RadioBanter - Docket Scorecard

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Docket Scorecard (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/77513-docket-scorecard.html)

Docket Scorecard

From: on Oct 20, 3:53 am

wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:

One of the reasons repeatedly given for the elimination of
the code test is that it is supposedly a "barrier" to "otherwise
qualified people" who would bring "fresh, new blood" and *growth* to
amateur radio.

Were all those people wrong?

Only to old morsemen who can't grow and have old tired blood...

"Growth in numbers" is not a raison d'etre
for the elimination
or retention of the code test.

Tell that to NCI...

WHY? I'm not afraid of any dues increas at NCI... :-)

ARRL is very much concerned with growth and numbers. If the
ham numbers decrease, their publishing business will suffer.

The lack of love and worship
of morsemanship should be enough.

IOW, since *you* don't have a high regard for Morse Code
skills, there should be no test...

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are jumping over tall conclusions thinking
you are getting somewhere. You aren't.

Having BEGUN in HF communications 52 years ago and NEVER having
needed any morse code skill then or in all the years since, I
just don't see why it remains an amateur radio licensing test.
No other radio service bothers with using morse code for
communications now, why should amateur radio still retain a
code test because of one national membership organization and
a bunch of old morsemen fearful of losing their exclusive
radio playground?

I don't know when Leo was a kid, but I know that when I
got my ham license in 1967 at the age of 13, there were only about
a quarter-million US hams - less than 40% of today's total. The US
population back then was a lot more than 40% of what it is today.

TODAY's laws are not governed by conditions of 38 years ago.

You remain in total denial that no-code-test Technician
licensees numbered as many as 200 thousand and that the
present-day U.S. amateur radio license totals would be
definitely smaller without them. Your problem, not mine.

today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things
competing with it.

Such as?

There was all sorts of competition when I was a kid, too.

Not at the seminary for the order of the Church of St. Hiram.

One thing for sure, you didn't have any interest in a
military experience, did you?

One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was
the USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of
any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form
needed for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with
radio control). Excellent in large urban areas before the
offshore products appeared about four years later and the
trucking industry started buying them.

But what happened after that? You stopped the story at the most
important part, Len.

Soon to be a major motion picture? :-)

27 MHz cb was pretty well behaved at first. But by the mid 1960s
that service had big problems with rules violations. When the oil
embargoes of the early 1970s hit, cb became a major tool for truckers
and others to avoid law enforcement of the 55 mph speed limit, weigh
stations, etc.

Jimmie, Jimmie, Jimmie...show us WHERE the truckers stay
UNDER their "legal speed limit" of 55 MPH. Having gone
cross country a few times since 1974 by motor vehicle (over
2000 miles one-way each time), the truckers do NOT obey
those "55 MPH limits." The presence or absence of a CB in
their cab has NOTHING to do with getting their cargo from
one place to its destination...so they can quickly pick up
another load and make another run...for PROFIT.

The use of radio to intentionally violate local, state or federal law
is clearly a violation of the Communications Act.

So...what have YOU done about this "violation of the law,"
Mr. Holier-than-Thou Morseman? Did you join the PA Highway
Patrol and get a spiffy uniform in which to catch all those
evil violators?

Did you join the FCC or the Federal Marshall's Service to
ENFORCE THE LAW?

I don't think you did. You LIKE to sit in here as a holier-
than-most everybody person and talk down to others.

Other violations (unlicensed operation, "shooting skip", failure to
identify, use of power far above that authorized for the service)
became more the rule than the exception on 27 MHz cb. Indeed, some
began to use frequencies near but outside the authorized cb channels,
including the 10 meter amateur band.

Well? What did YOU do about it? CB on the old 11m band became
a reality in 1958, 47 years ago. If this so offends you, why
haven't you written a "sharp" report and submitted it to the
FCC? Or the ARRL? Or your elected Congresscritter?

IMHO, one of the main reasons for that behavior was the lack of any
sort of license test for a cb permit.

Oh, dear, I guess that shoots down about 100 million USA
citizens who use little two-way transceivers called "cell
phones!" No license, no TEST required for those!

How about those evil, NO-LICENSE-REQUIRED R/C transmitters
on their 72 MHz region channels? Aren't you worried about
UNLAWFULL ACTIVITY there, perhaps causing TVI while we still
have analog TV?

How about NO-LICENSE-REQUIRED FRS transceivers? [etc., etc...]

That's nice, Len. But how well did the cell phone work away from the
major interstates?

Very well, Jimmie. :-)

Had you been ON THE ROAD you would have seen lots and lots and
lots of cell site towers, some of them quite far away from the
Interstate highways. In Wyoming. In Nebraska. In Nevada. In
Utah. In many states.

Or maybe not. The growth of US amateur radio in the 1980s (without a
no-code-test license or medical waivers) was about the same if not
greater than the growth in the 1990s.

How do you explain that?

I "explain that" by pointing out you are still in denial that
all those no-code-test Technicians made a sizeable impact on
U.S. amateur radio license totals.

I "explain that" by pointing out you are wayyyy too deep into
love/honor/obeying old, old morsemen "rules" of yesterday by
trying to retain outmoded standards and practices in licensing.

I "explain that" by telling you and other staunch old-timer
morsemen that you will LOSE your self-perceived status as high-
rate code-tested "experts" in radio if the code test is gone.

So what are your new paradigms, Len? Besides "dump the code test"?

To quote what another old-timer said, the amateur rules might
open up with: "Here's your rules, have a nice day." :-)

Problem really is, you old-timer morsemen fanatics just CAN'T
envision amateur radio WITHOUT any code test. It is the "heart
and soul of amateur radio!" according to a few Commenters on
WT Docket 05-235.

Should amateur radio become like cb? No test at all? We've seen how
well that worked...

Tsk, tsk, tsk...still using the "dropping the code test is the
end of all testing" ploy, aren't you? Dumb thing to do, Jimmie.

You've predicted a growth of 20% in a few years if the code test goes
away.

I "predicted it?!?" Did you get a GUARANTEE on the "prediction?"

I can't read the future, Jimmie. You apparently can, knowing all
of electronics hobby life before you ever existed. You are a
Radio god and "know all." :-)

Will you admit you were wrong if the code test goes away and
there isn't that much growth?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...still being the argumentative sore loser,
aintcha? :-)

Will YOU admit you are full of snit about the efficacy of morse
code in radio even when all the other radio services have given
up on it (if they ever used it from their beginning)? No, you
haven't yet and all those other radio service HAVE given up on
morse code for communications. It's predictable that you will
NEVER apologize for anything you've said..."everyone else makes
mistakes, but you never have." :-)

I don't care one way or the other what the growth of U.S. amateur
radio is AFTER the code test is eliminated. However, you think
that idle speculation is some kind of "official prediction" so
you want to make a Big Issue out of it. You already have. :-)

Why are you sitting around playing with your computer in the
middle of the day, being argumentative to others? Can't you
play with your "Southgate" thingy, working DX on HF with CW?

Docket Scorecard

From: on Oct 20, 9:15 am show options

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:

Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of
error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor
of keeping morse.

Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight
majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing.

WRONG! If the current majority of 1311 (54%) went down by 5%,
the number would then be (1311 -66 = 1245) which still gives a
52% majority in favor of the NPRM.
I wrote:

"if 5% were miscategorized"

meaning if 5% were in the wrong category. Fixing that problem would
remove 5% from one category and add 5% to another.

Remove 5% from the anticodetest column and add 5% to the procodetest
column and the majority changes.

Whoa! Whose tabulation are you talking about, Jimmie?

My own voluntary tabulation doesn't have any "anticodetest" column
nor any "procodetest" column. You must be using someone else's
that aren't posted in this newsgroup...

(SNIP of repeated "what if's)

Why? Are any of them unreasonable?

[ludicrously argumentative, they are... :-) ]

Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the
issue in 1999 - do you really
think the majority opinion matters now?

Actually no I don't, but it doesn't hurt the
nocode test cause to have a majority favoring the change.

True, but note how narrow it is.

Tsk, tsk...that shouldn't matter. The World According to
Jimmie had the Restructuring NPRM Comments "favoring higher
code test rates" than the across-the-board restriction to
5 WPM. THAT was a slim majority. PCTAs thought it "okay"
since it favored code testing. :-)

And note that the criteria used are quite vague in places. For example:

Do the totals include reply comments as well as comments?

They do, but the ONLY way to CHECK that is to READ THEM,
Jimmie. ALL of them. A mere 2600+ filings.

If the same person submits multiple comments that are not identical, or
comments and reply comments, are they all counted, or does each
commenter get counted only once?

