"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.

Kim W5TIT

"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
...

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:
"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.

"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.

wrote in message ...

They

{meaning the FCC}

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.

How about this motivation:

One of FCC's biggest headaches in the avocational-radio area is the
pirate/freebander/bootlegger, who simply ignores FCC rules and goes on
the air using whatever mode/frequency/power/equipment/ID strikes their
fancy. Enforcement agains such folks is more challenging because
they're not in the database and they don't really care about "the
rules" anyway.

This is not a new problem - the FCC rules about RF power amplifiers
covering 12 and 10 meters were a response to these folks and the
manufacturers who sold to them, not any problem in ham radio. Those
rules date from 1978.

Perhaps FCC figures that if they make it easier to get an amateur
license, there will be more hams and fewer
pirates/freebanders/bootleggers. And if they get out of line,
enforcement will be easier.

A few weeks ago, FCC went after several hams who were operating
illegally on about 26 MHz. These were relatively new hams - wonder
what they did before they got their tickets?

Waddya think?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WWHD

On 11 Jul 2003 09:27:27 -0700, N2EY wrote:

One of FCC's biggest headaches in the avocational-radio area is the
pirate/freebander/bootlegger, who simply ignores FCC rules and goes on
the air using whatever mode/frequency/power/equipment/ID strikes their
fancy. Enforcement agains such folks is more challenging because
they're not in the database and they don't really care about "the
rules" anyway.

This is not a new problem - the FCC rules about RF power amplifiers
covering 12 and 10 meters were a response to these folks and the
manufacturers who sold to them, not any problem in ham radio. Those
rules date from 1978.

This sort of thing was debated amongst the cognoscenti in the hard
times before the CB license was abandoned by pressure from the Ford
Administration (Remember "First Momma" Betty Ford ??). Here are some
scenarios:

Imagined Scenario #1

Judge to Prosecutor - "What has this defendant violated?"

Prosecutor to Judge - "He operated a transmitter without a license"

Judge to Prosecutor - "Is there anything barring him from getting
a license?"

Prosecutor to Judge - "No, your honor"

Judge to Prosecutor - "Will he be legal when he gets one?"

Prosecutor to Judge - "Yes, your honor"

Prosecutor to Defendant - "I order you to get a license. Next Case"

Imagined Scenario #2:

Congress to FCC - "What is your number one headache that is costing
a lot of money?"

FCC to Congress - "Tracking down and punishing all the unlicensed
CB operators"

Congress to FCC - "Well, just drop the CB license requirement. Then
you won't have an "unlicensed" CB operator problem
any more"

Unfortunately, both of them were real and the FCC did the latter.

Perhaps FCC figures that if they make it easier to get an amateur
license, there will be more hams and fewer
pirates/freebanders/bootleggers. And if they get out of line,
enforcement will be easier.

Not at all. It's the same amount of work to DF the bozo, and the
penalty phase is just as difficult.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane