|
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:56:55 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote: "Leo" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 GMT, "Bill Sohl" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... wrote: snip Y'know, the only reason that we Canadians were able to keep Morse testing around (as an option) was because our regulatory authority agreed that it would be valuable for the purpose of reciprocity agreements with countries that have decided (or will!) to keep Code testing as a mandatory requirement for their Amateur licensees. It's a valid point - without a Morse-qualified licence, one may not be permitted to operate HF in a foreign country that requires Morse for access should one choose to travel there. Yet that has not become an issue for any country yet. Indeed, by the nature of agreements, it has not been an issue with CEPT reciprocation even before WRC-2003 deleted morse as a requirement for HF licensing. Perhaps not - but the possibility of interfering with existing reciprocity agrements was taken into account in their decision - a quote from the Gazette Notice (the equivalent to the FCC R&O) follows: Notice No. DGRB-003-05 – Revisions to Amateur Radio Operator Requirements Relating to Morse code portion removed Assessment of the RAC Proposal and Consultation Prior to analyzing the elements of the RAC proposal, the Department first assessed the validity of the following three factors presented by the RAC as fundamental arguments: There must be an awareness of the impact of this action (i.e. elimination of the Morse code requirements) upon existing reciprocal agreements and other arrangements which permit Canadian radio amateurs to operate in other countries and foreign radio amateurs to operate in Canada. The Morse code examination must continue to be available in Canada for the benefit of radio amateurs who may require such a qualification for operation in another country, and for those who wish to acquire skill in the use of Morse code. Operation in the HF bands requires special knowledge and skills not necessary for most operations in the bands above 30 MHz. This difference should be reflected in the examination arrangements. Industry Canada has accepted the validity of these three factors, and consequently, they were taken as the basis from which the specific recommendations were assessed. ......etc The first two facctors listed are what I referre to in my original post. Reciprocity has always been an important part of the worldwide Amateur community.....therefore, we would have lost something tangible that we already had should this scenario have played out! It sure makes a non-emotional, fact-based arguement - which worked quite well up here. I wonder, if enough people presented this reasoning to the FCC in their comments, if they might be willing to buy in to it? Might be worth a try....? But as of today, and I'll defer to you to provide an example, I am unaware of the issue being raised in any request by any ham for reciprocal licensing. Neither am I - however, the Canadian government was concerned that it may become an issue in future - concerned enough that Morse testing remains as an option here today! Ain't politics grand! :) Cheers, Bill K2UNK 73, Leo |
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message .net... "Phil Kane" wrote in message ast.net... On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, the majority (if one looks at the comments already filed) appear to be running better than 2:1 in support of the ending of all code testing. Sure looks like a majority to me. Cheers, Bill K2UNK I think the ones against the change are worn out. They know that the FCC didn't listen before and don't believe the FCC will listen now. They are ready to move on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, the FCC did listen to their comments via NPRM 98-143. The FCC then gave written reasons why their arguments for code testing were not sufficient to retain code testing when the R&O was issued from 98-143. You state..."they are ready tom move on." That's fine and we can therefore view those folks willing to move on as agreeable to the 05-235 changes proposed by virtue of their silence. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Phil Kane wrote: On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be. Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew. Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy beltway-style actually works. Diddy dah dit dah. Dit-DIT. w3rv Bottom line here... 1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143). 2. Thousands of comments were filed with various rationals in support of code testing....the FCC in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every pro-code test argument.... They also think that BPL is the best thing since sliced bread. 3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test was because of the international treaty requiring a code test. 4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of any code test requirement in the international treaty with almost unanomous agreement by the countries to do so. 5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty. The FCC, now has an open comment period for discussion of the proposed change. 6. Unless some great new and profound reason to retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235 comment process, any prospect of keeping any code test is just not going to happen. The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs have been rehashing) have no chance of winning out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc. 7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't going to happen either. For two reasons: (a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and (b) The majority of current comments are actually running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total elimination of code testing. Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of Hams are of the same opinion? Yes I do. Some 10 years ago the ARRL conducted a survey of asking about code retention and the results then were pretty close. With 10 years now passed, lots of new hams, many older hams now SK, the results today would, I believe, show a majority in favor of ending code testing. *Is* it a representative sample? Is the vote for president of the USA a representative sample? Bottom line, you get a chance to comment and that's it. FCC rules, ultimatly are not determined by majority voting via the comment phase. I agree with what you wrote. Resistance is now futile. Why should I waste my time commenting? I'm not here to convince you to comment or not. Your choice, your opportuity to speak. You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your next effort? Can't speak for Fred and Carl, but my next effort...actually my continuing effort...is to support amateur radio as Local Gov't Liason (LGL) within the ARRL field org. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Whoa Bill, slow down before you pop something, take a deep breath and relax. It's only ham radio and it's only USENET. I fully agree, the code test game was over years ago. Be gracious Brian. They need to beat their chests a bit! .. . . if I was any more "gracious" I'd have to commit Hari-kari to get there . . - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Bill: Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols... John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote: Since most of the misbehaviour is on phone, they should not be allowed to use phone protocols without a "phone certification." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE If you had to be able to speak the Queen's English that would clean up 80m phone no end! |
wrote in
oups.com: From: "Bill Sohl" on Fri 5 Aug 2005 13:50 wrote in message Phil Kane wrote: On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be. Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew. Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy beltway-style actually works. Bottom line here... 1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143). Bill, there was also discussion 15 years ago in FCC 90-53 on the creation of the no-code-test Technician class. 2. Thousands of comments were filed with various rationals in support of code testing....the FCC in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every pro-code test argument.... That's true enough but is not acceptible to the MMMs in here. 3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test was because of the international treaty requiring a code test. Well, there was undoubtedly a lot of heated discussion from a lobbying group for a noted membership organization... presumably that is since we in this "democracy" don't get to actually observe such. :-) However, the final word was in 99-412, the R&O establishing this recent restructuring. 4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of any code test requirement in the international treaty with almost unanomous agreement by the countries to do so. The bellweather of that was the IARU's decision to support optional code testing by administrations beginning in 2000. U.S. hams tend to be a bit bigoted about their "preeminence" in amateur radio so they don't look at much of what the rest of the world is deciding by theirselves. 5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty. The FCC, now has an open comment period for discussion of the proposed change. Well, the Federal Register for 5 Aug 05 doesn't have any mention of either 05-143 or 05-235...in fact doesn't have any mention of the FCC at all. Neither have I had any response to a query to the FCC on whether or not the Comment period has "officially" started. We will have to assume that it has started since, on the 13th day of opening of an ECFS slot (for 05-235), there are almost 700 Comments! 6. Unless some great new and profound reason to retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235 comment process, any prospect of keeping any code test is just not going to happen. The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs have been rehashing) have no chance of winning out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc. Well, we didn't have the Homeland Security angle in '98. :-) [that Department didn't exist then...] 7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't going to happen either. For two reasons: (a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and The process of rule making is abundantly clear to those who wish to see examples on the FCC website...or bother to look in volume 1 of the 5-volume printed version of Title 47 C.F.R. One does NOT need to go to law school to understand 99+ percent of that. Hundreds of examples of the recent past in civil radio to observe. Too many have the false idea that "ham regs" are established as if done in a local club or membership group. Not so since the laws ARE laws, not "by-laws" and must follow legalities of much precedence, possible review by the courts later, and their effect on ALL citizens, not just the clubhouse folks. Amateur radio is really a very small part of the activity of the FCC...one indicator is that the "Amatuer" page from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau page doesn't have any "headline" entries after 2002...obviously there were a lot of things happening after 2002 but 455 12th St SW folks just haven't bothered to update it. (b) The majority of current comments are actually running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total elimination of code testing. On the 13th day of commenting on 05-235, whether "official" or not, the ratio of For:Against on the NPRM is hovering around 3:1 in favor of For as of about 1 PM Eastern time with 680 entries. That's an overall average of 52 