Mike Coslo wrote:
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.

then why bring it up

unless Len is right and you are just whining about it

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!

Indeed If it serves the public interest to end testing we should do
that, But then the question is, does it serve the public interest to
end testing?

I don't think so clearly neither does Bill

the arguement the less testing= more hams does indeed work to a point,
but you have taken it to the absurd

clearly the public interest is in having the ARS work fairly well and
be as large as pratcical. It is also in the public interest of the US
that we obey the ITU treaty (as amended over the years) which requires
some testing.

The currect tech pool (the only pool I am famier with personaly being a
tech seem OK I would shift some stuff off and more of some other stuff
on, but the result would be roughly as hard, so I am basicaly satified
that thing are OK on that score



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.

how many tech you know with all mode rigs?

I suppose there may be afew with multimode rigs and no HF but their are
only rig comercail rig that way today The ICOM 910H ( i have one of
those) ten tect used to have one

I'll agree that going from FM only would be a jolt

but YMMV


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.

and that isa good or bad thing in your view

BTW I do not suggest that having taken the say the QRP test that you
can only run QRP etc


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??

you calim all these hams need and don't have the rig many do all need
to HOME brew an antenna you went on and on about the barriars. In the
younger population base they buy SUVs costing as much 60+ K and buy
them every few years a few grand is not much for something that will
last quite awhile, takes a bit of nerve to take the step but it is
hardly a Barriar equal to Morse Code


So be it.....

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:
"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.

Yeah, after rereading it I wasn't very clear, Bill. I just fear that
some of the Anti-Morse arguments might be adapted to gain other, less
desirable changes in Amateur radio.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


wrote in message
legroups.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?

Oh, heck I don't know how! I'm not looking for a precise poll. My point
is that comments on WT05-235 are only representative of the opinions of
those who chose to comment. Standard disclaimer for an unscientific
poll. I'd say the same if the results were the other way. No *way* could
we work that data into anything statistically significant.



*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.

That is true, it's not my problem, and why I don't comment.


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.

Quite! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bert Craig wrote:
"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."


Just one of those little slips there Bert! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

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.

There is never an end of story, Alun!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
"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.

Yeah, after rereading it I wasn't very clear, Bill. I just fear that
some of the Anti-Morse arguments might be adapted to gain other, less
desirable changes in Amateur radio.

then you need to read some the treaty requirements, the same treaty
that has been the only keeping code testing the ARS for a couple of
decades


- Mike KB3EIA -

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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

They won't get to it until they are over 40 themselves. Right now they are
building their careers and raising families. Doesn't leave much time for
the major commitment of being in charge of the ARRL.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

I was a boy scout leader in my late 20's into my early 30's, it was hard,
my job made some allowances, heck, some of the people over me had kids in
my troop.

I think it can be done alright...

Old pharts shine in positions like supreme court justices, you don't need
the constitution to change all that much, indeed, in over 200 years it has
been a real benefit NOT having much change at all... you just have to
realize where you need young minds and where you need old ones...

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:43:33 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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

They won't get to it until they are over 40 themselves. Right now they are
building their careers and raising families. Doesn't leave much time for
the major commitment of being in charge of the ARRL.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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.


If the FCC is to trust us with the legal ability to
pop the covers off our transmitters and make
adjustments and modifications, we need to have passed
tests to show that we have basic knowledge of RF and
such. That we'd know how to run and maintain a clean
operation.

It's quite rare that the FCC busts a ham for faulty
equipment anymore.

an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...



Bill Sohl wrote:



"John Smith" wrote in message
om...




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.

Yeah, after rereading it I wasn't very clear, Bill. I just fear that
some of the Anti-Morse arguments might be adapted to gain other, less
desirable changes in Amateur radio.


then you need to read some the treaty requirements, the same treaty
that has been the only keeping code testing the ARS for a couple of
decades

Didn't we cover this before somewhere? There is a long history of
dancing around the treaty requirements. Like medical waivers for
starters....

My notion of a book like "Now You're Talking!", and a signed affidavit
by the prospective Ham could serve quite well for the "test" process.

- Mike KB3EIA -