wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Yep. In fact the shouting is over too - I don't think FCC would
entertain any
Petitions for Reconsideration.

Then what do your ham friends at the FCC say is the hold-up? Is a
national amateur radio organization involved in the hold-up?


Normal bureaucratic lack of speed. It will probably show up in the Federal
Register around January 19th based on the past.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Yep. In fact the shouting is over too - I don't think FCC would
entertain any
Petitions for Reconsideration.

Then what do your ham friends at the FCC say is the hold-up? Is a
national amateur radio organization involved in the hold-up?

The delay is purely administrative requirements (rules can't legally take
effect, except in the most
extraordinary, emergency cases, without due notice in the Federal Register.

There is always a backlog of things waiting to be published in the F.R.

That is all.

Carl - wk3c


As Yogi Berra was quoted as saying "It ain't over till
its over!"

The "fat lady" hasn't sung yet and the Federal Register
won't be issued until Wednesday. FCC 06-178 has been
announced but it is ONLY an announcement and not yet
law.

Two days of the Federal Register Volume 72 and no R&O in either. Maybe
today. I'm
keeping watch....

Best of Luck.

From: on Mon, Jan 1 2007 8:28 am

John Smith I wrote:
Len don't give a chit about children having fun ...

Well, actually he does - and not in a positive way.

There's never been a minimum age requirement for a US amateur radio
license.

Len thinks there should be such a requirement. He thinks no one under
the age of 14 years
should be able to get any class of US amateur license, regardless of
their ability to pass the license tests.

That's not just from his postings here - he put such a proposal into
one of his official comments to FCC.

Oh, you poor thing...you just CAN'T LET GO of that
subject, can you? :-(

Actually, what I wrote in a Reply To Comments on NPRM
98-143 can be viewed in its entirety at the FCC website.

Instructions for anyone else:

Just go to www.fcc.gov and click on Search, then ECFS
(Electronic Comment Filing System). Click on Search at
the right again to get the standard form for searching.
In the upper right corner box enter 98-143. The ECFS
will search ALL of the documents (many of them) and
present a long list. To save time, just enter my
name (Leonard H. Anderson) OR enter date 13 January 1999.
That will bring up my Reply to Comments (on Comments
of "Michael P. Deignan, et al") in regards to the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making 98-143. [note the "et
al" following Mikey's name]

There are 14 pages in my Reply To Comments (page
numbers at the bottom), preceded by my cover letter
to the FCC, followed by an FCC notation (their page
16) that a "diskette was received" (the full electronic
system was not yet in place for January 1999).

On Page 12 of 14 is my suggestion on age
requirements which had its specific origin in the
ARRL Letter, Volume 17, Number 12, 20 March 1998.
In the middle of that reference (duly noted in a
footnote on my Page 12) is a darling story entitled
"Youngest Hams in the US?" The photo going with that
story has two charming FOUR YEAR OLDS, clad in their
Sunday finest, being hugged by a grandfatherly-
looking VE.

To anyone who wants to see for themselves, all they
need do is go to www.arrl.org, enter "youngest hams"
in the Search box, a short list will be presented,
then click on the Letter for 20 March 1998.

FOUR YEARS OLD! They supposedly "passed" their
written test...with all the English language
comprehension of FOUR YEARS OLD. Yeah, surrrre they
did. The VEs "passed them" didn't they? :-(

FOUR YEARS OLD!

That was in 1998. That was NINE YEARS AGO...
come February or March of this year.

My Reply To Comments on 98-143 was dated as received
on 13 January 1999. In a week from now that will be
EIGHT YEARS AGO!

That SINGLE comment page has been the only one that
garnered any comment...and that mostly the vilest
bile that the pro-coders could conceive. But, the
one with the continuing woodie on the subject is
Miccolis, James. He can't stop on that.

One can find out why. My ARBITRARY age limit on my
Reply To Comments was 14 years old (not exactly
arbitrary, it is one year after Bar Mitzvah).
Surprise, surprise, Gomer! Miccolis got his first
ham license at age 14!

Poor Jimmie, he done feel "personally insulted"
somehow from the age similarity. He got 'wounded'
in the Great Word War here. Tsk, tsk.

Every so often, there's a mention of some youngster who earned an
amateur radio license at a very early age. One such news item caused
Len to claim here that there must have been some kind of fraud at the
VE session, because he somehow knew that the youngsters pictured could
not have passed the license tests honestly.

Damn straight, Gomer! Those CHILDREN were FOUR
YEARS OLD. "Full English comprehension" to 4-year
olds? NO WAY. "Fraud?" You betcha. What kindly
grandfather could say no to such charming CHILDREN?

Yet those CHILDREN, having "passed" their license
test and receiving confirmation from the FCC, would
now be LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to transmit RF to anywhere
in the world...ALL BY THEMSELVES. Legal. No problems.

FOUR YEAR OLDS. There's not one damn thing in Part 97
saying that "adult supervision is required." In 1998
or now in 2007.

---

Hay, no problemo wiz me, senior. I'll just consider
that all legal US radio amateurs have the attitudes and
aspirations and skills of FOUR YEAR OLDS. The ARRL
proved it is okay...and we don't want to naysay the ARRL
do we? [they know what is good for ham radio...]

Oh, by the way, the ARRL used the term "HOBBY" in that
charming 1998 ARRL Letter. Gosh, its not the "national
service" or "service to the nation" that all the fantasy
livers want, is it? HOBBY. ARRL said so.

To Jimmie Miccolis: Put this OLD SUBJECT to rest, it's
been warmed up in here twice before and everyone else
has put it aside. Quit your transgender-wannabe Nun of
the Above act and DROP IT. Bring it up again and all you
will do is make others irritated. None of us care one
whit WHY you have such a woodie for bringing back old,
old, old subjects...but you consistently do that.

Now KMA, 4Q and the hearse you rode in on...

LA

wrote:
From: on Mon, Jan 1 2007 8:28 am
John Smith I wrote:
Len don't give a chit about children having fun ...

Well, actually he does - and not in a positive way.

There's never been a minimum age requirement for a US amateur radio
license.

Len thinks there should be such a requirement. He thinks no one under
the age of 14 years
should be able to get any class of US amateur license, regardless of
their ability to pass the license tests.

That's not just from his postings here - he put such a proposal into
one of his official comments to FCC.

Oh, you poor thing...you just CAN'T LET GO of that
subject, can you? :-(

Actually, what I wrote in a Reply To Comments on NPRM
98-143 can be viewed in its entirety at the FCC website.

Instructions for anyone else:

Just go to www.fcc.gov and click on Search, then ECFS
(Electronic Comment Filing System). Click on Search at
the right again to get the standard form for searching.
In the upper right corner box enter 98-143. The ECFS
will search ALL of the documents (many of them) and
present a long list. To save time, just enter my
name (Leonard H. Anderson) OR enter date 13 January 1999.
That will bring up my Reply to Comments (on Comments
of "Michael P. Deignan, et al") in regards to the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making 98-143. [note the "et
al" following Mikey's name]

Or, he or she could use one of these links, and the PDF will
come right up:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6006041 560

or:

http://tinyurl.com/y6uhr3


There are 14 pages in my Reply To Comments (page
numbers at the bottom), preceded by my cover letter
to the FCC, followed by an FCC notation (their page
16) that a "diskette was received" (the full electronic
system was not yet in place for January 1999).

Actually, ECFS was fully functional then. Thousands of comments were
filed
using it during that time period, mine included.

On Page 12 of 14 is my suggestion on age
requirements which had its specific origin in the
ARRL Letter, Volume 17, Number 12, 20 March 1998.
In the middle of that reference (duly noted in a
footnote on my Page 12) is a darling story entitled
"Youngest Hams in the US?" The photo going with that
story has two charming FOUR YEAR OLDS, clad in their
Sunday finest, being hugged by a grandfatherly-
looking VE.

To anyone who wants to see for themselves, all they
need do is go to www.arrl.org, enter "youngest hams"
in the Search box, a short list will be presented,
then click on the Letter for 20 March 1998.

