FCC & ARRL partners in the Culture of Corruption

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
I really have no problem with an experience criteria
(e.g.a time interval between General and Extra).

Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now
anyone can go from any license class or no license at all
to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement
would mean that many hams would need at least two exam
sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra.
More admin work = not something FCC would like.

Any idea what percent of people actually pass both
the General and the Extra in one session?

Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable
while the number of Extras just keeps growing.

Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you
haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General,
there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while
they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session
intending on the General and who came home with an Extra.

Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC
office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested
that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since
I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in
the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The
Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed.

I suspect the number is relatively small.

Check the AH0A site under "new licenses".
While most hams start out as Techs,
every month a small but not negligible
number go straight to General or Extra.

That's my question, how small is that number?
Also, the AH0A site doesn't truly indicate if
someone went immediately from Tech to Extra
at the same VE session so the ability to determine
how many did so via AH0A stats isn't accurate

It's impossible to accurately determine *upgrades* from AH0A's
numbers. An upgrade is classed as a modification, same as an address
or name change.

But if you look at the number of new licenses, it's clear that at least
some
new hams bypass Tech and go straight for General or Extra. AH0A's
numbers only count as "new" licenses where the licensee was not
in the database at all during the previous month.

Of course some "new" licenses are actually "retread" hams, who let
their licenses lapse for whatever reason and now are back.

Regardless of the number,
I doubt FCC would bring back the experience
requirement after 30 years without one.
Particularly since they'd have to enforce it.

What's to enforce? All it comes down to is license issuing.

Seems all the FCC need do is not allow the upgrade unless
the applicant has 'N' years of elapsed time since getting their
General. The FCC database system could automatically
withhold issuing the Extra unless the time interval is elapsed.
It could even be automatic so the person might pass their
Extra at some point and the FCC system having been notified
of the person passing Extra would then be updated and at
the elapsed time interval, the FCC could then automatically
issue the Extra upgrade. Just some basic software application
reprograming as I see it.

Actually the enforcement would fall upon the VEs anyway. They'd
be required to only give the Extra test to those who could show
a General or Advanced license that had been issued at least
X amount of time previously. Form 605 could be changed so
that you'd have to indicate the effective date of the General, etc.

Why should an applicant be prohibited from taking and passing
the test? The time interval should be limiting the actual
license issuance...not serve as a roadblock to taking the
test at any time.

So it really wouldn't be an FCC enforcement thing at all.

OTOH, it would increase FCC admin work slightly because they'd
have more upgrades to process.

The big hurdle would be selling FCC on the idea that an experience
requirement is needed, after 30 years without one. That selling job
would rival convincing them that a 5 wpm code test is still
needed.......;-)

We'll likly never know :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm

wrote:

Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling
at handwritten letters?

In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere
close to DC. Where were you? Still "chuckling" in the
zygote pool?

[ chuckle, chuckle ]


Things are a bit different now. Internet access to ALL
government is faster than overnight express mail. FCC has
to accept ALL filings. By law.

It's always been that way, Len.

Not before 1934. :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

The correspondence on hot-
ticket Dockets is enormous compared to more than a half
century ago.

Fun fact:

Back about 1964 - a bit more than a dozen years after 1951, and more
than 25 years before "the internet went public", the proposed changes
that would come to be known as "incentive licensing" caused FCC to
receive over 6000 comments. Back then the US amateur population was
less than half what it is today, and practically all of them went by US
mail.

Did the FCC "chuckle" over them?

Did you work for FCC in 1964, Jim-Jim? Did you see all those
"6000" comments?

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

In 1964 I was Chief Engineer at Birtcher Instruments Division
and had received my Army Honorable Discharge four years before
that. Where were you then?

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

Remember, Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday...

wrote:
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm

wrote:

Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling
at handwritten letters?

In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere
close to DC. Where were you? Still "chuckling" in the
zygote pool?

[ chuckle, chuckle ]


Things are a bit different now. Internet access to ALL
government is faster than overnight express mail. FCC has
to accept ALL filings. By law.

It's always been that way, Len.

Not before 1934. :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

The correspondence on hot-
ticket Dockets is enormous compared to more than a half
century ago.

Fun fact:

Back about 1964 - a bit more than a dozen years after 1951, and more
than 25 years before "the internet went public", the proposed changes
that would come to be known as "incentive licensing" caused FCC to
receive over 6000 comments. Back then the US amateur population was
less than half what it is today, and practically all of them went by US
mail.

Did the FCC "chuckle" over them?

Did you work for FCC in 1964, Jim-Jim? Did you see all those
"6000" comments?

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

In 1964 I was Chief Engineer at Birtcher Instruments Division
and had received my Army Honorable Discharge four years before
that. Where were you then?

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

Remember, Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday...



Jim has an Honorable discharge? I didn't even know that he served.

wrote:
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm

wrote:

Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling
at handwritten letters?

In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere
close to DC.

So you don't really know what you're talking about when you
talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments.

Things are a bit different now. Internet access to ALL
government is faster than overnight express mail. FCC has
to accept ALL filings. By law.

It's always been that way, Len.

Not before 1934. :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

The correspondence on hot-
ticket Dockets is enormous compared to more than a half
century ago.

Fun fact:

Back about 1964 - a bit more than a dozen years after 1951, and more
than 25 years before "the internet went public", the proposed changes
that would come to be known as "incentive licensing" caused FCC to
receive over 6000 comments. Back then the US amateur population was
less than half what it is today, and practically all of them went by US
mail.

Did the FCC "chuckle" over them?

Did you work for FCC in 1964, Jim-Jim? Did you see all those
"6000" comments?

No - but they existed, nonetheless.

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

In 1964 I was Chief Engineer at Birtcher Instruments Division
and had received my Army Honorable Discharge four years before
that.

In other words, you had nothing to do with FCC then, either.

From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm

wrote:
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm
wrote:


Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling
at handwritten letters?

In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere
close to DC.

So you don't really know what you're talking about when you
talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments.

Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on
the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795
filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel
of laffs! :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the
twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being
made on 5 August 2005! :-)

98-143 had an average of 206 filings per month while 05-235
had 949 per month. The percentage of written letter filings
on 98-143 was 10.4 while on 05-235 it was only 2.2 percent.


Things are a bit different now. Internet access to ALL
government is faster than overnight express mail. FCC has
to accept ALL filings. By law.

It's always been that way, Len.

Not before 1934. :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

What...no pointy remark to that? :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]


Back about 1964 - a bit more than a dozen years after 1951, and more
than 25 years before "the internet went public", the proposed changes
that would come to be known as "incentive licensing" caused FCC to
receive over 6000 comments. Back then the US amateur population was
less than half what it is today, and practically all of them went by US
mail.

Did the FCC "chuckle" over them?

Did you work for FCC in 1964, Jim-Jim? Did you see all those
"6000" comments?

No - but they existed, nonetheless.

Riiiiight...you went to the Reading Room at the FCC to "see"
them? Was a fairly easy access to documents before 11
September 2001.

Oh, right...the ARRL TOLD YOU! Or you channeled St. Hiram on
the subject and you got the number in a vision?

1964 is FORTY ONE YEARS AGO, old-timer. Two generations in time.
CWO Johnny Walker had already gotten his first spy payments from
the KGB. The Vietnam War was beginning to hot up again now that
the French had given up there. Communist China was busy with
their "cultural revolution." The beginning of the solid-state
era had begun. Teletype Corporation was busy starting marketing
for their 100 WPM teletypewriters. The first of the comm sats
had been lofted. The Cold War was still set on "simmer" with no
sign the flame had gone out. We got coast-to-coast TV, in color,
and some radio amateurs thought manual morse code marked
"excellence in radio!" :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

In 1964 I was Chief Engineer at Birtcher Instruments Division
and had received my Army Honorable Discharge four years before
that.

In other words, you had nothing to do with FCC then, either.

"Nothing?!?" Mais non!

Eight years prior to 1964 I'd already passed my First Phone test
and had been working at four broadcast stations (got the
signatures on the back of my First Phone license certificate).
Had already renewed that First Phone once...through the Long
Beach, CA, FCC Field Office (which was/is in the San Pedro
harbor area). I'd applied for, and gotten two CB licenses (no
test, never was a test for them). I'd already worked at a
southern California broadcast station on a part-time basis, got
that signature on the back of my first renewed First Phone
certificate. I was still subscribing for updates to the FCC
regulations (loose leaf format) from the U.S. GPO but that
would soon change to bound format, reprint every two years
(too many radio services already). I'd already used that First
Phone for radio communications while a student pilot (given up
due to cost of private flying vs other expenses), avoiding
having to get a Restricted 3rd Class Phone (which required
some letters of explanation from the Long Beach, CA, FCC Field
Office to the instructors at Skyways that operated out of Van
Nuys Airport...they didn't believe it). In my job of designing
and engineering semiconductor test sets at Birtcher, all I had
to do on "FCC matters" was making certain those test sets and
their plug-ins didn't exceed incidental RF radiation limits
(the very low-duty cycle plug-ins were found to cause RF
oscillation at tester pulse edges, solved by using ferrite
tubes as chokes on the test socket leads). A renewal of the
CBs was coming up soon, those renewals, pro forma as they were,
had to go to the FCC...and with notary public seals.

Electro-Optical Systems in Pasadena was busy hiring for their
spacecraft work and I shift to there from Monterey Park, CA,
in late 1964. Spacecraft fabrication in a clean room didn't
involve any "FCC licenses." What RF work was needed took
place under government radio regulations, not civil radio.
FCC was not involved in government radio then...or now.

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

No, sweetums, I was NOT opining anything pro/con on morse code
skill as the primus inter pares of amateur radio operating
excellence nor had I any "incentives" for ham radio in 1964.
Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse
code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago. Why
bother pursuing a dying technique back then?

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm
wrote:
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm
wrote:

Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling
at handwritten letters?

In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere
close to DC.

So you don't really know what you're talking about when you
talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments.

Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on
the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795
filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel
of laffs! :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

So you really don't know what you're talking about when
you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments.

By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the
twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being
made on 5 August 2005! :-)

Why does that matter?

98-143 had an average of 206 filings per month while 05-235
had 949 per month. The percentage of written letter filings
on 98-143 was 10.4 while on 05-235 it was only 2.2 percent.

IIRC you had to file on 98-143 by mail.....you couldn't get ECFS
to work for you back then.....

(snort...guffaw...)

Back about 1964 - a bit more than a dozen years after 1951, and more
than 25 years before "the internet went public", the proposed changes
that would come to be known as "incentive licensing" caused FCC to
receive over 6000 comments. Back then the US amateur population was
less than half what it is today, and practically all of them went by US
mail.

Did the FCC "chuckle" over them?

Did you work for FCC in 1964, Jim-Jim? Did you see all those
"6000" comments?

No - but they existed, nonetheless.

Riiiiight...you went to the Reading Room at the FCC to "see"
them? Was a fairly easy access to documents before 11
September 2001.

Oh, right...the ARRL TOLD YOU! Or you channeled St. Hiram on
the subject and you got the number in a vision?

FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals,
Len. Without the internet. That's a fact.

1964 is FORTY ONE YEARS AGO, old-timer.

And only 13 years after 1951.

The fact is that even back then, with no internet and no ECFS,
there were over 6000 comments received by FCC on a proposal to
change the amateur radio license rules. Kinda deflates your rant about
ECFS and such, doesn't it?

Two generations in time.
CWO Johnny Walker had already gotten his first spy payments from
the KGB.

Did he comment on the incentive licensing proposals?

The Vietnam War was beginning to hot up again now that
the French had given up there.

"hot up"?

Communist China was busy with
their "cultural revolution."

We see how well that worked out.

The beginning of the solid-state era had begun.

The beginning had begun? Third graders write better than that, Len.

Besides, the transistor was invented in 1948.... (chuckle)

Teletype Corporation was busy starting marketing
for their 100 WPM teletypewriters.

Marketing to whom? How much did one cost? Do you think the
average ham could afford one?

The first of the comm sats
had been lofted.

"Lofted", huh? Fancy space talk?

OSCAR 1 had been launched in 1961.

The Cold War was still set on "simmer" with no
sign the flame had gone out. We got coast-to-coast TV, in color,
and some radio amateurs thought manual morse code marked
"excellence in radio!" :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

You weren't a ham then and you're not one now. Morse Code is one
form of excellence in radio, btw - then and now.

In 1964 I was Chief Engineer at Birtcher Instruments Division
and had received my Army Honorable Discharge four years before
that.

Y'know, Len, you sure seem to have held a lot of different jobs at a
lot
of different companies over the years. Couldn't you get along with
people?

In other words, you had nothing to do with FCC then, either.

"Nothing?!?" Mais non!

Nothing. You didn't work for FCC, didn't have anything to do with
FCC rules for the Amateur Radio Service.

Eight years prior to 1964 I'd already passed my First Phone test
and had been working at four broadcast stations (got the
signatures on the back of my First Phone license certificate).

Four jobs in eight years? Or were there more?

Had already renewed that First Phone once...through the Long
Beach, CA, FCC Field Office (which was/is in the San Pedro
harbor area). I'd applied for, and gotten two CB licenses (no
test, never was a test for them).

Did FCC ever turn anybody down for a cb permit?

Are you still on cb, Len? Or did the changes in that service make
it unappealing to you?

I'd already worked at a
southern California broadcast station on a part-time basis, got
that signature on the back of my first renewed First Phone
certificate. I was still subscribing for updates to the FCC
regulations (loose leaf format) from the U.S. GPO but that
would soon change to bound format, reprint every two years
(too many radio services already).

Too many radio services? Which ones would you have FCC abolish?

I'd already used that First
Phone for radio communications while a student pilot (given up
due to cost of private flying vs other expenses), avoiding
having to get a Restricted 3rd Class Phone (which required
some letters of explanation from the Long Beach, CA, FCC Field
Office to the instructors at Skyways that operated out of Van
Nuys Airport...they didn't believe it).

Why not? Did they find it hard to believe you had any sort of FCC
license?

In my job of designing
and engineering semiconductor test sets at Birtcher, all I had
to do on "FCC matters" was making certain those test sets and
their plug-ins didn't exceed incidental RF radiation limits
(the very low-duty cycle plug-ins were found to cause RF
oscillation at tester pulse edges, solved by using ferrite
tubes as chokes on the test socket leads). A renewal of the
CBs was coming up soon, those renewals, pro forma as they were,
had to go to the FCC...and with notary public seals.

I suppose FCC chuckled over those seals, huh?

Electro-Optical Systems in Pasadena was busy hiring for their
spacecraft work and I shift to there from Monterey Park, CA,
in late 1964.

*Another* job?

Spacecraft fabrication in a clean room didn't
involve any "FCC licenses." What RF work was needed took
place under government radio regulations, not civil radio.
FCC was not involved in government radio then...or now.

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

No, sweetums, I was NOT opining anything pro/con on morse code
skill as the primus inter pares of amateur radio operating
excellence nor had I any "incentives" for ham radio in 1964.

Like I said - you had nothing to do with amateur radio policy
back then, nor with FCC's regulation of amateur radio...

Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse
code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago.

Well, you were wrong, Len. Because Morse Code is still alive and
well in radio today.

Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then?

Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in
amateur radio, anyway.

How many techniques did you pursue back then which are
long gone - dead - now? Does anybody use 100 wpm teletypewriters
anymore? Do broadcast stations have FCC licensed engineers
on duty while they're on the air anymore? Etc.

Your value system is very clear, Len - if something in radio
took some of your time or effort but didn't pay back in dollars,
you avoided it.

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm
wrote:
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm
wrote:

Did you work for FCC in 1951, Len? Did you see FCC chuckling
at handwritten letters?

In 1951 I was working at my first full-time job, nowhere
close to DC.

So you don't really know what you're talking about when you
talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments.

Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on
the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795
filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel
of laffs! :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

So you really don't know what you're talking about when
you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments.

he can make the same assumetion you can

By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the
twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being
made on 5 August 2005! :-)

Why does that matter?

becuase it isn't suposed to hapen at least if it does they are all
supose to have been mailed before the deadline

why does it seem you don't care about the rul of of law when it suits
you
cut

Oh, right...the ARRL TOLD YOU! Or you channeled St. Hiram on
the subject and you got the number in a vision?

FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals,
Len. Without the internet. That's a fact.

indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was

how the ARRL tired to kill the ars
cut

The beginning of the solid-state era had begun.

The beginning had begun? Third graders write better than that, Len.

bad jimmie Stevie job is to play speling cop

cut

You weren't a ham then and you're not one now. Morse Code is one
form of excellence in radio, btw - then and now.

only in your opinion and that of others

IMO it has been one of the banes of the ARS for decades
cut
In other words, you had nothing to do with FCC then, either.

"Nothing?!?" Mais non!

Nothing. You didn't work for FCC, didn't have anything to do with
FCC rules for the Amateur Radio Service.

a flat out lie Jim he has had something to do with making the FCC rules
as has Myself Bil Sohl yourself and a couple of thousand others
cut
Had already renewed that First Phone once...through the Long
Beach, CA, FCC Field Office (which was/is in the San Pedro
harbor area). I'd applied for, and gotten two CB licenses (no
test, never was a test for them).

Did FCC ever turn anybody down for a cb permit?

Are you still on cb, Len?

why should he not be on CB

Or did the changes in that service make
it unappealing to you?

Cbers seem by and large politeir than hams with folks they disagree
with they can be a bit vulgar for my taste on the air, but there are 40
channels to choose from
cut

Spacecraft fabrication in a clean room didn't
involve any "FCC licenses." What RF work was needed took
place under government radio regulations, not civil radio.
FCC was not involved in government radio then...or now.

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

No, sweetums, I was NOT opining anything pro/con on morse code
skill as the primus inter pares of amateur radio operating
excellence nor had I any "incentives" for ham radio in 1964.

Like I said - you had nothing to do with amateur radio policy
back then, nor with FCC's regulation of amateur radio...

more lies Jim

Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse
code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago.

Well, you were wrong, Len. Because Morse Code is still alive and
well in radio today.

Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then?

Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in
amateur radio, anyway.

not what I hear

How many techniques did you pursue back then which are
long gone - dead - now? Does anybody use 100 wpm teletypewriters
anymore? Do broadcast stations have FCC licensed engineers
on duty while they're on the air anymore? Etc.

Your value system is very clear, Len - if something in radio
took some of your time or effort but didn't pay back in dollars,
you avoided it.

if your statement is accurate (not comenting on that yea or nea) so
what

you value nothing without involing Morse Code

I think Money is better standard than Code knowledge

you can use money to feed yourself can't do that with morse

From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm
wrote:
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm
wrote:


Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on
the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795
filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel
of laffs! :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

So you really don't know what you're talking about when
you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments.

he can make the same assumetion you can

Mark, there's something curious about morsemen. They are very
SERIOUS about their hobby and INTENSE on certain skills. Their
sense of humor is limited only to THEM "laughing" at those who
disagree on telegraphy testing.

BTW, there's 3,796 filings now, one was added on the 28th. :-)


By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the
twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being
made on 5 August 2005! :-)

Why does that matter?

becuase it isn't suposed to hapen at least if it does they are all
supose to have been mailed before the deadline

The specific date periods on comments applies to the
Commission's activities on decision-making for a final
Memorandum Report and Order. That date period is determined
by statements made in the publishing of a docket/proceedure
in the Federal Register. Standard practice at the FCC.

In the case of publishing NPRM 05-143, the Commission was 6
calendar weeks LATE. NPRM 05-143 was opened to the public on
19 July 2005. Publishing in the Federal Register didn't
happen until 31 August 2005. The date period for comments
was not specifically stated in NPRM 05-143, was specifically
stated in the Federal Register on 31 August 2005.

The normal delay on public release to publishing is anywhere
from zero days to a week. A few have taken longer, but it
would be a VERY long search to find a docket/proceeding that
was delayed SIX WEEKS. In those SIX WEEKS DELAY the public
filed 52% of all comments filed.

The "public" may not be fully aware of the official comment
period beginning date. The Commission is fairly speedy on
getting proceedings published in the Federal Register. The
"public" does not consist of just attorneys and beaurocrats
handling law, so they would generally be unaware of that
delay. Such a long time was unexpected.

why does it seem you don't care about the rul of of law when it suits
you

Jimmy Noserve only cares about the preservation of morse code,
everything from "operating skill" to the license test. He
can't bear to give up any of that.


Oh, right...the ARRL TOLD YOU! Or you channeled St. Hiram on
the subject and you got the number in a vision?

FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals,
Len. Without the internet. That's a fact.

indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was

how the ARRL tired to kill the ars

Mark, Jimmy has NOT proven his "fact." The only way to determine
that "fact" is to visit the FCC Reading Room in DC and view all
the filings. Those old dockets and proceedings aren't on-line.

As to "disaster," that is subjective opinion. In the long run,
"incentive licensing" only served to harden the class
distinction among licensees. It got too cumbersome for the
future to the Commission, so they streamlined it via FCC 99-412.

The League lobbied for, and got "incentive licensing." Old-timers
of the League loved radiotelegraphy, following the "tradition"
established by its first president, St. Hiram. Old-timers
wanted to prove Their radiotelegraphy skill was the "highest"
attribute of amateurism. They got it, complete with rank-
status-privilege. Especially the privileges. They were better
than anyone...in their minds.

The beginning of the solid-state era had begun.

The beginning had begun? Third graders write better than that, Len.

bad jimmie Stevie job is to play speling cop

Sister Nun of the Above got into the act, spanking ruler at the
ready. She didn't hit anything, though.

Sister apparently has never used the word "jibe," thought I
was "jiving her." :-)


You weren't a ham then and you're not one now. Morse Code is one
form of excellence in radio, btw - then and now.

only in your opinion and that of others

Up to mid-2000, the highest-rate telegraphy skill was
NECESSARY to achieve the "highest" class license.

IMO it has been one of the banes of the ARS for decades

True enough.

But, look out, I can see Sister approaching with her ruler!
She is going to criticize use of the word "bane!" :-)


In other words, you had nothing to do with FCC then, either.

"Nothing?!?" Mais non!

Nothing. You didn't work for FCC, didn't have anything to do with
FCC rules for the Amateur Radio Service.

a flat out lie Jim he has had something to do with making the FCC rules
as has Myself Bil Sohl yourself and a couple of thousand others

Jimmy is getting desperate on "having to do with" stuff. :-)

The FCC has had commentary periods for nearly all the major
issues affecting U.S. radio amateurs since its creation in
1934. [exceptions are federal orders to cease transmission
on Presidential orders and the "housekeeping" changes to
Parts of Title 47 which regarded legal clarification of some
regulations corrections]

The Constitution of the United States gives all its citizens
the Right to address their government...on anything. The
comment period of dockets and proceedings at the FCC is one
way to do that on specific radio regulatory issues.

Jimmy seems very territorial. He regards federal amateur radio
regulations as "private turf" which can ONLY be discussed by
licensed radio operators to their government. That is wrong.
The FCC must listen to ALL...including English teachers who
haven't the foggiest notion of what "radio" is, let alone
amateur radio (she had to research the subject through
WikiPedia). :-)

Both Bill Sohl and Carl Stevenson have appeared in-person
before the FCC in regards to the code-test/no-code-test
issue. That's about as close as ANY in here have been to
the regulation-decision-makers without actually working
there (as Phil Kane did).

The Staff and Commissioners at the FCC decide what is to be
changed and how to change radio regulations...DEPENDING on
input from the "public." [a "researching" of Parts 0 and 1
of Title 47 C.F.R. will explain that, also the Communicaitons
Act of 1934, a Law passed by Congress]


Had already renewed that First Phone once...through the Long
Beach, CA, FCC Field Office (which was/is in the San Pedro
harbor area). I'd applied for, and gotten two CB licenses (no
test, never was a test for them).

Did FCC ever turn anybody down for a cb permit?

Are you still on cb, Len?

why should he not be on CB

Citizens Band Radio Service had "permits?" :-) Strange, my
forms said they were LICENSES. No tests at all required.

Were any "turned down?" I don't really know. I've heard of those
but never met anyone who was "turned down."

I opt NOT to bother with CB radio since it is not to my needs
in communicating anything by radio. The little two-way radio
terminal called a "cell phone" serves both me and my wife very
adequately in mobile communications needs.

My old Johnson Viking Messenger CB radio still works, is still
operating within FCC regulations. It is a relatively easy
task to connect it up to an antenna (mag-mount) in the car,
plug it into the car's 12 VDC system, and operate. If the
vibrator high-voltage supply will continue working, it is as
reliable as any old tube radio. [vibrator supplies were NEVER
considered reliable, but they were terribly cheap in consumer
grade tube equipments] Living within a mile of I-5 passing
through has shown that a few channels for CB are way too few
for the hundreds of thousands of CB users...years ago.


Cbers seem by and large politeir than hams with folks they disagree
with they can be a bit vulgar for my taste on the air, but there are 40
channels to choose from

Irrelevant to Jimmy's remarks. All Jimmy wants to do is show
contempt for CB. Since he was living in 1958 when that service
(on the 27 MHz band) was created, he feels contemptuous of all
who have not taken a federal test to "qualify" for radio
transmission below 30 MHz. :-)

[I think he was born an amateur...:-) ]

CB communications are "Too vulgar?" I've heard much, much
greater vulgarity in the military service (which Jimmy was
never a part of nor will he ever be). I've heard greater
vulgarity on shop floors from union members. I've heard
greater vulgarity in the black sections of Los Angeles. I need
to brush up on my Spanish to find out if the language there in
the barrios is "too vulgar." :-)


Like I said - you had nothing to do with amateur radio policy
back then, nor with FCC's regulation of amateur radio...

more lies Jim

Jimmy, who never worked IN the FCC (and will never do so),
thinks that just having an amateur license means he had
"something to do with amateur radio regulations." :-)

Jimmy is just being "vulgar." :-)


Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse
code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago.

Well, you were wrong, Len. Because Morse Code is still alive and
well in radio today.

Tsk, tsk, Jimmy's working receiver can't pick up anything but
the "low end" of the HF amateur bands...and he thinks that
radiotelegraphy is still a big mode in radio? Incredible!


Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then?

Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in
amateur radio, anyway.

not what I hear

You have to give Jimmy some slack, Mark. Since his receiver
can't pick up anything outside the "low end" of HF ham bands,
he thinks HF is still "alive with the sounds of morse code"
(as if Julie Andrews were singing it on top of a hill).

How many techniques did you pursue back then which are
long gone - dead - now? Does anybody use 100 wpm teletypewriters
anymore? Do broadcast stations have FCC licensed engineers
on duty while they're on the air anymore? Etc.

Actually, those electromechanical teletypewriters with 100
WPM throughput are still in use in a few places...but they
are waaayyyyyy down in numbers. Teletype Corporation went
defunct some years ago...they couldn't produce a product
inexpensive enough to handle written communications needs.
Even TDDs have dropped electromechanical teletypewriters in
favor of smaller, easier to use solid-state terminals.

The requirements for licensed COMMERCIAL radio operators at
radio broadcasting stations is down but I haven't checked
to see if broadcasting regulations changed to allow ALL.
An amateur radio license was NEVER a "qualification" to
operate anything but an amateur radio on amateur frequencies.

Vacuum tube design and use in designs is almost kaput. The
solid-state devices made most of them obsolete. Tubes remain
only as very high-power transmitter final amplifiers, as
wideband (one octave plus) amplifiers in microwaves, as
magnetrons in microwave ovens, as assorted klystrons in
microwave radios. CRTs are going bye-bye, replaced by solid-
state displays in TV sets (to press a ****y point, "liquid-
state" in LCD screens). A very few optical detection
devices use multi-stage photomultipliers. NODs (Night
Observation Devices) still depend on a special photodetector
and photon multiplier tube set. Oh, and high-power radars
still use pulsed maggies for those transmitters. Tubes are
now used only as REPLACEMENTS...except by those who can't
hack engineering of solid-state circuits...or long for days
of yore, when they were born (or before).


Your value system is very clear, Len - if something in radio
took some of your time or effort but didn't pay back in dollars,
you avoided it.

if your statement is accurate (not comenting on that yea or nea) so
what you value nothing without involing Morse Code

Poor Jimmy is verging on a breakdown. He is picking up on the
old socialist or communist sloganeering against evil, filthy
capitalists who have obtained money the old fashioned way...
they EARNED it! Jimmy sounds like he doesn't have much money.

Tsk, tsk. I entered electronics and radio in the vacuum tube
era and learned how to design circuits using tubes. Had to
put aside everything but the basics of those circuits in order
to work with transistors, then ICs. Took lots of learning
AND relearning to do all that and I did it on my own time.
It was worth it in the knowledge acquired, the experience
gained in making successful designs, eminently satisfactory
to me. Lots and lots of new things were learned out of sheer
interest in learning more about NEW areas, things that were
NOT of personal monetary gain.

Jimmy can't shift out of his League-conditioned thinking about
morsemanship being the ultimate skill in radio. He doesn't
understand how it is to BEGIN in HF communications WITHOUT
any morse code mode needs. He must really resent others
who've entered the bigger world of radio communications without
being required in any way to be morsemen.


you can use money to feed yourself can't do that with morse

One can waste a LOT of time looking for radiotelegraphy jobs!
Those are quite scarce! If Jimmy wasn't so old, he could join
the Army and be an "army of one" analyzing foreign morse code
radio intercepts (but I'll bet he would hate the Ft. Huachuca
M.I. school in the summertime).

I doubt there is one job opening in the entire USA that requires
any manual telegraphy (morse code) skills for wired
communications now. If he joined SAG or SEG he might get a part
in some western movie or TV show as an actor playing the part of
a telegrapher.

Well, Jimmy could go to sea if he got a Radiotelegraph (Commercial)
license. Problem is, he'd have to use SSB voice, one of the TORs
(Teletypewriter Over Radio), and VHF FM voice for most ship
masters. Jimmy wouldn't like that. He couldn't pop into the
galley and cook big turkeys at his whim.

Confusion say: Man with one-track mind often get train of
thought derailed.

bit bit

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm

(SNIP)

Having seen some of the handwritten "comments" sent in on
the 2,272 filings in WT Docket 98-143 and ALL of the 3,795
filings in WT Docket 05-235, some are a hilarious barrel
of laffs! :-)

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

So you really don't know what you're talking about when
you talk about FCC "chuckling" over some comments.

he can make the same assumetion you can

By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the
twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being
made on 5 August 2005! :-)

Why does that matter?

becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all
suposed to have been mailed before the deadline

why does it seem you don't care about the
rule of of law when it suits you

(SNIP)

FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals,
Len. Without the internet. That's a fact.

indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was

how the ARRL tired to kill the ars

THE only reason comment volume ( 6000 ) on incentive
licensing was so high is because every General and every
Advanced was going to LOSE privileges. Human nature
is such that when threatened with a lose, people speak up...
but if the changes don't truly alter their current status then
most don't care and say nothing.

(SNIP)

Based on my "first job in radio" I already knew that morse
code was a dead end in radio in 1964, 41 years ago.

Well, you were wrong, Len.
Because Morse Code is still alive and
well in radio today.

It has a following in amateur radio, but that's
like saying that archery is not dead as a weapon
of choice because a group of people like and do it.

Why bother pursuing a dying technique back then?

Morse Code wasn't "dying" back then and it isn't "dying" now - in
amateur radio, anyway.

not what I hear

Maybe not dying, but taking a smaller role as each year moves
forward. Are there absolute proofs that is so? No, but reality
on the ham bands seems to me to indicate so. Your mileage
may vary :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK