wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:

wrote in message
roups.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.

Be gracious Brian. They need to beat their chests a bit!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee Flint wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
.net...

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
mcast.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.

The torch is being passed. We shall enter the brave new world.

- Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Radio needs to fit the people, we need not change the people to fit the
radio...

I know in the world today, we have gotten darn near everything backwards,

Ya mean like WT Docket 05-235 "John"?

someday perhaps sane men will change the world to fit the people, rather
than always, hopelessly . . .

w3rv

Mike:

Funny, there is a "test block" not half a block from me with BPL
(Broadcast Over Powerline) I can't detect it is even there, anyone else
notice noise from it? Where is the demon they were promising us?

Only thing now, I want it!

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:18:45 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

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?

*Is* it a representative sample?

I agree with what you wrote. Resistance is now futile. Why should I
waste my time commenting?

You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your next effort?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Well, seeing all the "terrible mistakes of the past" (none) you would
think most would have learned a lesson, they haven't... still, fun to cry
to call "WOLF!"

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:37:50 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
.net...

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
omcast.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.

The torch is being passed. We shall enter the brave new world.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Kelly:

You sound the alarm, let us watch the future, if you have sounded the
alarm falsely, let us ignore you in the future. As, I expect the future
changes to come much more fast and furiously. If you are valid in your
arguments, it will be shown, if not--equally shown...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:52:43 -0700, kelly wrote:


John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Radio needs to fit the people, we need not change the people to fit the
radio...

I know in the world today, we have gotten darn near everything backwards,

Ya mean like WT Docket 05-235 "John"?

someday perhaps sane men will change the world to fit the people, rather
than always, hopelessly . . .

w3rv

Mike:

Like, what size soldering iron would you need to replace most SMC
components? Or, what card would you replace in your receiver if the audio
goes out? Or, if you are going to operate a webcam what card supplies the
video to the monitor? Or, what card in your computer supplies the
audio to the xmitter card? Etc... I mean get real, radio is about to
become PCI and USB cards you add to you computer. I still see linears
(higher than say 20 watts) at external, and feedline and antennas are
something an avg amateur will work with...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:32:19 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news
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?


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.

*Why* should there be any testing?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Well YEAH! Take a video card from your computer, an audio card, a
processor, a memory chip, a hard drive--then inquire of the cost of
replacing it, as opposed to "repairing it?" One is possible, the other is
NOT! (well, not by rational men!)

You think amateur radio is going to stay in the same archaic state as it
has been held it to this date? Take the cover off of your computer, look
at the circuitry, open your antique radio, look at the circuitry. Do you
know why such a staggering difference exists? Because "millions" perhaps
"billions" use computers, and not enough amateurs exist to make it
worthwhile to bring this advanced technology to amateur radio. I mean,
don't embarrass both of us with a detailed description of how vast the
void is between modern technology and amateurs!

If you can't embrace progress, at least be man enough to step aside and
let others make it happen...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005
23:25:11 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

John Smith wrote:


N2EY:

Yes, your list there shows how quite insane FCC licensing has been,
however, the arrl has to bear a lot of this blame also, they used
political pressures for their personal gains.

The longest journey begins but with the first step, there are many
necessary steps now to bring amateur radio back in line with sanity...

John


So what is your solution?


You must be kidding, Jim!


Not at all, Mike.

Of course some folks who poat to rrap tend to pose a
sort of Zen problem - they tell you what a thing is
not, or what it shouldn't be, but never say what it is,
or how it should be.

You watch. If Element 1 is dumped, as seems highly
likely, there will be a burst of license activity,
then same old same old as far as the numbers go.

f course. My question was who you were asking the question of.

Then watch as the written tests and other regs are
attacked as "barriers".

Heck, it's already started with the free upgrades
thing. FCC rejected that - this time.

I wonder how that argument will form? Without the Morse code as the
great "barrier", the argument will have to change quite a bit. Of course
I will wait excitedly for the next salvo in the requirement easing effort.

- mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
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).

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

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....

Yup. But again, why didn't FCC simply dump Element 1 two years ago,
after WRC 2003 ended the treaty requirement?

Note also that the majority of those who commented back then not only
wanted code testing, but wanted at least two speeeds of code testing.
FCC ignored the majority.

They also think that BPL is the best thing since sliced bread.

Yes, FCC seems to think that, despite all the evidence to the
contrary.

3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test
was because of the international treaty requiring a code
test.

Yup.

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.

Yup.

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.

The current NPRM *proposes* to dump Element 1. It also denies just
about everything else in the 18 proposals.

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.

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

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?

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.

The first reason is clear.

The second is simply what's happening now. Weeks to go yet.

And if the first is true, the majority is irrelevant,isn't it?

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?

I agree with what you wrote. Resistance is now futile.
Why should I waste my time commenting?

Because if the majority supports elimination, FCC will say
'we just gave you what the majority wanted'.

You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your
next effort?

I don't think NCI, Bill or Carl have a "next effort". When Element 1
goes away, they're done.

Fred is a very different issue.

Watch what happens in the next few years. Element 1 will most probably
go away, regardless of commentary.

There will be a flurry of upgrades to General and Extra, and a
flurry of new licenses.

Then the license numbers will go back to about where they were
before all the changes.

And folks like Fred will resurrect the "Communicator" idea
again, and push for reducing the written tests yet again.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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

*Why* should there be any testing?

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

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK