About Us

October 15th 05, 05:36 PM

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:
snip

Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by
James Miccolis!

That is odd indeed - I would have thought that Jim would have been one
of the first to state his concerns to the FCC regarding the
elimination of Morse testing - considering that this is the last
opportunity to do so before the final ruling.

Do you think it will make any difference, Leo? Do you think there's any
chance FCC will retain Element 1?

Maybe. Maybe not. I didn't think that there was any possibility that
it would be retained as an option in Canada either - but it was!

It ain't over 'till it's over.....

Will multiple comment filings make any difference?

Maybe. Maybe not. Are you sugesting that the comment period serves
no purpose - it exists merely as a legislated necessity, to be
disregarded by the FCC at will?

And, of course, the same rules apply here as to those who complain
about elected officials but did not vote in their election.....

Besides, a good comment takes time to write. Why hurry, if it's so
important?

Well, considering that you have been formulating your opinion on this
subject for years, I wouldn't expect that it would take too long at
all! Besides, the comment period was not sprung as a surprise - it's
been known to be coming for a long time as well....

--

I think FCC will just drop Element 1. Sure, I'll file comments. So will
plenty of others. But the stage is set for FCC to just drop Element 1.

Here's why:

1) Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers because Papa Bush wanted
to do a now-dead King a favor. In the R&O, FCC said that they could not
waiver 5 wpm because of the treaty - and only because of the treaty.

2) Back in 2000, FCC dumped all but 5 wpm code, again citing the
treaty.

3) Now the treaty's gone. End of story.

I wouldn't disagree with your observations. However, although the
treaty change gives the FCC the ability to drop code testing from the
amateur license requirements, it does not force them to do so. There
is still a chance that it may be retained in some form (i.e. as an
option, for Extra-class licensure only, etc....)

Have you seen a significant increase in the number of Canadian radio
amateurs since code testing was made optional?

It's too early to tell yet - though I would not expect to see a
significant increase in overall licenses. Acording to one of the ham
radio equipment vendors here, the sale of HF radio equipment has
picked up a bit, but also not significantly.

Has there been a
significant increase in the number of radio amateurs in any of the
other countries which have eliminated code testing? By "significant", I
mean sustained growth, not a short term flurry of new licenses and then
back to the same old levels of growth or decline.

No idea - I have not researched this.

If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a
problem in the first place.

Another view would be that it was a problem that is being fixed way
too late to repair the damage.

Amateur Radio was a very popular hobby back when you and I were kids -
today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things competing
with it.

I would think that the vast majority of the folks who are interested
in the things that Amateur Radio offers are already a part of the
hobby. Adding HF access might broaden the scope of those who did not
gain access to HF via morse testing (for whatever reasons) - but to
think for a moment that there are legions of wannabe hams who are
waiting exitedly for morse testing to be abolished so that they can
rush in and get on the air would be foolish.

They aren't there.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Docket 05-235 Scorecard	[email protected]	Policy	83	September 7th 05 05:32 PM
Stonewalling on WT Docket 05-235?	[email protected]	Policy	13	September 6th 05 01:13 AM
Stonewalling WT Docket 05-235?	[email protected]	Policy	2	August 31st 05 09:10 PM
Status of WT Docket 05-235	[email protected]	Policy	7	August 2nd 05 11:37 PM
WT Docket 04-140	Billy Preston	Digital	0	July 22nd 04 09:15 AM

Menu

About Us