Or just use this handy link:

http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/98/980320/

FOUR YEARS OLD! They supposedly "passed" their
written test...with all the English language
comprehension of FOUR YEARS OLD. Yeah, surrrre they
did. The VEs "passed them" didn't they? :-(

Do you have *any* evidence of wrongdoing, Len? Do you know
any of the people involved?

FOUR YEARS OLD!

That's right. They passed the required exams at the age of four years
and an unknown number of months.

If someone actually reads the entire story, it becomes clear that the
four-year-olds
were part of a large extended family that places a high value on
education. Lots
of licensed amateurs in the family - none of whom were the VEs.

That was in 1998. That was NINE YEARS AGO...
come February or March of this year.

Yup. And according to the FCC database, they are both still licensed
amateurs.

Is there *any* evidence that they have caused any problems at all on
the amateur
bands?

My Reply To Comments on 98-143 was dated as received
on 13 January 1999. In a week from now that will be
EIGHT YEARS AGO!

That SINGLE comment page has been the only one that
garnered any comment...

Actually, the referenced page was in a Reply Comment. Reply Comments
are
not supposed to contain new ideas - they are only supposed to discuss
issues
that have already been raised.

The proper place to bring up new issues like an age requirement is in
Comments.
But the comment period had been closed for several weeks when Len sent
his
disk to the FCC. In fact, his Reply Comment was sent so late that any
attempt
to reply to it would have been after the deadline.

and that mostly the vilest
bile that the pro-coders could conceive.

Oddly enough, the age-requirement thing was brought to the attention of
RRAP
readers by K0HB. His posting can be viewed by using one of these handy
links:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en

or

http://tinyurl.com/y2er8x

As for "vilest bile":


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en

or

http://tinyurl.com/yxq3rr

Some choice quotes:

(begin quotes)

"BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
My goodness..."choke off new entrants!" Herr Breakup wants to have an
amateur radio community of the future to be prepubescent children?!?!?"


"Let's hear it for the four year old Novices who have READ and
UNDERSTOOD
the written test elements and realize their responsibility in having a
license!!!"


"Let's hear it for the VEs who have PASSED those CHILDREN for the
FCC!!!
"...ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical
mass'"!!!!!"


"What, pray tell, does Herr Breakup think of the 170K+ Technician class

licensees added in nine years? Are they "real hams" or is Breakup being

a stuffed turkey about that class?"


"Herr Breakup seems to need his Jugend to
satisfy His concept of keeping the traditions, legends, and myth of
amateur
radio forever."

"Ah yes, the warm-hearted convivial stormtrooper from central africa
MUST
make his SUPERIORITY known! Four year olds who can beep (along with
parents who have conned the VEs into passing them) are considered
"superior" to those who are not licensed in the amateur radio service.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!"


"LOSE SOME WEIGHT! You are getting downright pudgy and
scowling too much. I'll bet those jackboots and arm band are really
tight?"

(end quotes)


Nice stuff, huh? Really adult, mature, civil discussion on the merits
of the issue, right? ;-)

One can find out why. My ARBITRARY age limit on my
Reply To Comments was 14 years old (not exactly
arbitrary, it is one year after Bar Mitzvah).

And two years after Bat Mitzvah. So what?

Surprise, surprise, Gomer!

Who is "Gomer"?

got his first ham license at age 14!

Well, you can't be talking about me - because I was first licensed as a
radio amateur
at age 13.

Every so often, there's a mention of some youngster who earned an
amateur radio license at a very early age. One such news item caused
Len to claim here that there must have been some kind of fraud at the
VE session, because he somehow knew that the youngsters pictured could
not have passed the license tests honestly.

Damn straight, Gomer! Those CHILDREN were FOUR
YEARS OLD. "Full English comprehension" to 4-year
olds? NO WAY.

So what?

The FCC does not require "Full English comprehension" in order to
pass the license exams. Just the ability to choose enough right
answers.

The written tests are all multiple choice, no more than 1 out of 4. Get

enough answers right and the test is passed.

As long as there's no cheating involved,
FCC doesn't care how much the person understands the material
covered by the licenses tests. Memorizing, word-association,
and just plain guessing are all allowed. There's no additional
penalty for a wrong guess, either.

Most of all, it doesn't matter to FCC how old the person being tested
is.

"Fraud?" You betcha.

That's a pretty serious claim, Len.

Do you have any evidence at all?

What kindly
grandfather could say no to such charming CHILDREN?

Any good one could, if the situation called for it. That's part of
what parenting is all about, Len - saying no when it's needed.

Yet those CHILDREN, having "passed" their license
test and receiving confirmation from the FCC, would
now be LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to transmit RF to anywhere
in the world...ALL BY THEMSELVES. Legal. No problems.

The FCC has no problem with it. There's no evidence of any problems
caused by it. What's *your* problem, Len?

Besides, you keep lecturing us that amateur radio is "a hobby". So how
much harm could a couple of four-year-olds do to "a hobby"?

FOUR YEAR OLDS. There's not one damn thing in Part 97
saying that "adult supervision is required." In 1998
or now in 2007.

And that's a good thing!

---

Hay, no problemo wiz me, senior. I'll just consider
that all legal US radio amateurs have the attitudes and
aspirations and skills of FOUR YEAR OLDS.

Why?

The ARRL
proved it is okay...and we don't want to naysay the ARRL
do we? [they know what is good for ham radio...]

Actually, the *FCC* is the licensing agency. They have accepted the
validity of those licenses for more than 8 years now.

If you look at FCC enforcement actions, you'll see that FCC has no
problem going after questionable VE activity. If you think there was
something wrong at that VE session, why haven't you presented your
evidence to FCC?

Oh, by the way, the ARRL used the term "HOBBY" in that
charming 1998 ARRL Letter. Gosh, its not the "national
service" or "service to the nation" that all the fantasy
livers want, is it? HOBBY. ARRL said so.

But according to you, Len, the ARRL is "brainwashing" us.

Besides, you keep lecturing us that amateur radio is "a hobby". So how
much harm could a couple of four-year-olds do to "a hobby"?

Put this OLD SUBJECT to rest, it's
been warmed up in here twice before and everyone else
has put it aside. Quit your transgender-wannabe Nun of
the Above act and DROP IT.

Are you telling others to SHUT UP, Len?

Bring it up again and all you
will do is make others irritated.

Who besides you gets irritated over this, Len?

And if it bothers you so much, why don't *you* "drop it"?

None of us care one
whit WHY you have such a woodie for bringing back old,
old, old subjects...but you consistently do that.

What's the statute of limitations, Len?

How old can a subject be and still be discussed?

Two years? One year?

What are your rules on that?

Or is something only "old" if you say it is?

Now KMA, 4Q and the hearse you rode in on...

Gee, that's really *mature*, Len. ;-) I think you need a time-out in
your quiet place...

And once more you've proved my point for me. Thanks!

You claimed that you were only interested in the elimination of the
Morse Code test,
but your Reply Comments and many postings here on this age-limit idea
shows
there's a lot more you want changed.

wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:43:26 -0500, Leo wrote:

On 2 Jan 2007 20:54:39 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Leo on Tues, Jan 2 2007 3:06 pm

On 1 Jan 2007 18:03:36 -0800, wrote:

wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

Who are you to judge when a person is responsible enough?

...says the guy who is doing the same thing, by arguing the
counterpoint!

Ain't it something, though! :-)

Happy Holiday time to you, Leo, long time no "see."

Happy Holidays to you too, Len. It has been quite a while!

I've been reading the group occasionally, but there hasn't been much
useful communications rising above the psychotic rantings of the crazy
few for a long time.......until the code decision finally came down!
(and balooning season ended) ......

I would consider that the pro-coders in this newsgroup
consider themselves ultra-qualified for judgement. They
took the code-test here at maximum rate and are thus
supremely "qualified" to judge anything or anybody!
Those who haven't been federally tested for morse code
cognition skill are "untouchables," "always making
mistakes" and/or "always wrong." :-)

Well, our favourite representative pro coders on this group certainly
seem to! I see that our good friend Captain Arithmetic is busily
preparing to chart the demise of the ARS in the post-Morse apocalypse,
ham by ham. Somehow, he's changed his tune, though....used to be that
Morse would never be dropped - now, it appears that he knew it all the
time! A true visionary indeed.....

indeed for once it seem Jim is ahead of the ARRL who will wait awhile
longer and prclaim they were behind NoCode all the time

....and, qualified they were, anyway. The new regs eliminate code
entirely from US Amateur licensing, leaving them 'qualified' in
something which no longer exists, from a licensing perspective. In
other words....useless as a 'status' indicator (as you will be able to
reach the coveted Extra level, for example, without knowing any Code
at all). Just like holding thousands of pesos in old Mexican
money....you ain't rich anymore!

Morse remains an option up here in Canada, for testing and
qualification for HF-band access. Either pass the Morse test, or
score an extra 10% above the pass mark on the written exam, and you're
on the air on HF. An interesting compromise!

it is an interesting one one that might have flown years ago here in
the US but the ProCoder wanted all or nothing

That was a bad bet. That was a real bad bet.

They're not used to being wrong.

wrote:
On 8 Jan 2007 16:38:23 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:43:26 -0500, Leo wrote:

On 2 Jan 2007 20:54:39 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Leo on Tues, Jan 2 2007 3:06 pm

On 1 Jan 2007 18:03:36 -0800, wrote:

wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

Who are you to judge when a person is responsible enough?

...says the guy who is doing the same thing, by arguing the
counterpoint!

Ain't it something, though! :-)

Happy Holiday time to you, Leo, long time no "see."

Happy Holidays to you too, Len. It has been quite a while!

I've been reading the group occasionally, but there hasn't been much
useful communications rising above the psychotic rantings of the crazy
few for a long time.......until the code decision finally came down!
(and balooning season ended) ......

I would consider that the pro-coders in this newsgroup
consider themselves ultra-qualified for judgement. They
took the code-test here at maximum rate and are thus
supremely "qualified" to judge anything or anybody!
Those who haven't been federally tested for morse code
cognition skill are "untouchables," "always making
mistakes" and/or "always wrong." :-)

Well, our favourite representative pro coders on this group certainly
seem to! I see that our good friend Captain Arithmetic is busily
preparing to chart the demise of the ARS in the post-Morse apocalypse,
ham by ham. Somehow, he's changed his tune, though....used to be that
Morse would never be dropped - now, it appears that he knew it all the
time! A true visionary indeed.....

indeed for once it seem Jim is ahead of the ARRL who will wait awhile
longer and prclaim they were behind NoCode all the time

....and, qualified they were, anyway. The new regs eliminate code
entirely from US Amateur licensing, leaving them 'qualified' in
something which no longer exists, from a licensing perspective. In
other words....useless as a 'status' indicator (as you will be able to
reach the coveted Extra level, for example, without knowing any Code
at all). Just like holding thousands of pesos in old Mexican
money....you ain't rich anymore!

Morse remains an option up here in Canada, for testing and
qualification for HF-band access. Either pass the Morse test, or
score an extra 10% above the pass mark on the written exam, and you're
on the air on HF. An interesting compromise!

it is an interesting one one that might have flown years ago here in
the US but the ProCoder wanted all or nothing

That was a bad bet. That was a real bad bet.

They're not used to being wrong.

indeed and als unlikely to learn a lesson about ebing wrong

have to you seen the thread (at EHam) where someone is inisting th e
ARRL should sue the FCC claiming that the FCC is violating part 97 by
ending code testing and arguely how this is slam dunk (or words to
that effect)

Eham, huh? Better they trash that than RRAP. I just hope Eham is
moderated, unless they are Pro-Code. Then it's just more of the same.

the ProCoder lost and are accepting thier losses with less grace than
Al Gore or John Kerry

Kerry rolled over pretty quickly. It was that idiot from Tennessee
that couldn't take a hint.