
wireless lans/wans, start building equip and then just keep branching
out from there--most are more knowledgeable than hams--especially in the
GHz range... they look at the code requirement and say, "why...", then
go back to their local nets of 24 Ghz...

Warmest regards,
John

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

In other words the League has ducked out of the code test war
this time and put in the hands of the FCC.

They realize a no-win situation when they see it. Also, the ARRL
BoD has a wide range of opinions on the issue, so they came up
with a compromise and went on to other issues.

On one hand they really didn't have any choice, enough was enough. On
another hand that's the way things work in democracies.

'zactly, there's other issues to deal with.

Frankly, I'm simply amazed that FCC didn't just dump Element
1 two years ago when the treaty changed at WRC 2003. All they
needed was a one-paragraph Memorandum Report and Order saying
that they'd dealt with the issue back in 2000, and pending further
changes, everybody who passes any of the written tests
for a US ham license gets code test credit too. Or some such
verbiage,
just like they did when they waived the code sending test.

My guess is that the FCC didn't move on the code test when the ITU
dropped the requirement because they had a major restructuring in
mind
back then and decided to bundle any changes in the code test into the
overall restructuring package per the Incentive Licensing
restructuring.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

They did a big restructuring in the 1998-2000 time frame. Only became
effective April 2000. I don't think they really want a big shakeup of
the rules every couple of years.

Which is typical regulatory "behavior".

Yes, for some agencies. So you may be right.

Or they had
already decided to retain the code test into the future. With 98% of
the world's population still subject to code tests and given the
small
number of countries which have abandoned the code tests it just might
be that the decision to retain the code test here was quietly carved
in
stone 4-5 years ago.

Doubtful. The verbiage of the R&O for 98-143 pushed aside every reason
for code tests except one: the treaty. IIRC the phrase said there was
"no regulatory purpose" to code testing except compliance with the
treaty. Which would lead any logical person to think that if the
treaty
requirement went away, there'd be no regulatory reason left, and the
FCC would dump Element 1.

But that was 5+ years ago....

Conversly though the waivers problem is still out
there . . .

Not really.

Recall that the only reason we got waivers back in 1990 was that
Papa Bush wanted to do the King of Jordan a favor. White House
tells FCC to fix the problem so the nervous guy can chat with
The Suffixless One on 20 ssb. FCC invents medical waivers, cites
treaty for 5 wpm, King and Papa Bush are happy, end of story.

But now the king is long gone. And there aren't any hams who are
heads of state that are asking Shrub for a favor.

Despite what the article sez, waivers weren't any work for the FCC.
The VEs handled the whole deal. Applicant gets a doctor letter,
VEs decide if it's genuine (basically that the signature came from
a real doctor) and do the paperwork.

FCC's only headache about waivers, IMHO, was the complaints from
some hams. FCC fixed their wagon - no more waivers.

But FCC didn't do that, even after getting a pile of proposals
to do so. In a month or so it will be two years and there isn't
even an NPRM out yet. If they go the entire NPRM cycle, it
could be a year or more before the rules change - *if* they
change.

The NPRM is obviously enroute whether it shows up later this year or
sometime next year doesn't matter much and I expect it to be a real
gooder.

Maybe. Obviously no hurry, either. I should revive The Pool.

If past history is any indication, it'll be 2007 before we see new
rules
actually go into effect.

Gonna be some nuclear explosions in this NG when it finally
does get published. Heh.

Maybe. All depends what's in it. Suppose - just suppose - FCC
focused entirely on the license classes, subbands and writtens,
and left 5 wpm for HF access, same as now. Imagine the reaction...

Tune down the low ends of the HF bands, in the evenings when most
of the younger folks aren't tied up with work, school, kids, etc.
There's a lot more going on than the voice modes on the high ends.

Even in the phone bands the U.S. geezer nets are usually well up the
bands to accomodate the Generals, there's very little of that sort of
operating in the Extra/Advanced segments.

That's a fact.

Now if you're in the mood for wild speculation, here's some theories
to
toss around:

"It'll Turn Into CB/Freeband!"

One of FCC's longterm headaches is outlaw operation - folks who don't
care what the rules are, they just fire up and get on the air
regardless.
Some are on the cb channels, many have freebanded their way all over
upper
HF.

Started about 40 years ago when 27 MHz cb got out of hand in the
mid-1960s,
really took off in the Smokey-avoiding '70s, and has been in the
background
ever since. Sometimes not so much in the background, either.

Enforcement is a real pain for FCC because they have to establish all
sorts of info besides some DF readings. And when they do nail
somebody,
the defense is often simply "I didn't know, I won't do it again".

With licensed violators it's a different game because they ID, you
know
a lot about them from various databases, and they've already agreed in
writing to let FCC in for inspection purposes.

So maybe FCC thinks that by reducing license requirements they can get
some of those freeband/cb folks licensed.


"The Revolution That Wasn't"

Over the years the claim has been made again and again that
"technically
knowledgeable" folks were being kept out of ham radio, or kept off HF,
by the license requirements. And how if those requirements changed,
we'd
have a techno-revolution on the ham bands.

A related claim is that we'll get lots more hams if a license is
easier
to get.

20+ years ago, such claims might have made some sense, because nobody
knew better. But the lowering of test requirements hasn't brought a
brave new techno-world, nor a lot of new folks.

Remember the guy who used to preach here about "no setasides for
legacy modes" and "electronic paintball wars"? He'd tell us of the
"elitism" of 1x2 and 2x1 vanity calls, and how "better modes and
modulations" were the future.

Comes the restructure, and he goes from Tech Plus to Extra. Gets a
2x1 call, sets up a station (no homebrew, though) and proceeds to
chase DX on HF SSB. 70+ countries last I knew, prolly got DXCC in
the log by now.

FCC may be tired of all those claims by now, having seen none of them
pan out.


"BPL and RFI"

Perhaps FCC sees us hams as a pain the neck. We don't generate
revenue,
we complain about RFI and line noise and such, and our signals get
into
all sorts of things through no fault of ours. Put a highpass filter in
every TV set? Shielding that would cost a few pennies per unit?
Sheesh.

And when a new technology comes along just in time to distract us (as
if broadband access will make the economy boom), who raises hue and
cry and won't shut up? Hams and their national organization.

So maybe FCC doesn't want lots of new hams on HF. Just that many more
complainers!


"What's The Big Deal?"

The code test today is but a shadow of what it used to be. Time was,
the only way to pass was to put down a solid minute of correct legible
copy. No going back and fixing up afterward. No CSCEs, no second tries
the same day, etc. All gone and not coming back.

The VEs are allowed a wide latitude in accomodations.

Farnsworth spacing is standard - because it's usually easier. But if
somebody wants "regular" 5 wpm, they can get it from most VEs.

High tone or low? Speaker, 'phones or flashing light? Pen, pencil,
typewriter? Just ask. Maybe you'll have to bring some hardware but
most VEs I've met will meet you more than half way.

It's even possible to substitute a sending test for the receiving
test.

Yet with all this, there are complaints that it's "too hard". (See the
"Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper about grown people with
tears in their eyes 'cause they failed).

FCC may look at all this and just draw the line. Note how, in the 2000
restructuring, they outlawed multiple-choice code tests....


---

Nobody really knows but a few folks in FCC, and they ain't saying.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote:

[snip]
. . . .
My guess is that the FCC didn't move on the code test when the ITU
dropped the requirement because they had a major restructuring in mind
back then and decided to bundle any changes in the code test into the
overall restructuring package per the Incentive Licensing
restructuring. Which is typical regulatory "behavior". Or they had
already decided to retain the code test into the future. With 98% of
the world's population still subject to code tests and given the small
number of countries which have abandoned the code tests it just might
be that the decision to retain the code test here was quietly carved in
stone 4-5 years ago. Conversly though the waivers problem is still out
there . . .


No the waivers problem is over as waivers are no longer allowed since the
only code test is 5wpm.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:


[snip]

FCC may look at all this and just draw the line. Note how, in the 2000
restructuring, they outlawed multiple-choice code tests....


Wasn't it the council of VECs who made that decision? I believe that Part
97 does not specify how the 5wpm test is to be administered.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote


Wasn't it the council of VECs who made that decision? I believe that Part 97
does not specify how the 5wpm test is to be administered.


I think you're correct Dee. The FCC rules are silent on the form of actual
examination:

§97.503 Element standards.

(a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examinee has
the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear texts in
the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed speed, using all
the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma, question mark, slant
mark and prosigns AR, BT and SK.
Element 1: 5 words per minute.

Interestingly, the NCVEC has chosen to ignore the "ability to send correctly by
hand" clause of the rules.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Come sit by the fire and warm your bones. Let's enjoy a warm bracing drink and a
few tales. "The wind was picking up, clouds were rolling in, my hands were numb,
nose was running, I had to pee, and I was thinking of heading for the dock
when..."

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

John, you forgot one:

9) Leonard is always wrong :-)

Try to be specific and accurate: Leonard H. Anderson is usually wrong. :-)

Dave K8MN

To be specific and accurate: David Heil works out of band Frenchmen on
6 meters. :-)

John Smith wrote:
K4YZ:

I hang my master and Phd

As if.

on the wall because those really did take hard
work and are truly a demonstration of proving myself a scholar... my ham
license hangs at the station because it is required by law!!!

Bwaaaahaha! ROTFLMAO! . . there is NO requirement for displaying any
ham license anywhere.

What a flaming no-clue magnitude one bull**** artist.

Add this tome to your library "scholar".

http://www.opengroup.com/hubooks/089/0898048044.shtml

K=D8HB wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote


Wasn't it the council of VECs who made that decision? I believe that P=
art 97
does not specify how the 5wpm test is to be administered.


I think you're correct Dee. The FCC rules are silent on the form of actu=
al
examination:

=A797.503 Element standards.

(a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examine=
e has
the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear tex=
ts in
the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed speed, using=
all
the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma, question mark, =
slant
mark and prosigns AR, BT and SK.
Element 1: 5 words per minute.

Interestingly, the NCVEC has chosen to ignore the "ability to send correc=
tly by
hand" clause of the rules.

Back before VE days the FCC examiners often skipped past the sending
test too. It's been a long time and the details are fuzzy in my mind at
this late point but when I went for my Extra the examiner called off
the receiving test about a minute and a half into it and ignored the
sending test. Maybe that was when I went for my General . . ? One or
the other.


73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Come sit by the fire and warm your bones. Let's enjoy a warm bracing drin=
k and a
few tales. "The wind was picking up, clouds were rolling in, my hands wer=
e numb,
nose was running, I had to pee, and I was thinking of heading for the dock
when..."

.. . Mom hollered out the window "Don't you even THINK about peeing on
that bush and get back in here!"

w3rv