On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 22:23:24 -0400, lk wrote:

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

That's an anecdotal statement. Perhaps that's the average, but
there is nothing that requires any particular minimum or maximum
time.

If there is enough "oomph" behind it, an R&O can be issued in one
day if it's a type that does not require public input. That would
have to be a Memorandum Opinion and Order drafted in a quick hurry,
of course, but if it's issued under delgated authority it just needs
one signature, and even if it's a full Commission MO&O it can be
bicycled through the five offices in less than an hour if everything
is lined up. I've seen them do that with various administrative
matters.

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

Except when they want it to be a short time.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Put me down for July 1st, 2004.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
So far:

K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004

73 de Jim, N2EY

So far:

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
Kim: June 1, 2008

If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.


73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
So far:

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
Kim: June 1, 2008

If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.


73 de Jim, N2EY



Just...Kim?

I didn't want to risk reviving the "one step closer to extinction" threads,
Kim.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Somehow I missed this on the first pass....

"Kim" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim" dont

writes:

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!

All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving
in the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.

Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
sight.

Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?
--

Oh goodness, what a loaded question,

Wasn't meant to be a loaded question, just a simple inquiry on your
opinion.

and that is very astute of you (you'll
understand that comment much more than many here, I suspect GRIN).

I do - and thanks!

I
don't want to seem like I'm hedging, and I'm a damned good debater, but let
me preface my "final answer" with the following:

It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so populated
by people who are so pleased with themselves and under the apparent
impression that a ham radio license includes the authority to gnash and hate
anyone different from themselves.

I agree there are a few like that, Kim, but in 35+ years I've only
encountered a few of them. Maybe there are more where you are. There
are certainly more here on rrap than I've encountered in the general
ARS population.

I would also say that your description could be applied to many
different induhviduals, on all sides of the various debates.

I believe that CW testing has promulgated such behavior as above.

How? It's just a basic test of a simple skill.

It is a
"governmental approval" for a specific mode, thereby warranting that anyone
who has taken and passed this mode test is, somehow, of a higher regard to
the FCC and, at least, to fellow hams.

If that's true, then the same can be said of the written tests. And
vanity callsigns. Or any other accomplishment by an individual.

Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device to keep
their ideas of "no gooders" out of the hobby--promoting a "good 'ol boy"
concept.

Maybe where you are. Not around here, or anywhere else I've lived.

Some would describe the code test as an "ante" - an initial
investment, so to speak.

This is attitude is horrendous in a "goodwill" hobby, and displays
of it are terribly disturbing to me. As amateur radio operators we are
ambassadors of the United States. And, to get so petty as to some of the
arguments spoken in this newsgroup, and even more comments I hear on the
air, it makes me totally embarrassed to even bring the hobby of ham radio up
to anyone any more.

I don't hear the sort of argument you describe on the air here in EPA,
Kim. In fact, from what I see and hear, the whole code-test thing
seems to be pretty well confined to rrap and a few other outlets.
Maybe where you are it's different, but among the hams I know, putting
someone or a whole group down because of their license class is simply
Not Acceptable Behavior.

Now, all that given, I respect the tradition of CW.

That's good. But it's more than a tradition - it's a very popular mode
in the ARS today. Second only to SSB on the amateur HF bands. I would
not be surprised if this year it turned out that CW was #1 in total
QSOs during FD.

Contrary to such people
as Dick Carroll and Larry Roll, who go off half-cocked thinking they "know"
who someone is based on their dislike of the mode of CW, most of we who are
new to the hobby are quite respectful of the tradition of ham radio, and
know good talent on CW when we see it--indeed even love to watch someone
doing it.

Many if not most newcomers are as you describe. But a growing number
are not - in fact, there are some who consider it a put-down even to
be called newcomers.

Yes, I want CW to stay as a testing element and I think 5wpm is sufficient.

Excellent! But I'm afraid neither you nor I will get our druthers on
this. (I'd be happy with 13 and 20 wpm code tests, actually. 5 wpm was
an FCC mistake, made more than 50 years ago).

I also think it should be sending OR receiving (not both), and I think that
waivers should only be given upon the agreement of 2 doctors that a certain
handicap is, indeed, the complaint of any particular individual.

I think both sending and receiving should be tested (the two reinforce
each other).

Medical waivers were simply a quick way for FCC to please Papa Bush
and a now-dead King* he wanted to grant a favor. Their implementation
was very poor - any MD or DO could write a waiver, regardless of
specialty or experience. But speech and language pathologists,
occupational therapists, audiologists and other professionals with far
more specialized knowledge and experience in disabilities had no
standing at all. That makes absolutely no sense and shows that the FCC
was simply looking for a quickie solution to a problem.

Again,I'm afraid neither you nor I will get our druthers on this.

Heck,
maybe the Federal Gov't. could even come up with approved doctors--they
approve VEs, right?

Not gonna happen. The VECs approve the VEs, and the FCC oversees the
process.

Last thing FCC wants is more admin work, which is exactly what any
sort of waiver system generates.

