wrote in message
oups.com...
Iitoi wrote:

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General. Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

Does anyone think otherwise?

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he could
not find the
AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

Bottom line again is "who cares?" In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing. The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy.

Exactly! FCC need only consider the comments, not act on
them.

What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

I disagree, Bill. Or rather, I'd say it's not that clear.

Back in 1998, NCI supported the concept of "5 wpm
now, complete elimination when the treaty changes".
That position got about 45% support (check Carl's
post of around that time when he reported KC8EPO's
tally of comments).

Now the NPRM proposes "complete elimination now
that the treaty has changed" but the support is
still about 45% of commenters.

So the support for total code test elimination isn't much different
than it was 7 years ago.

The trend is and has been towards ending code. Nothing
has changed to alter that general opinion.

Playing your number realignment, you must admit
then that 68% of commentors DO support ending
code for General.

Yep. Exactly as proposed by ARRL.

THAT is dramatic in comparison
to past opinion analysis.

We don't really know that, do we?
There was never a serious proposal
before that suggested "code test for
Extra only" that I know of.

Fair enough.

Consider too that
IF the FCC retained any level of code testing for
Extra then the FCC would/will have to reintroduce
waivers as the international treaty no longer provides
absolute minimal code requirements for any level.

Why would FCC "have to" do waivers? IIRC there's no
mention of waivers in the NPRM. The treaty's been
changed for almost 2-1/2 years but no waivers.

IF the code test isn't dropped totally, the president for
waivers in the absence of any treaty requirement will
rule. Inactivity in response to the treatty change by the FCC
can certainly be chalked up to digestion of the host
of petitions filed after WRC and the ultimate
issuance of NPRM 98-235 which is now pending.

IF (let's be hypothetical) the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

That's a path that FCC just won't go down.

Probably not.

PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the
FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code
was only retained for Extra.

One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep
code testing but change how it is scored. One method is
to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written)
to the following:

Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the
35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark
on the code test.

That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code
test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more.

I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise
would pass ADA requirements.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a claim.

The Man in the Maze
QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ

From: Iitoi on Fri 4 Nov 2005 01:34


Wrote:

Why don't you just reveal this "website" and be done with it? If it is
"so much better" than what I've done, then others will obviously see so!

One other analysis that I've seen is by a Northern Mariana Islands
callsign http://ah0a.org/FCC/05-235/ --- it may be the site that N2EY
refers to.

That certainly seems to be the one. Nice and colorful, looks great
in any GUI display. :-)

Joe Speroni (AH0A) has to be taken for what he is: An absolute
morseman who values morse code skill over everything else in
United States amateur radio. Speroni is also a Petitioner to the
FCC who has yet to have his Petitions granted. shrug :-)

I put Speroni into a category of one who has a LOT of emotional
baggage tied up in morse code and code testing.

If it is, N2EY's blustering is a puzzlement because the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

No "puzzlement" to me. :-) Jimmie has been consistently
against on just about everything I've ever written in here.
Since I am NOT in favor of morse code testing (as are several
others), he loves to "get on my (and their's) case" to show
"how mistaken" I (and they) am.

Jimmie ("N2EY," which any day might become his legal name) has
now resorted to attacking my choice of residence (the one I
chose in May of 1963) and attempts ridicule of that location
by partial lyrics of an old pop song ("little houses made of
ticky-tacky"). :-) TS. I'll turn my collar around and get
out my punch for his card. [he's probably never heard of the
"TS Card" that was common in the military]

Speroni's "Analysis" is probably no more "flawed" than mine.
The difference is in his categorization and the fact that he
has NOT posted it in here. I began posting results almost
daily from the beginning of August; Speroni has ONE display
and MUST be taken as "accurate" (since he is an unabashed
morse code advocate). Speroni hasn't been subjected to the
heckling I've received in here on a regular basis since
September. :-)

Speroni counts REPLIES to Comments as "duplicates" in order
to arrive at a code-favored percentage in his "results." We
could extend that to questionable categorization of husband-
wife teams filing separately...but that effort isn't worth
the time wasted for "accuracy." There's also some obvious
(if one checks the posted address) of family members filing
separately. Lots and lots of variations of "inaccuracy"
charges possible!

Note also the subtle biasing of the icon indicators on
Speroni's "analysis" sheet. All those against code testing
have the red slant bar across them. All those for code
testing are green or blue with no ("do not do") red slant
bars. Those for-code icons are also clear, nothing to show
that they are the exact OPPOSITE of the NPRM. :-)

My "percentage" was shown strictly as an INDICATOR of the
opinion. What the FCC uses for decisions is up to them.
My "score card" isn't "official." Neither is Speroni's.

If anyone bothered to look at my continuing series of "score
card" postings, they would have seen a most decided "FOR"
position on the NPRM early in the comment period (better than
2:1). By the official notice date in the Federal Register,
VERY late in my opinion, the pro-code-test comments had
increased but not yet achieved "supremacy" over the no-code-
test comments OR the "code test for extra" folks.

Here's an important fact AND a big unknown about the
comments: According to the statements in both the NPRM
and Federal Register, the comment period begins ONLY on
the FR notice date. WE citizens don't know if the FCC
will consider all those comments made BEFORE the notice
date! If the FCC doesn't, then the number of CONSIDERED
filings drop to nearly half and the "percentages" get
skewed. Speroni did NOT mention that in his "analysis."
I did, from day one of the FR notice. The Federal Register
notices are legally binding on federal law, regulations,
and rules.

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Speroni has NOT "classified" or even included 10 filings
that showed up under 31 Oct 05, all done by LAW STUDENTS.
As of 2 PM EDT on 4 Nov 05, those "moot court" exercise
papers number 17 (3 are unidentified as to individual and
were copied and filed as one filing by the FCC). The total
number of filings up to the official end of Comments period
are now 3,697, not the lower number Speroni shows for today.

All this doesn't matter in RRAP as far as Miccolis is
concerned. Anyone favoring code testing is "accurate" to
him and anyone not favoring code testing is "inaccurate!"

Quod erat demonstrandum (for years in here). :-)



[a fan of author Tony Hillerman novels]

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl Wrote:


IF (let's be hypothetical) the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.


The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and
required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has
never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a
claim.

The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm
in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not
waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now
that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead
to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to
a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The president stands
based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty
established code speeds.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl Wrote:


IF (let's be hypothetical) the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.


The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and
required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has
never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a
claim.

The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm
in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not
waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now
that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead
to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to
a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The president stands
based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty
established code speeds.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Last I checked the president stands in the white house. Also last I checked
there was no precedent for a waiver of 5 word-per-min.

In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require possibility
of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing outright.

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Iitoi wrote:

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General.

I say it depends on what the question is. If you're talking about the
General, there's a clear majority to eliminate the code test for that
license. But if you're talking about the Extra, there's a clear
majority to keep the code test for *that* license.

If you're talking about complete code test elimination, which the NPRM
proposes, there's a clear majority *against* that.

Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

I disagree!

The medical waivers came about because of the request of a
now-dead King to a president who left office 13 years ago,
ADA had nothing to do with it IIRC.

Does anyone think otherwise?

Yes - me.

If medical waivers were a consideration, FCC could have
immediately reinstituted them in July 2003, claiming that
the only reason they didn't exist before was the treaty. But
they didn't.

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he could
not find the AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

Obviously not!

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

Bottom line again is "who cares?"

Obviously Len does - just look at how he carries on about it.....

In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing.

For General, yes. For Extra, the opposite is true.

But as we both know, FCC is under no mandate to
follow the majority opinion.

The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

So we compromise on 15 wpm.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Iitoi wrote:

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General. Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

Does anyone think otherwise?

I'll wager $1 across state lines that Jim Miccolis/N2EY does.

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he could
not find the
AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

Bottom line again is "who cares?" In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing. The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

It matters not. What matteres is the Jim Miccolis/N2EY has a platform
to attempt to discredit Len under any and every circumstance. Another
$1 says thats the truth.

wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Iitoi wrote:

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General.

I say it depends on what the question is.

Indeed it does but this is the very, very first time you've mentioned
it. All you've talked about up to this point is how some anonymous
tabulations are perfect and Len's is inaccurate, inaccurate,
inaccurate! Hi, hi!!! I think you have an axe to grind.

If you're talking about the
General, there's a clear majority to eliminate the code test for that
license.

You don't say?

But if you're talking about the Extra, there's a clear
majority to keep the code test for *that* license.

Really?

If you're talking about complete code test elimination, which the NPRM
proposes, there's a clear majority *against* that.

Says who?

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy.

Exactly! FCC need only consider the comments, not act on
them.

What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

I disagree, Bill. Or rather, I'd say it's not that clear.

Back in 1998, NCI supported the concept of "5 wpm
now, complete elimination when the treaty changes".
That position got about 45% support (check Carl's
post of around that time when he reported KC8EPO's
tally of comments).

Now the NPRM proposes "complete elimination now
that the treaty has changed" but the support is
still about 45% of commenters.

So the support for total code test elimination isn't much different
than it was 7 years ago.

The trend is and has been towards ending code.

Ending code or code *testing*?

Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Playing your number realignment, you must admit
then that 68% of commentors DO support ending
code for General.

Yep. Exactly as proposed by ARRL.

THAT is dramatic in comparison
to past opinion analysis.

We don't really know that, do we?
There was never a serious proposal
before that suggested "code test for
Extra only" that I know of.

Fair enough.

Agreed.

Consider too that
IF the FCC retained any level of code testing for
Extra then the FCC would/will have to reintroduce
waivers as the international treaty no longer provides
absolute minimal code requirements for any level.

Why would FCC "have to" do waivers? IIRC there's no
mention of waivers in the NPRM. The treaty's been
changed for almost 2-1/2 years but no waivers.

IF the code test isn't dropped totally, the president for
waivers in the absence of any treaty requirement will
rule.

How do we know that? If that precedent really existed,
why didn't FCC institute waivers as soon as the
treaty requirement ended? They wouldn't need an NPRM -
they could cite the 1990-2000 procedures and just change
the words for "5 wpm".

Inactivity in response to the treatty change by the FCC
can certainly be chalked up to digestion of the host
of petitions filed after WRC and the ultimate
issuance of NPRM 98-235 which is now pending.

Maybe - but if there really was a precedent, FCC could
cite it, but they haven't.

IF (let's be hypothetical)

Sure!

the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before
against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't
a right - only access to the tests for one is.

Waivers of any kind are a real quagmire because they
say the waivered test isn't really necessary for the
license. What's to prevent someone for demanding a
waiver of the Extra *written* test?

That's a path that FCC just won't go down.

Probably not.

PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the
FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code
was only retained for Extra.

Several:

First off, I don't think ADA has ever been successfully
cited against FCC regulations

Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial
thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar.

Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes,
bands or other operating privileges *except* a little
more frequency spectrum. There's also the vanity
call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but
that's about it.

Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right
to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only
access to the tests is a right.

As an analogy, consider the national parks. There
are places where access to the park by motor
vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that
all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle
because some people can't walk to them?

One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep
code testing but change how it is scored. One method is
to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written)
to the following:

Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the
35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark
on the code test.

That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code
test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more.

I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise
would pass ADA requirements.

I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems.

73 de Jim, N2EY