RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

December 15th 05, 10:04 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

From: on Thurs, Dec 15 2005 4:14 am

wrote:
From: on Dec 13, 7:32 pm
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

The starting path under discussion was the path to an amateur radio
license. You haven't taken the first step on that path.

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single
step"...some ancient Chinese proverb, I suppose.

Later on you will contradict yourself, but that is par for
your course.

I obtained a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 49 years ago.
First Class, one test, no repeats necessary.

WHY was it "required" that I obtain an amateur license?

37 years ago. I lost privileges. You and Len did not.

The entire USA amateur service lost in a big way,

How? Extras did not lose any privileges back then. Others could
get back the "lost" privileges by taking a test or two.

Nobody lost any bands, power or modes except Novices, who
lost 2 meter 'phone.

Was it necessary to punish amateurs?

Who was "punished"?

You tell us. You are the one into the dominatrix role.

but you find a way to personalize it.

The rules changes of 1968 and 1969 affected me at the time.

They affected everyone after you as well.

They did not affect you and they did not affect Len.

You're simply wrong on that one, Quitefine.

Lots of us radio pros without amateur licenses just didn't bother
to get an amateur license...not necessarily as a result of
"changes of 1968 or 1969."

That's fine, Len. Nobody says you have to get ana amateur radio
license.

"Ana amateur radio license?"

Ah, but YOU already said I had some kind of moral imperative
to get an amateur radio license. Hypocrite.

But it does seem a bit odd that you're expending so much
time and energy on the requirements for a license you aren't
going to get...

"Not going to get?" Who said that...besides YOU?

I'm just wanting the morse code test for an amateur radio
license eliminated.

Why are YOU "spending so much time and energy" trying to
throw **** on all of those desiring that test element 1
deletion?

What are you afraid of? Loss of your personal status,
title, and privileges?

What the heck, I'd already started
15 and 14 years before in HF comms where the operating
environment was a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER on all concerned than any
amateur activity.

How was it "a HELLUVA LOT TOUGHER", Len? I saw your "My 3 Years" thing.

The amateur radio service does not require its licensees to
wage war and kill the enemy.

The military "field days" were not little outings in a park
once a year.

Amateur radio doesn't operate in an environment of high
explosive ordinance going off nearby.

And why all the comparisons? You seem to feel a need to prove that you
had it "TOUGHER" than anybody else.....

To use a quaint and traditional military phrase, "****in-A!"

Yes, sweetums, I - and every other military person - had it
TOUGHER than you civilians safe at home.

Problem is, Jimmie doesn't think that others can think differently
so he doesn't think about the thousands of newcomers who MIGHT want
to get into amateur radio.

Len, I don't have any problem thinking others can think differently.
That doesn't mean I must agree with them.

Then why does your lofty highness insist all MUST agree
with YOUR opinions?

There's no specification for a lot of things in Part 97, yet there's no
problem.

Yes there is. License test regulations REQUIRE a code test for
any class having below-30-MHz operation privileges...BUT...the
FCC does not mandate all amateur USING morse code modes over
and above any other mode. All are optional.

NPRM 05-143 is SOLELY regarding the elimination of the code test
from the Commission's regulations for licensing in U.S. amateur
radio.

Not entirely true.

ENTIRELY TRUE.

That NPRM is also an R&O which denies a whole bunch of proposals
made earlier. Many ideas such as free upgrades and new license
classes were denied by FCC.

Are you totally without comprehension...or just partly?

NPRM = Notice of PROPOSED Rule Making.

An NPRM is simply a statement of what the FCC proposes to do.

A Memorandum Report and Order ("R&O") is the later ORDER
which establishes changes in regulations.

Since you are devoid of comprehension of the flow of
documents from the FCC, let me put down the order of things
as they happened:

1. WRC-03 action resulted in a revision of S25, the Radio
Regulations defining amateur radio. End of July 2003.

2. A total of 18 Petitions were sent to, and displayed to
the public by the FCC regarding revision to amateur
radio regulation changes as a result of WRC-03 actions.
Petitions shown to the public in two major groups
2003 to 2004 along with all Comments.

3. As a result of review of the Petitions and commentary
by the public on those Petitions, the FCC issued a
Notice of PROPOSED Rule Making...along with the reasons
the Commission had in deciding on what to put in that
PROPOSED Rule Makng. Released 15 July 2005. The end
of all Comments was 14 November 2005.

4. As of the latest Federal Register issue of Thursday,
December 15, 2005, there has been *NO* Memorandum
Report and Order released by the FCC concerning NPRM
05-143.

NPRM 05-143 DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF with ANY NEW PROPOSALS

It denies many existing ones - particularly some that would create new
license classes or eliminate old ones.

The Commission explained, in detail, WHY it reached its own
conclusions on what to put in the Notice of PROPOSED Rule
Making. Those conclusions were as a result of the 18
Petitions which had been presented to the public with the
public invited to comment on all 18 in the 2003-2004 time
period.

NPRM 05-143 does not, nor has any such Notice of PROPOSED
Rule Making ever done, establish any sort of ORDER to
change regulations. When such an ORDER is released, it
may be the same, may be different from the NPRM. That is
up to the FCC to decide. The FCC has the legal right to
make the final decisions on a Memorandum Report and ORDER.

In any event, there's no evidence FCC will change the *written* requirements,
number of license classes, the license class names or the associated
privileges, any time soon.

Irrelevant. NPRM 05-143 concerns itself solely with the
deletion of test element 1.

Just because no one at the FCC is paying attention doesn't mean that
the present rules are worthwhile.

"No one at the FCC is paying attention"?

Just because they disagree with you?

It was just a guess. Why else would they allow such arbitrary and
redundant rules, exams, and license classes to exist?

