wrote

maybe one can
be found from other people's experience.

K1MAN?

On 17 Aug 2005 17:14:57 GMT, wrote:

How about someone operating in such a way that they are in literal
compliance with the rule, but many others believe they are violating the
intent.

They can believe what they want, including that the moon is made of
green cheese, but if the operator is in compliance with the rules
there is no violation.

Mere holding of a ham license (or in specific cases, not holding a
ham license) does not make one an expert in interpretation of the
rules. I love to take on such "barracks lawyers"...like shooting
fish in a barrel.

Case closed. Next case.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
(A REAL communications lawyer)

AOF:

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress
can be introduced.

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

John


On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:58:12 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:

Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just
obey the letter?

Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think
this is right and the rules are wrong

Are we self policing or not?

Should we be self policing?

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
AOF:

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress
can be introduced.

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

John



It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices.
One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear
to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large
enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own
hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

You are, as quite often happens, correct...

John

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:13:57 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
AOF:

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress
can be introduced.

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

John



It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices.
One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear
to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large
enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own
hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: "Dee Flint" on Wed 17 Aug 2005 18:13


"John Smith" wrote in message

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices.
One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear
to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large
enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own
hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it.

It "won't do it?!?" Oh, my, but you've been saying it WOULD!

Okay, the ARRL has been in existance since 1914 and they've
been a PUBLISHING BUSINESS as well since the mid-1920s. So,
the ARRL has had a bit over 80 years to publish its little
maxims (pun not quite intended) for all "good" hams to follow
for four generations now.

Note that INCOME from the publishing business supports more of
the ARRL activities than any amount of "membership dues" can
do. A few years ago the ARRL declared on their federal income
tax forms that their total income was $12.5 MILLION that year.
Note also that legal representation is NOT inexpensive...Chris
Imlay's law firm going to do all its ARRL legal work pro bono?
[inconceivable in American law practice! :-) ]

Do the math. The League would have to get EVERY licensed U.S.
radio amateur to join up at the current dues rates in order to
come CLOSE to that sort of income. All those ARRL Life Members
paid a one-shot fee and are no longer required to pay anything
more so their dues won't show up on the annual League budget
now.

Can ANY *new* amateur radio membership organization come close
to the ARRL's penetration of U.S. ham radio? Not at the grass-
roots level, not after the League has had an existance of four
generations just as a publishing business (91 years as an
incorporated membership entity). This *new* membership
organization MUST have some significant monetary support at
the START in order to survive. That's very, very difficult
today. There have been several tries in the past three decades
(give or take) and none have been successful in coming close
to the League establishment.

Can one join the League and "effect change from within" (that's
your repeated mantra stated several times before) ? I doubt
that from the simple reason of reading all those ARRL BoD
minutes, seeing all those same names showing up for so many
years. The public does NOT see EVERYTHING going on in Newington
nor at those aperiodic gatherings of wheeler-dealer junkets at
various cities. What we do see are nice, formal gatherings of
Good Old Boys discussing very, very little new that will affect
a majority of American radio amateurs (remember that the ARRL
says it "represents all amateurs"...ahem, koff koff).

ARRL membership figures show that only one out of five U.S.
radio amateurs are members. 20%. They've almost had 25% at
one point in their 91 years. The League keeps asking for
more money...such as the "Spectrum Defense Fund." Ahem, it
didn't get a whole BAND at 60 meters, did it? Guess they
"didn't SPEND enough" lobbying for one? The IARU managed to
press home a sort-of future solution for 40 meters that has
been lingering since WARC-79 (that's now shown up in the
Federal Register as the big WRC-03 Omnibus action that is an
Order). The League keeps supporting all those olde-tymers
of their core membership...the Lifers, the Belivers...and
ignores the 48% of all U.S. amateur licensees who are
Technician class.

Of course, you will trumpet "join the League, start changing
from the 'inside'"...which means PAYING to get in...which
means all joiners will be on Address Lists they can sell for
more INCOME. Lovely legal scam-equiivalent. shrug

No problem, Dee. You aren't reading this anyway. Others do.
Others have already known about it for years. That may be
one reason the membership doesn't reflect a greater percentage
of the total licensees...

now pay

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news
AOF:

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress
can be introduced.

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

John



It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices.
One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear
to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large
enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own
hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it.

Well We NoCoders did exactly that and NCI was never all that large


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news
AOF:

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and
progress
can be introduced.

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in
the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were
able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell...
after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

John



It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two
choices.
One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and
dear
to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is
large
enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their
own
hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it.

Well We NoCoders did exactly that and NCI was never all that large


It was large enough and organized enough for its issue. And being a single
issue organization, the membership was in agreement about its issue.

Dee D. Flint,

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

cuting
Well We NoCoders did exactly that and NCI was never all that large


It was large enough and organized enough for its issue. And being a single
issue organization, the membership was in agreement about its issue.

membership in the sates was a few thousand(Bill, or Carl any numbers)
was more or less organized here on RRAP, much smaller than the ARRL

Indeed NCI makes a good case that any wel organized group with a clear
and convincing idea can effect change, and with far smaller numbers
than ARRL

Dee D. Flint,

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news AOF:

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and
progress
can be introduced.

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in
the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were
able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell...
after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

John



It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two
choices.
One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and
dear
to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is
large
enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their
own
hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it.

Well We NoCoders did exactly that and NCI was never all that large


It was large enough and organized enough for its issue. And being a single
issue organization, the membership was in agreement about its issue.

Heck, agreement was/is a condition of membership!

It's interesting that NCI was and is so secretive about its numbers.
Last
I heard, it amounted to less than 7000 members worldwide.

--

I think that crediting NCI for the code test reduction/elimination is
a bit like crediting the rooster for the dawn. Look at the history:

1975: FCC first proposes a nocodetest ham license in USA.

1983: FCC again proposes nocodetest ham license in USA.

Early 1980s: FCC "waives" (eliminates) code sending test, allows
multiple
choice and fill-in-the-blank code tests as well as 1-minute-solid-copy
test.

1990: FCC creates medical waivers at White House
request, to do a favor for a foreign head of state.

1991: FCC creates a nocodetest ham license in USA by simply
eliminating code test from Technician.

1996: NCI formed

2000: FCC reduces code testing to 5 wpm for all classes requiring
a code test despite majority of comments supporting 2 or 3
code test speeds. States that treaty requirement is only
reason 5 wpm was kept. Also reduces written testing.

2003: WRC-2003 eliminates treaty requirement for code test.

2005: FCC proposes complete elimination of code testing, as proposed
by several petitions.


The trend to nocodetest, and to less testing overall, was clear long
before NCI appeared on the scene.

73 de Jim, N2EY