"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"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...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to ever
build anything?


Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they
transmit.

however, we can greatly simplify the testing process and regulatory burden
by not allowing hams to build anything. I believe that there are examples
of this already in some countries.

If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.


Not so. Part 97 gives reasons

Cannot Part 97 be changed to simplify the process and ease the burden and
eliminate the barriers?

If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.

AND, the international treaty
still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated
mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge
of radio, etc.

There are ways around that. I believe that many countries, including ours
have worked their way around the rules.

I believe all it would take is issuance of a booklet, and a signed
affidavit that the prospective ham has read and understood it. This would
be akin to the old Morse sending test elimination.

I disagree, but again....
If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.

*Why* should there be any testing?

If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file
your comments with the FCC accordingly.

I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now, Morse
code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of elimination
of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the testing
requirements. If not, I am now.

OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however.

I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools
available to people who feel otherwise.

What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of
and for what use? You lost me on that last comment.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.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.

I'm surprised, Bill. If a scientifically structured poll was made, I would
likely accept the results, whether I agreed with those results or not. The
comments in this case are largely useless as for any thing representing
the majority of amateurs.

You have a good thesis in your last paragraph, but that is your thesis,
which you are willing to validate by an amazingly imprecise poll.

And just how/who would you have fund and conduct a precise
poll? Me? ARRL? FCC?

*Is* it a representative sample?

Is the vote for president of the USA a representative sample?

When I go to the polls, I know that my vote is counted (barring
shennagins!) and if I vote for the winner, my candidate wins, if I vote
for the loser, my candidate doesn't.

Well here's the problem you face...FCC rules
are not voted on by hams or anyone else via the
comments filed.

posting any comment on this issue has no effect on the outcome. I know
that, you know that, and I choose not to comment for that reason.

Your choice.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On 7 Aug 2005 05:19:31 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman)
wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:

Additionally, having passed a test in no way
guarantees continued profficiency. I passed
13 wpm over 10 years and haven't use code
in probably 8 years or so. You'd probably not want to
have a CW QSO with me now :-)

And yet we'll wait hours or even days for a reply to a NG post. This
form of communicating has to be about the slowest.

73 Bill,
Jeff KH6O

Two words: Snail mail.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your next effort?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, did you just associate the word effort with NCI? This is more about
the elimination of "effort."

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
ink.net:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"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...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics in voice
mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to
ever build anything?


Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they transmit.

however, we can greatly simplify the testing process and regulatory
burden by not allowing hams to build anything. I believe that there
are examples of this already in some countries.

If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the case now and has
always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.


Not so. Part 97 gives reasons

Cannot Part 97 be changed to simplify the process and ease the burden
and eliminate the barriers?

If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.

AND, the international treaty
still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated
mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge of radio,
etc.

There are ways around that. I believe that many countries, including
ours have worked their way around the rules.

I believe all it would take is issuance of a booklet, and a signed
affidavit that the prospective ham has read and understood it. This
would be akin to the old Morse sending test elimination.

I disagree, but again....
If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.

*Why* should there be any testing?

If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file your
comments with the FCC accordingly.

I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now,
Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of
elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the
testing requirements. If not, I am now.

OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however.

I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools
available to people who feel otherwise.

What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of
and for what use? You lost me on that last comment.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK




Although there are some licences that don't allow homebrew, none of them
allow full power, i.e. I don't think anywhere has banned homebrew
altogether. Of course, there are different ideas of what reduced power
means, i.e. 10w in the UK where full power is only 400w, versus 200w in
Canada where full power is 2,250w!

There may be more attempts to get a lower level licence in the US, maybe by
Fred Maia, but the FCC has made it pretty clear in recent comments IMHO
that they think the Tech is easy enough, so I don't think it will ever
happen. End of story.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

From: "b.b." on Sat 6 Aug 2005 18:18


wrote:
From: Carl R. Stevenson on Aug 4, 1:55 pm


Steve,

The comment period isn't OPEN yet (the release of the NPRM by the FCC
doesn't "start the clock," it's the publication in the Federal Register,
which has not yet happened.

Heyo Carl! Welcome again.

Sunnuvagun you are RIGHT! I checked the FR at the GPO site
and there is nothing there yet from 15 July (the NPRM release
date) through 4 August!

[wasn't there in the Federal Register for 5 Aug 05 either...]

Amazing...two weeks gone on this NPRM and it hasn't started yet!

Even worse, at least a dozen ham-interest websites have made it
a cause celebre, front-page headline thing (which it is)...and
lots of folks are now urging Comments to be sent in! Everyone
from Nancy Kott at FISTS on out... :-)

That's impossible. FISTS is non-political, and all things Morse Code
related are PURE! So that's impossible. Completely impossible.

To morsemen minds, that's absolutely true.

They think there is no better "music" than the on-off keying of
an RF carrier wave by the mislabeled "international language"
of morse code. ALL "interested in [ham] radio MUST test for
that skill...to "show dedication and committment to the
amateur community" (which consists of the individual mind of
each morseman in their hive-collective).

Thus, technically speaking, while the docket is open in the ECFS, comments
filed now are "premature," so I would suggest you consider refraining from
"dis-ing" people over something where they are behaving in a completely
appropriate manner.

Stebie don't need no steenking rules! :-)

Bet Steve got "steenking Badges!"

Stebie's cigar box of medals really needs an air freshener...

See 25 Jan 99 on 98-143, 10 days AFTER the supposed window close
on the Restructuring NPRM. Stebie was in there dissing me. :-)
He hasn't stopped since.

Same Stuff, Different Millenium.

Poor feller hasn't learned to "play well with others" in six
years. I've given up on optimism of his changing enough to
get along with others. As Jeswald likes to say, "Ya 'jes
cain't fix stupid."

fix not

From: Alun L. Palmer on Aug 7, 10:29 am

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message


If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file your
comments with the FCC accordingly.

I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now,
Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of
elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the
testing requirements. If not, I am now.

OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however.

I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools
available to people who feel otherwise.

What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of
and for what use? You lost me on that last comment.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Although there are some licences that don't allow homebrew, none of them
allow full power, i.e. I don't think anywhere has banned homebrew
altogether. Of course, there are different ideas of what reduced power
means, i.e. 10w in the UK where full power is only 400w, versus 200w in
Canada where full power is 2,250w!

"Full power" is a very subjective term. That's NOT an issue
in WT Docket 05-235 regardless of how many are trying to
ignite differing wars of words in here.

No problem on power output for those that learn what to do.
I've operated 40 KW peak-power HF transmitters with as much
ease as handling a 20 W peak-power HF transceiver on a
manpack (AN/PRC-104). From RF power levels of around 100 W
output, there's a proportional increase in possible damage
to the human body with higher powers, plus a greater primary
power demand (i.e., higher electricity bills), and greater
cooling necessity in warm climates. Not to mention increasing
out of pocket expenses whether the transmitter is home-built
or ready-built.

There may be more attempts to get a lower level licence in the US, maybe by
Fred Maia, but the FCC has made it pretty clear in recent comments IMHO
that they think the Tech is easy enough, so I don't think it will ever
happen. End of story.

The ARRL has blessed and sactified the "entry level license"
as Technician class...which should be the end-all of that,
should it not? :-)

Curiously, the ARRL once upon a time lobbied long and hard
to get the ORIGINAL "entry level license" of Novice and did
get it. Yet, they fell down on the job of supporting it in
following years. Novice class numbers have been decreasing
for over a dozen years, longer than the existance of the
no-code-test Technician class license.

However, WT Docket 05-235 doesn't call for a "new license
class" or change any class names or even talk about an "entry
level." All it does is propose to eliminate the morse code
test for ALL U.S. amateur radio license classes.

WT Docket 05-235 is NOT about any "restructuring" of rules
save for the regulations about Test Element 1. However, if
the code test is eliminated, it will be the Death of Ham
Radio As They Know It to the rabid morsemen and they will
mourn its passing with mighty lamentations, sack cloth,
and ashes. The majority of amateur radio hobbyists will
continue on, adjusting to the new regulations, and possibly
embrace NEWER things besides a primitive communications
coding first used 161 years ago.

old new

an old friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

an old friend wrote:

wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:



I'm firmly convinced that many of the people that think of Element 1 as
the "great barrier" will be dismayed when they find out that there are
other barriers to Amateur radio.

"I tried but I'm just not able to learn the code." I heard it in the
1950's and I still hear it today. The global-standard copout which
probably goes back to 1912.


ah yes accusing everyone that disagrees of laziness we have been
hearing that a long time too

In 1912 there were reason you needed to be able to USE morse code,
today there is no NEED to USE it at all and yte we test for for it
awhile longer

I can't find any real reason why there is any need for testing for
anything in Amateur radio any more.



then propose that to the FCC

Why do you and Bill keep saying that? I have made it clear on many
occasions that I don't support such a thing.

That doesn't mean that I don't support testing. It means that Hams and
our regulatory bodies have to get together and form a consensus on just
what we *want* Amateur radio to be. Do we want it to be a body of people


one the basic you basic premise is in error

The rules MUST reflect what is in the interest of the PUBLIC, these are
a subset of the PUBLIC airwaves

Public regulation must reflect public interests

Heheh There is another argument in favor of no testing. If the public
interest is having barriers removed, then there should be no testing in
order to allow more people to become hams. Thanks for the point!


with some form of technical knowledge? So be it. We can do that But we
can indeed turn the Amateur bands into something else indeed. We can
channelize them, we can eliminate experimentation, we can reduce maximum
power levels, and we can ensure that only type accepted equipment is
used. At that point, we can eliminate testing altogether.




Putting together a station is probably
harder for most people than learning Morse code. Putting together a
*good* station is definitely so.

Agreed. The upcoming wave of nocode Extras and Generals will have to
face and resolve the same age-old problems us 20wpm OFs have faced for
decades when it comes to put up or shut up time as it relates to
actually operating in the HF bands. Like being able to spend the money
it takes to acquire decent HF equipment, having the ingenuity and


already got a decent rig, and one since it has VHF and UHF abilities I
have been the air for years with

Think about other people.


Every Tech I know with all mode abilities all have at least ONE rig
also able to do HF

And none that I know do.

look at what is on the market


knowledge needed to home-brew decent antennas for constricted spaces


I don't need to to worry about constricted spaces I at least own 58
acress I don't think that even 160m will be a problem

Does everyone? Think big-picture. Our own personal circumstances are
not everyones.


you presented as a absolute need an ability that doesn't aply to some
of us.

Of course it doesn't apply to some people. It sounds like your idea of
testing is to have a separate test for every facet of Ham radio.

In other words you are making stuff up that ain't always so


your rant was flawed, I punched a hole in it


Okay, that is what you consider punching a hole in my argument??

So be it.....

- Mike KB3EIA -

Len:

I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the
way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds!

We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in!

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:39:27 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Aug 6, 7:23 am

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Phil Kane wrote:
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:


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).

I thought so to. But why didn't FCC simply dump Element 1 two years
ago, after WRC 2003 ended the treaty requirement?

Institutional inertia.

INCORRECT.

1. The LAW (try the Communications Act of 1934 for starters)
doesn't work that way.

2. The FCC could legally do it just the same but would face
later LAW in the Courts from all the outraged membership
organizations, enough to delay everything for years more.

3. The ARRL lobbyists (both the law firm and the lobbying
firm) were dead set against the FCC doing anything without
"the League's Permission."


Is there any chance that *any* pro-code-test discussion will
have *any* effect on the outcome?

Negative.

ANY negative with another negative added to it will still be
NEGATIVE.


Suppose - just suppose - that after all the comments are in, the
majority of commenters support at least some code testing. Will FCC
change their position?

I believe that the way the argument is framed is critical. It seems
that the argument has been put forth about getting rid of a regulation.
And we all "know" that regulation is a bad thing. Element 1 goes away. I
consider the odds of it staying are about the same as a singularity
popping up.

WOW! Those SOUR GRAPES ripened FAST...you've already made gallons
of WHINE out of it!

Prosit.


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?

*Is* it a representative sample?

Does that matter?

No it doesn't' matter. I simply want to point out to people such as
Bill and Jhxn that the comments are not even close to a statistically
proper poll. I expect better out of Bill.

Wow! You WHINE-tipplers better not drive anywhere...you are DUI.

Tsk, is your definition of "representative sample" equivalent to
WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN?

Silly question, of course it is!

Now, if the ARRL had conducted a "poll," it would be absolutely,
positively, peachy-keen ACCURATE...even if the poll respondents
were League members and good, God-fearing Morsemen of high rate!

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


hee haw

John Smith wrote:
Len:

I await the day when the arrl (ancient retarded religious league) goes the
way of the dodo, or else, is taken over by under 40 year olds!

gee you are leting Me out of that hrrrrmph

We need someone to crack a window and let some fresh air in!

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:39:27 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Aug 6, 7:23 am

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Phil Kane wrote:
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:


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).

I thought so to. But why didn't FCC simply dump Element 1 two years
ago, after WRC 2003 ended the treaty requirement?

Institutional inertia.

INCORRECT.

1. The LAW (try the Communications Act of 1934 for starters)
doesn't work that way.

2. The FCC could legally do it just the same but would face
later LAW in the Courts from all the outraged membership
organizations, enough to delay everything for years more.

3. The ARRL lobbyists (both the law firm and the lobbying
firm) were dead set against the FCC doing anything without
"the League's Permission."


Is there any chance that *any* pro-code-test discussion will
have *any* effect on the outcome?

Negative.

ANY negative with another negative added to it will still be
NEGATIVE.


Suppose - just suppose - that after all the comments are in, the
majority of commenters support at least some code testing. Will FCC
change their position?

I believe that the way the argument is framed is critical. It seems
that the argument has been put forth about getting rid of a regulation.
And we all "know" that regulation is a bad thing. Element 1 goes away. I
consider the odds of it staying are about the same as a singularity
popping up.

WOW! Those SOUR GRAPES ripened FAST...you've already made gallons
of WHINE out of it!

Prosit.


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?

*Is* it a representative sample?

Does that matter?

No it doesn't' matter. I simply want to point out to people such as
Bill and Jhxn that the comments are not even close to a statistically
proper poll. I expect better out of Bill.

Wow! You WHINE-tipplers better not drive anywhere...you are DUI.

Tsk, is your definition of "representative sample" equivalent to
WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN?

Silly question, of course it is!

Now, if the ARRL had conducted a "poll," it would be absolutely,
positively, peachy-keen ACCURATE...even if the poll respondents
were League members and good, God-fearing Morsemen of high rate!

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


hee haw