|
Comments to the FCC on WT 05-235
Here's my submission to the FCC.
Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen? 73 Steve, K4YZ Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings, The issue of whether or not to remove Morse Code competency testing has been a heated and hotly contested issue for years. Many persons cite the evolution of new technologies and methodologies of communications as having made Morse Code "archaic", while on the otherhand some demand it's retention as "traditional". There is certainly precedent for allowing Amateurs access to the HF spectrum (below 30Mhz) without Morse Code competency, however this respondent believes that dropping it completely will be an overall detriment to the Amateur Radio Service. The Basis And Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service as outlined in Part 97 provides that the Amateur Service shall provide a trained pool of radio operators for emergency service. And technology notwithstanding, Morse Code remains the simplest, most easily deployed communications mode available to Amateurs worldwide. To drop this requirement simply because military or commercial users no longer use it is foolhearty. However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted. Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have less likelyhood of causing such interference. I thank you for this opportunity to participate in the rule-making process. STEVEN J ROBESON, LPN Amateur Radio Licensee K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: Here's my submission to the FCC. Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen? 73 Steve, K4YZ Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings, The issue of whether or not to remove Morse Code competency testing has been a heated and hotly contested issue for years. Many persons cite the evolution of new technologies and methodologies of communications as having made Morse Code "archaic", while on the otherhand some demand it's retention as "traditional". There is certainly precedent for allowing Amateurs access to the HF spectrum (below 30Mhz) without Morse Code competency, however this respondent believes that dropping it completely will be an overall detriment to the Amateur Radio Service. The Basis And Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service as outlined in Part 97 provides that the Amateur Service shall provide a trained pool of radio operators for emergency service. And technology notwithstanding, Morse Code remains the simplest, most easily deployed communications mode available to Amateurs worldwide. To drop this requirement simply because military or commercial users no longer use it is foolhearty. However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted. Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have less likelyhood of causing such interference. I thank you for this opportunity to participate in the rule-making process. STEVEN J ROBESON, LPN Amateur Radio Licensee K4YZ interesting that it says almost of relavance since it never deals with the real issue of regulation, that being the Public interest, and sugesting that HF access be allowed but only where digital mode that these new folks are suposed to be bring a revolution makes it a fraud as well one does not need to to be able to read a morse coded CW tranmission to hear that it is there, and from what I read pactor and other mode are stumping on CW at times already in the hand of code tested hams, therefore code testing is proven ineffective at stoping this "problem" (I use the word graudly since I lack first hand knowledge of the nature and frenquency of the "problem") |
K4YZ wrote: Here's my submission to the FCC. Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen? 73 KMA Steve, K4YZ Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings, Try treating your fellow hams like ladies and gentlemen, Steve. Your 1,000+ comments each month treat people like dirt. |
"K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... Here's my submission to the FCC. Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen? Steve, K4YZ --------- OK, here's what I (K2UNK) just sent in: 1. I have been an amateur for over 45 years and hold an Extra class license. I fully endorse the proposed rules changes by the FCC in NPRM 05-235 which, if so adopted will end all code testing. 2. The discussion and debate on the need for any code testing was fully covered some 5 years ago by the FCC with not one compelling reason identified that could justify continued code testing except for the international treaty to which the USA was a party to. 3. As the FCC clearly notes, that treaty has now eliminated (via WRC-2003) any required code testing and now clears the path for full deletion of code testing for USA amateurs. 4. Accordingly, and in the absence of any new compelling rational to retain a code test, the FCC has only one logical choice.end all code Testing. Respectfully, Bill Sohl, K2UNK |
b.b. wrote: K4YZ wrote: Here's my submission to the FCC. Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen? 73 KMA Uh huh. About what I expected and whom I expected it from. Pretty much substantiates my claims about who pulls threads into rants, etc etc etc. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings, Try treating your fellow hams like ladies and gentlemen, Steve. OK...From now on I will treat you like a lady, Brain, but only since you asked me to do it. Your 1,000+ comments each month treat people like dirt. Nope...Just the liars, deceivers and cheats. Which pretty much narrows it down to you, Lennie, Mark Morgan and Toaddie. Pretty small field when you consider the overall size of the race. No "73" for you...You very aptly proved who's what here, Brain. Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: b.b. wrote: K4YZ wrote: Here's my submission to the FCC. Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen? 73 KMA Uh huh. About what I expected and whom I expected it from. Pretty much substantiates my claims about who pulls threads into rants, etc etc etc. if by that you mean that some folks like myself will not allow you to control the newsgroup then of course you are right Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings, Try treating your fellow hams like ladies and gentlemen, Steve. OK...From now on I will treat you like a lady, Brain, but only since you asked me to do it. Your 1,000+ comments each month treat people like dirt. Nope...Just the liars, deceivers and cheats. Which pretty much narrows it down to you, Lennie, Mark Morgan and Toaddie. Pretty small field when you consider the overall size of the race. No "73" for you...You very aptly proved who's what here, Brain. Steve, K4YZ |
From: "an old friend" on Thurs 4 Aug 2005 09:14
K4YZ wrote: b.b. wrote: K4YZ wrote: Here's my submission to the FCC. Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen? 73 KMA Uh huh. About what I expected and whom I expected it from. Pretty much substantiates my claims about who pulls threads into rants, etc etc etc. if by that you mean that some folks like myself will not allow you to control the newsgroup then of course you are right Stebie has a terrible NEED to control others and acts like all his diagreers are the Antichrist, spawn of satan, or evil incarnate come to bedevil HIM, the DILL Instructor of this murine corpse. :-) I love Stebie's opening "salutation" to the FCC on WT Docket 05-235: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings, Geez, Stebie is giving a SPEECH for an assembled group! :-) He steps up to the podium, adjusts the microphone, takes a sip of water, opens his speech text copy notebook and beings to SPEAK! [poor guy didn't get any thunderous applause when he was finished...snif, snif...] At 445 12th St. S.W. in DC is someone at a desk, using a workstation, pulling down incoming Comments on WT Docket 05-235 at an average rate of about 52 a day...and Stebie thinks he is making a SPEECH! Gotta love the immense EGO on the DILL Instructor with the askew campaign hat. Like the FCC folks love "getting SPOKEN to?" :-) If Bill Cross had the FCC making a decision contrary to what Stebie wants, Stebie would probably yell "Get down and gimme ten!" at him. :-) Ve are all Putzes in da ghetto while Stebie is up on the roof vid his fiddle, playing while his mind burns. Shalom! oye veh |
John Smith wrote:
Len: The test of any great speaker is if he can sell 'em the BS as sanity deserving a sane mans time... even George Bush is still hunting how to make that dream come true, and he has closets full of aids to assist him! ....and more than a few aides, though I don't think any are in the closet. Dave K8MN |
"K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... Here's my submission to the FCC. [snip] However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted. Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have less likelyhood of causing such interference. Steve, I have to disagree with you on the concept that only Morse tested operators be allowed to operate Morse. If the FCC is going to drop the code requirement (which seems certain now), the operators should be allowed the privileges of the comparable classes of today. Besides you don't have to be familiar with a mode to hear that someone is using the frequency and thus to know that you should go find another. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com