POLITICS. The present system of U.S. amateur radio regulations, at
least up to the year 2000, was lobbied for by the ARRL. The
Reading Room at the FCC is full of documents attesting to that.

It's also full of documents from non-ARRL sources "lobbying" for
the same things.

Tsk, bad spin on your part. The ARRL has remained an equivalent
of "City Hall" politics in the past...since the creation of
the FCC in 1934 and up until the beginning of the 1990s. It
has been clearly evident to disinterested parties in all that
time when the league got what the league wanted.

Did you read Footnote 142, Len?

Tsk, tsk, tsk, you don't like footnotes, Jimmie. You've said
so in the past.

No to all the above. FCC just doesn't think that amateur radio
deserves their maximum-mission attention in their Congress-law-
mandated task of regulating ALL United States civil radio.

How do you know, Len? You're not FCC.

It is very easy to see by any disinterested observer, Jimmie.

Go to the FCC website, go to the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau page, then through that go to the Amateur Radio page.
What is the latest date on important documents there? 2002.

There's not been ANY important issues put forth on that page
in three years. Not the S25 revisions at WRC-03, not the 18
Petitions, not the release of NPRM 05-143.

Now check around the OTHER radio services' issues, documents
and so forth and count them up anywhichwayyouwant. Far, far
MORE matters discussed by both the Commission and the Public
on those OTHER matters than amateur radio issues.

When the Commission does get around to regulating amateur radio,
it does so in Memorandum Reports and Orders which are extremely
detailed and explicit (and sometimes lengthy) to their task of
regulating all U.S. civil radio.

Then why the NPRM?

The Notice of PROPOSED Rule Making was in response to the public's
call for PETITIONS to change the amateur radio regulations after
the S25 Radio Regulations revisions at WRC-03.

NO Notice of Proposed Rule Making is ever a Memorandum Report
and Order. NPRMs do not change regulations. R&Os do.

Do you have to be led by the hand through this non-maze of
procedure or are you just being obstinate?

I understand the reason for the split in privs between the Tech/Tech+
and the G/A/E licensees. The reason for that barrier no longer exists,
but the exam and licensing schema has not kept pace. Time to perform a
top-down review, starting with basis and purpose.

The time may not be ripe just yet, Brian. Let's wait until the
FCC decides what to do about NPRM 05-143 and issue a Memorandum
Report and Order on it.

I think it's very likely that Element 1 will simply be eliminated.

Is your name Brian Burke? Are you having an identity crisis?

There's been two whole years of 18 Petitions commented on at length
since the end of WRC-03 and now NPRM 05-143 which can settle the
morse code testing for a license issue.

Probably. But you won't be satisfied with that, despite your frequent
claims of only wanting to eliminate the Morse Code test.

Jimmie Noserve, GIVE UP trying to tell me "what I will do."

You don't have the authority nor the qualifications to be ME
nor judgemental on "what I will do."

Why can't Technicians operate on 14.026? Why can't hams operate on
13.976?

And there you go with the ultimatums and strawmen.

Jimmie with newsgroup wordplay again. About this point, Hans will
jump in saying you are "simply mistaken" and babbling about how
the "IARU and ITU" are different or other semi-sweet non-sequitur.

Can't answer the questions, eh?

Jimmie, you present NO valid questions. Ergo, no valid answers
required.

Regardless, "the 1998 ARRL proposal" is OLD HISTORY. It doesn't
apply to anything NOW.

Brian brought it up.

No, you've continually barfed up League-speak in here as a
devoted postulant at the Church of St. Hiram.

You constantly bring up much older history ("My 3 Years") that doesn't
apply to anything NOW....

Tsk, tsk, tsk, that's an entirely different "discussion"
concerning overt LYING of military service by Dudly the
Imposter (aka "K4YZ").

I brought up a VALID example some years ago on why the
majority of military communications worldwide was NOT done
by morse code mode since 1948...for the reason being that I
was assigned at a major Army communications station serving
a theater command Hq and stayed there for three years.

YOU have NEVER done anything approaching that. In fact, YOU
have NEVER served in any military service of the USA.

Naturally you would be upset about anyone else doing something
big and important in HF communications. TS.

For example, I think the ARRL made a big mistake not letting WK3C run for
Director of the Atlantic Division. That's *my* division, btw...

Is your Division mobilized and ready to ship out to fight
the War on Terror? Bon voyage.

Jimmie lives in the past. Period. He has been bringing up
1998 "proposals" when he should be bringing up 2004 Petitions
on the current NPRM 05-143.

Who are you to tell me what I should do, Len? You're not in charge.

Poor baby, can't get things straight on Commission procedure?

Jimmie, 98-143 was settled, made devoid by Memorandum Report
and Order 99-412 released in late December 1999. 98-143 is
OLD HISTORY. Defunct. Available only for archival study and
not applicable to NPRM 05-143.

The change of zoning near your house did not remove any privileges from
you, did it, Len? It didn't make your taxes go up or require you to change
your house in any way, right?

Irrelevant to RADIO REGULATIONS. Local zoning laws have NOTHING
to do with federal radio regulations. Give it up.

I'm glad that you easily grasp the concept that these are, after all,
only our opinions. Not "Statements of Fact," nor "Assertions of Fact."
Expressing an opinion does not make one a liar.

...unless you are in a "discussion" with Dudly the Imposter.

But I'm not that person.

Tsk, your behavior in here has always been similar to his.

Or someone who tells a US Navy veteran to shove something up his I/O
port?

One military veteran can tell another military veteran lots
of things. Brakob, Burke, and myself are all military
veterans. YOU have NEVER been an military veteran.

Here's a quaint old military phrase given in the tradition
and sincerity of the military service: "Go **** yourself!"

That will take care of Saturday night for you...