Yes, no, and maybe. :-)

The ONLY WAY to CHECK that is to READ THEM, Jimmie. ALL
of them. A mere 2600+ filings.

How is it determined if a person submits a "valid address"?

If the ECFS Comment submission ACCEPTS it and it appears on
the record. Tsk, tsk, all "FCC Insiders" should KNOW that!

Why is the NPRM considered a comment?

What should it be considered as? :-)

Why are the comments of an Australian not counted?

NPRM 05-143 is about UNITED STATES radio regulations, Jimmie.

Is Australia part of the United States? No? Why not?

Is citizenship a requirement to be counted? How about residency? Why?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...all that CHILDISH questioning, like a petulant
four-year-old kid bothering Mommy. :-)

Jimmie still has to CHECK it all out by READING ALL the filings
on WT Docket 05-235. He should. He just can't accept "un-
verfied" tabulations without his decreeing that everything comes
out as he wants it. :-)

Docket Scorecard

From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm

Leo wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:

Comparing the total number of amateur licenses existing today is an
apples-to-oranges comparison, and not a true indicator of the
"popularity" of the hobby then or now.

Why?

"Why?" ...it shoots down your rationalizations for one... :-)

I realize that we have to allow for the population
increase. But when you do that, the inescapable conclusion
is that the ratio of the number of hams to the total population is more
now than it was in 1955, or 1965, or 1975, etc.

Tsk, tsk...the "inescapable conclusion" obtained from comparison
of filings on WT Docket 05-235 of 2005 is that the Belief in the
efficacy of morse code is less than it was in 1975, 1965, or 1955.

Only very recently has the growth curve flattened out.

In the last two and a half years, this "growth" has been negative.

In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur
license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per
minute, not our easy 5.

It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when
the Technician lost its code test requirement.

That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test
for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz.

The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement. The
former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-)

Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods.

Riiiiiiight...ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and
abilities! All one has to do is "work hard" in order to
pass a federally-mandated morse test in order to transmit
below 30 MHz as an amateur.

Tsk. That is NOT required for General Radiotelephone
(Commercial) Radio Operator license holders at HF and below.

That is NOT required for UNLICENSED CB radio operators on
27 MHz, yet their signals can - during certain propagation
conditions - be heard all over the world.

Slightly less than half of US hams hold Technician licenses, but
there's no way of knowing how many have passed the code test.

A mere 48+ plus percent of ALL USA amateur radio licensees
are Technician class. The Technician class (exclusive of
the Technician PLUS class) is over TWICE as numerous as
General class (most numerous of the "code tested" classes).

There's also the factor of how long somebody stays interested. And what
they do when they have the license.

That's NOT a LEGAL requirement, is it? :-)

The ONLY requirement I can find in all of Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R.
as to "doing" when a person has an amateur radio license is to
OPERATE LEGALLY ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS. Is there something
I missed in Part 97 about "building from scratch," "devotion to
morse code," or being an acolyte at the Church of St. Hiram?

As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back
then
seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby
than it appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available
anywhere on
this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew
about amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that
the majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby
even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested
in the activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do!

But are you and your friends a representative sample?

Why not? YOU seem to hold yourself as a "representative sample"
of the very model of a modern major marvel in amateur radio. :-)

[apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan]

When I was growing up, most people, kids or adults, had no idea
what ham radio was unless they were related to or good friends
with a ham.

In 50 years little has changed in that regard... :-)

Where is the ARRL Public Relations effort when it is sorely
needed?

I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia that was mostly blue- and
white-collar middle class families. Lots of kids, houses ranging from
rowhomes to big single Dutch Colonials. Yet there were less than a
dozen hams in the whole township then, all spread out, and about half
were inactive or minimally active.

"Typical?" :-)

Tsk, didn't you claim to have begun amateur radio in another
state?

In my high school (grades 9/10/11/12), which had over 2500 boys and
emphasized math and science, there were perhaps a half-dozen hams in
the 4 years I was there.

Ah, an "all boys" school. That may explain a lot...?

In my high school in the middle west (northern Illinois), only
three grades (we had a "junior high school" now known as a
"middle school" for some kind of PC reason). We had a mere
900 or so of mixed gender and NONE were licensed as radio
amateurs. [sunnuvagun!]

At the Big 50th Reunion my high school class had in 2001, NONE
mentioned anything about "getting a ham license" after
graduation. However, to be fair about it, one did become the
manager of a supermarket which had a meat department selling
ham.

The main problem wasn't code or theory, for those who were interested.
It was space for an antenna and money for equipment.

Amazing how the story changes as time goes on... :-)

NOBODY had an "attic antenna" back in those ancient days?
Tsk, the "beer can vertical" started in the 1950s...

NOBODY managed to attend a Field Day exercise back then?
[were there any parks to hold them in?]

NOBODY scrounged for "old radio parts" to build a whole
station for $100 then?

Most people, young or old, thought ham radio looked like a kind of fun
thing, when they found out about it. But not enough to spend the
necessary time and money to set up a station, let alone get a license.

Too busy playing with car fix-ups?

They couldn't get part-time jobs to afford $100 to build a
"Southgate" transceiver?

Well, I have to give you slack on that. "Surplus" in the late
1940s was very inexpensive: $6 for a brand-new Command Set
receiver, $12 for a brand-new Command Set transmitter, $18 for
the Command Set antenna tuning unit and modulator...at H&H
Electronics, co-owned by Gene Hubbel (then W9ERU, later W7DI
and then SK...a VERY high-rate tested morseman). Tsk, I used
my part-time earnings to buy and convert (to 110 VAC power)
TWO Command Set stations...sold them quickly at a very modest
profit by 1950. "Surplus" radios cost much more 30 years later.

IMHO one of the biggest reasons ham radio isn't better known
is that it's not a very "visual" thing - it doesn't translate well to
TV or a movie.

Really? Ernest Lehman didn't think so. He wrote a fairly
popular novel entitled "The French Atlantic Affair" which was
made into a two-part TV movie on one of the networks. Lehman
was a respected award-winning screenwriter ("North by Northwest"
is perhaps the most notable). Lehman was also a licensed ham.

Of course, CB Radio has been featured in many a TV show and
movie such as "Convoy," "Smokey and the Bandit," and (would
you believe this title) "Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie"...not
to mention an essential part of "The Dukes of Hazzard" series.

A later movie, "Frequency" used amateur radio as essential to
enable communications time-travel between deceased father and
son, but that was more science-fantasy in its plotline and
didn't really showcase radio as much as the supernatural.

Maybe we're using the wrong term - perhaps instead of "popularity",
what you are describing is better described as "visibility" or
"recognition by the public".

Tsk. You should have a long heart-to-heart talk with ARRL
Public Relations (excuse me, "Media Advisors") people on
getting amateur radio more popular with the general public.
ARRL hasn't done much in THAT regard for the last half
century...they've spent most of their time preaching to the
choir to try and enlarge their membership numbers (haven't
done too well there, either, still only 1 out of 5 licensed
U.S. radio amateurs are members).

But, you are NOT offering any possible solutions to either
popularity, visibility, or recognition by any public. Your
aim is to disrupt any talk of eliminating the code test by
any means possible. NOT a democratic-principle effort on
your part. But, it's par for the course in this newsgroup.

Docket Scorecard

KØHB wrote:
wrote

Heck, most people with computers don't write software,
they simply use
applications written by others.

"Heck, most hams don't build radios, they simply use
radios built by others."

Hardware vs. software, but right you are, Hans.

Of course some of us do build radios - and computers...

but in late 1962

TYPO!

1952

the FCC gave all ham operating priviliges to Generals and
above.

No they didn't.

Yes, it was 1952. Actually, the announcement of the change
was in December of 1952 but didn't go into effect until February of
1953.

Some privs (satelite stations, as at least one example) were
reserved for Amateur Extras into the 70's.

I checked my 1962 copy of the ARRL License Manual, which has a reprint
of the entire FCC section on regulations for the amateur service, plus
selected parts of the Communications Act. There's no mention of special
privileges for Advanceds or Extras at all.
No specific mention of satellite or repeaters, either.

The rules changed in 1967 with the first phase of incentive licensing,
so maybe somewhere in there the verbiage about satellites got put in.

But other than some isolated privs like that,
General, Conditional, Advanced,
and Extra all had very similar "full" privileges going back to the early 50's.

Yep. February 1953 to November 1968.

Disincentive licensing changed that in the late 60's.

November 22 1968 and again in 1969 - when Generals, Conditionals and
Advanceds lost access to parts of some bands.

I remember well - I'd just earned the Advanced in the summer of 1968,
had full privilges for a few weeks, and then they were gone.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Docket Scorecard