comments a day. Note: The above doesn't take into account the "in-betweeners" who agree that "lower-class" licensees should not be code- tested but Extras or Extras and Generals should be code-tested. In-betweeners account for about 10 percent of total comments. Those in-betweeners could be taken into the For side or the Against side but a rather clear majority FOR the NPRM would still ensue, the ratio still ABOVE 2:1 in favor of FOR. Now it is predictable that someone will rationalize "the sampling is too small" or that "we must wait to see the 'true' trend" but that is still little more than spite on their part. Morse code testing is a HIGHLY polarized subject and there has been a two-decade growing opinion to get rid of it as a federal regulation. It should now be abundantly clear that the MAJORITY feels it should be eliminated. What is most strange to me is that there is so little mention of the Against side on establishing an "ex-officio" (i.e., not by federal regulation) radiotelegraphy award or certificate of merit by a NEW group to demonstrate the alleged efficacy of morsemanship skills. I can see only two commenters hinting at that. Now if morsemanship is so darn good, so superb, so attractive to all who try it, then it would be natural to assume at least one new group to spring into existance pushing for morsemanship. All that appears in the comments Against are the tired old cliches and morsemyths which have been seen by me for a half century. Those old warhorse maxims just haven't done the job to attract enough. Those who have made it through the federal tests rationalize that "it is still good" but they are just whistling in the graveyard...they are in the MINORITY now and they are (as they should be) very uncomfortable. dit rid Len, I think, although I am not 100% sure, that the ARRL already does do Morse proficiency certificates, or maybe I am mixed up and it is only the RSGB that does that? I have noticed that a lot of the PCTA don't actually operate CW (present company excepted). There are a lot of people who take the view that they had to do it, so others should have to. Naturally, that group aren't much interested in CW certificates, 'cos they probably wouldn't be able to get one! |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message .net... "Phil Kane" wrote in message ast.net... On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote: If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where we stood. And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome? 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, the majority (if one looks at the comments already filed) appear to be running better than 2:1 in support of the ending of all code testing. Sure looks like a majority to me. Cheers, Bill K2UNK I think the ones against the change are worn out. They know that the FCC didn't listen before and don't believe the FCC will listen now. They are ready to move on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, the FCC did listen to their comments via NPRM 98-143. The FCC then gave written reasons why their arguments for code testing were not sufficient to retain code testing when the R&O was issued from 98-143. That they gave their arguments makes them no more valid and no less valid than before. It is a difference in beliefs, no more and no less. You state..."they are ready tom move on." That's fine and we can therefore view those folks willing to move on as agreeable to the 05-235 changes proposed by virtue of their silence. Cheers, Bill K2UNK No I am not agreeable to the change but I would rather spend time elmering people than composing a comment on it. To do the type of job that I would want to do is time consuming. Of course I could just comment that I am against it and let it go at that but I think that one should state why they think the change should not go through. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... hack Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of Hams are of the same opinion? Yes I do. Some 10 years ago the ARRL conducted a survey of asking about code retention and the results then were pretty close. With 10 years now passed, lots of new hams, many older hams now SK, the results today would, I believe, show a majority in favor of ending code testing. the fact that the ARRL hasn't tired another poll now suggests they at least are far from sure that Code testing is majority position ( of course they could simply feel it is a done and not worth fighting) *Is* it a representative sample? Is the vote for president of the USA a representative sample? Bottom line, you get a chance to comment and that's it. FCC rules, ultimatly are not determined by majority voting via the comment phase. I agree with what you wrote. Resistance is now futile. Why should I waste my time commenting? I'm not here to convince you to comment or not. Your choice, your opportuity to speak. Indeed I supect that even at this late hour someone were to come up with a realy good reason esp one the FCC had not heard they might relent, at least awhile to consider it You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your next effort? Can't speak for Fred and Carl, but my next effort...actually my continuing effort...is to support amateur radio as Local Gov't Liason (LGL) within the ARRL field org. good luck to you Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message . .. "Dee Flint" wrote in : "John Smith" wrote in message ... Bill: Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols... John On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote: Since most of the misbehaviour is on phone, they should not be allowed to use phone protocols without a "phone certification." Dee D. Flint, N8UZE If you had to be able to speak the Queen's English that would clean up 80m phone no end! Even Polite American would do the trick. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com