On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:38:38 -0400, Bill Sohl wrote:

Here's the question?
Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?

Because it's the summertime and the chances of some key person in
the path being on annual leave (governmentese for "vacation") is
higher than any other time except the last two weeks in December.

One learns rapidly not to do essential business with any Federal
agency between Independence Day and Labor Day and between
Thanksgiving and New Years' Day. That's Reality Island.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 05 Jul 2003 12:23:34 GMT, N2EY wrote:

You think this is bad, Kim, you shoulda heard the wailing and moaning and
gnashing of teeth back in the '60s when "Incentive Licensing" was proposed
and enacted.

Or the wailing and gnashing of teeth back in 1952 when one couldn't
get an Advanced any more.....I had to wait until 1968 to get mine,
and that was before the "incentive licensing" splitups started.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:37:11 GMT, wrote:

In the case of Mensa, it involves taking an IQ test. (It should be noted
that this tiny requirement doesn't do much: most Mensa members never
attend a single meeting.)

Joining another organization for which I wouldn't have the time or
deep inclination to be active in is the reason why I never joined
Mensa or the Masonic Order, both of which I had been "proselytized"
for although they supposedly have rules prohibiting members from doing
that.

Anyone who says "10-4", and isn't a cop, is a poser[*]. The only
correct response is "Roger Dodger, copy that."

I know a whole bunch of hams who are cops (I do a lot of ARES/RACES
work with them) and everyone seems to be able to keep their jargon
separate.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 08:38:38 -0400, Bill Sohl wrote:

Here's the question?
Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?

Because it's the summertime and the chances of some key person in
the path being on annual leave (governmentese for "vacation") is
higher than any other time except the last two weeks in December.

One learns rapidly not to do essential business with any Federal
agency between Independence Day and Labor Day and between
Thanksgiving and New Years' Day. That's Reality Island.
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Since the gestation period of a Report & Order is one year,
what different does it make when you start?

As you know, government can move mountains, particular ones
they created, but it takes a long time.

Larry kc8epo

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

The pity is that we must go through this again. The amateur community
is
still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.

Don't let the rantings in this newsgroup serve as an indicator.
I hear nothing being discussed on the air and even if a few
diehards are ****ed off, they'll either get over it someday or
die with their own complaining attitudes.


While it's true that I have not even listened to amateur radio in quite a
while--probably at least six months anyway--the last time I had a radio on
there was still quite frequent "intonations" around here that express
dismay
and a great divide between longer-licensed amateurs and newer-licensed
amateurs. My opinions certainly do not emanate from this newsgroup--I
shudder to think that you'd believe that of me, Bill.


The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only
reason
reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would
be illogical for FCC to
keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even
though
we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine
FCC being that illogical and reversing itself.


heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right? The FCC is a government
entity=large corporate entity. Right? At least that's the way I see
it.
I
wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
inside
the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge
dollars
on
organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
than
a year!

Here's the question?
Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?


WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good answer
for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can generally
think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just
leave it as it is.

But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification
of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the
fullest extent possible.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

And, one that disappoints you, I'm sure, Bill. Sorry, but it's my
opinion.

Kim W5TIT

But you didn't answer the question.
Should the USA keep Element 1 now that the treaty
has changed?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


I'm sure you read the post by now, Bill, right?

Kim W5TIT

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

Here's the question?
Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?


WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good
answer
for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can
generally
think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just
leave it as it is.

But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification
of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the
fullest extent possible.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Going back to the "corporate entity" theory; the FCC would spend more
dollars revamping the program than to just stay with it the way it is. And,
dropping the CW element wouldn't do a thing in terms of minimizing any R&R,
would it?

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

Here's the question?
Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?


WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good
answer
for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can
generally
think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to
just
leave it as it is.

But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification
of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the
fullest extent possible.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Going back to the "corporate entity" theory; the FCC would spend more
dollars revamping the program than to just stay with it the way it is.

Yey that ISwhat they are paid to do.

And, dropping the CW element wouldn't do
a thing in terms of minimizing any R&R, would it?

Sure it would. It reduces test requirements and
avoids processing the Element 1 has been passed
data from VECs.

More likly than the above, however, will be the movement
of other countries to a nocode structure (e.g. UK, Netherlands,
and others). It appears...although I don't know the legal
detains for those countries, that they may move to nocode
within weeks or only a few months.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Kim W5TIT

"Bill Sohl" writes:

But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification of the
licensing process and minimizing rules to the fullest extent
possible.

If the motivation you state was the _only_ motivation, then ARS would
have a pro forma license like 1970s CB radio, or maybe none at all.

They have other incentives, too. One is minimizing bad operators who
will QRM services in ARS or in other bands. Another may or may not be
to discourage participation in ARS and whittle away bandwidth for
lucrative reallocation, or at least to keep it small enough that the
need for new bandwidth is minimized.

Regards,
Len.

"Bill Sohl" writes:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

And, dropping the CW element wouldn't do a thing in terms of
minimizing any R&R, would it?

Sure it would. It reduces test requirements and avoids processing
the Element 1 has been passed data from VECs.

Minimal. As you say, it's just "element 1 has been passed" data. The
VECs shoulder all the hassles, and the testee shoulders the expenses.

Regards,
Len.