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.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

w3rv

b.b. wrote:

Same stuff, different day. And at the end of the day, Steve's still an
idiot.

Being an "idiot" is not a detriment to one's character. One man's
idiot is another man's genius.

However a liar is a liar, and Brainie Boy, you're a liar.

Proven. Archived.

Steve, K4YZ

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.

Yep. In fact they let us know that back in '99.

Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?

The majority didn't get what they wanted back then. More than
half of those who commented wanted at least 2 code test speeds
but we got 5 wpm across the board.

Still, it will be worth commenting just for the principle
of the thing.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Isn't democracy grand? ;-)

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI

Bert Craig wrote:
Isn't democracy grand? ;-)

That it tis, my friend...that it tis!

73

Steve, K4YZ

"John Smith"
wrote in message
...
Bill:
Have you ever used IRC chat and "conversed"
with a slow typist there?

Sure. No problem. It still worked.

It sucks, yes,

No, that's your opinion only.

I would allow for having one come up to speed before using
IRC chat, or hang in a newbie room until coming up-to-speed.

I don't think the FCC has domain over internet. Who'd enforce
your rule/requirement?

That same system would work well for
Morse... let'em stay off the key and on a
"newbie frequency" until they get up to
speed and have range of the whole
cw bandwidth... sounds logical to me!

Have you found the CW segments of HF heavily
populated with very slow operators? Doesn't
seem to be any problem today.

Do you expect that
to change if the code test is ended completely?

What you (John) suggest happens by default now.
While there are no "newbie frequencies"
(although the novice segments could be viewed in
that light), in reality, no one, including yourself, is
forced or required to engage with another ham
who operates code (or keboard) at a speed
that is too slow for your liking. The choice
is yours. No pretest needed.

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 :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
---------

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:06:27 +0000, 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?

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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....

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

Sounds like there is no problem then, let the "key bangers" hold to their
own "key banger club", I don't think the new cb'ers on phone are going to
bother them. If there are happy with their numbers on key, great! Seems
like you won't mind any cb'ers which might like to try a key and head over
towards you at 1wpm, good luck!

Sounds to me like the whole problem is just an imagined one! Can't
imagine why some jerk ever even mentioned some problem, damn fool!

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:32:52 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


"John Smith"
wrote in message
...
Bill:
Have you ever used IRC chat and "conversed"
with a slow typist there?

Sure. No problem. It still worked.

It sucks, yes,

No, that's your opinion only.

I would allow for having one come up to speed before using
IRC chat, or hang in a newbie room until coming up-to-speed.

I don't think the FCC has domain over internet. Who'd enforce
your rule/requirement?

That same system would work well for
Morse... let'em stay off the key and on a
"newbie frequency" until they get up to
speed and have range of the whole
cw bandwidth... sounds logical to me!

Have you found the CW segments of HF heavily
populated with very slow operators? Doesn't
seem to be any problem today.

Do you expect that
to change if the code test is ended completely?

What you (John) suggest happens by default now.
While there are no "newbie frequencies"
(although the novice segments could be viewed in
that light), in reality, no one, including yourself, is
forced or required to engage with another ham
who operates code (or keboard) at a speed
that is too slow for your liking. The choice
is yours. No pretest needed.

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 :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
---------

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:06:27 +0000, 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?

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

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....

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.

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.


Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

w3rv