Reducing routine admin work is a key FCC goal. That's why all the
emphasis on reduced testing, fewer tests and license classes, online
renewals and modifications, 10 year licenses, etc. It's the whole
reason behind the VEC and QPC systems: Get unpaid volunteers to do the
work and provide the services and facilities formerly performed by
paid govt. personnel. Brilliant, actually.

That's why the smart money approaches FCC with ready-made ideas, at
the right time.

I hear too many stories of hams who have no business
being any class of ham where CW was required--because they DON'T know CW.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you know hams who have forgotten the code? So do I. I also know
folks who have forgotten all sorts of things they once had to know to
pass various tests, but they don't get their highschool diplomas
pinched for it.

People such as those mentioned earlier here are reprehensible in their
opinion (in *my* opinion GRIN), and it is their behavior that does more to
harm ham radio than the choices others make NOT to learn CW or who choose
not to use CW once they've passed and exam requirement.

Agreed - and folks like that exist on all sides of the codetest
debate. Do we really want someone who writes things like "those in the
minority should learn to take 'No' for an answer and get on with
life"? (It wasn't a pro-code-test person who wrote that).

I am happy to have
*anyone* in the hobby--even those with not-so-great-operating practices, as
long as they are friendly, promote ham radio as a positive experience, and
encourage others to simply JOIN, not to GET TO EXTRA.

I'm happy to have anyone who follows the rules, pulls their own
weight, exhibits a positive attitude towards others, and seeks to
learn and grow.

What gets forgotten too often is that the license test is just the
beginning.

73 de Jim, N2EY

* "who made you king? I don't recall voting for you!" - "Dennis" in
Monty Python and the Holy Grail

N2EY wrote:

: If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.


KF6TPT: September 29, 2003

I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code
test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect,
they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter.

So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll
just axe Element 1, and leave restructuring the written tests to
whomever is in charge after 2004. Michael Powell is rather busy these
days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.

As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. I think the
written tests should be harder, and I think you should re-test when you
renew your license.

wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:

: If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.


KF6TPT: September 29, 2003

I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code
test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect,
they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter.

So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll
just axe Element 1, and leave restructuring the written tests to
whomever is in charge after 2004. Michael Powell is rather busy these
days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
consolidation.

Its important for informed Americans to get their news from as few,
controllable sources as possible.

If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.

Some in Amateurland have always done that. As long as they congregate
in PCTA groups and invoke the PCTA double standard, they can insulate
themselves from reality.

As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. I think the
written tests should be harder, and I think you should re-test when you
renew your license.

I think the written exam material IS "harder," but the format lends
itself to less than stellar results in retained knowledge.

bb

So far:

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
Kim: June 1, 2008

If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message ...

I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code
test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect,
they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter.

That's what the R&O said in 2000, and it was reaffirmed in their
dismissal of the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration.

So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll
just axe Element 1,

The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first.

and leave restructuring the written tests to
whomever is in charge after 2004.

Possibly. Or they will simply wait for the ARS to come up with a
restructuring proposal.

Michael Powell is rather busy these
days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.

I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone
what the issues are. That's his staff's job.

As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago.

Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular. Learning enough code to
pass the test is about as hard as learning to recognize about 40 words
in a foreign language.

I think the
written tests should be harder,

That's easily arranged. All you have to do is write up some "harder"
questions and answers in multiple-choice format, and submit them to
the QPC.

There were a bunch of structural changes for the written tests
suggested to the FCC back in '99 as part of the restructuring, but
they ignored all of them and instead reduced written testing.

and I think you should re-test when you renew your license.

Nice idea - are you volunteering to be a VE? Because requiring retest
upon renewal would just about triple the tresting workload of the
VECs.

Retesting would be a very tough sell because you would have to
convince FCC that there is some sort of serious problem caused by lack
of it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote things. They're marked like this: N2EY
KF6TPT (me) wrote things in a prior post. They're marked like this: TPT


N2EY The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first.

I keep hearing this getting thrown around, and certainly, my civics
teacher told me this. However, I can't seem to find any mention in the
congressional record of the ratification after WRC-2000.

Can someone point me at it?


TPT Michael Powell is rather busy these
TPT days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
TPT consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
TPT chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
TPT Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.

N2EY I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone
N2EY what the issues are. That's his staff's job.

That's exactly my point. Chairman Powell (and other high-ranking FCC
staff) doesn't need to know or care about the ARS. It makes absolutely
no difference to those in charge of the FCC, whether we have a code
requirement or not.

In this current incarnation of the FCC, I think it's reasonable to say
that if code testing doesn't provide a benefit to the FCC, then the FCC
will be eliminating it as quickly as they reasonably can.

TPT As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago.

N2EY Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular.

I would even just say "Hams use code". But hams use AM, and RTTY, and
PSK, and FSK and yes, even phone. Some of us like satellites. Should
you have to prove that you're capable of tracking and hearing UO-14
before being granted a license to transmit on 145.975 MHz? Or that you
know all 26 phonetics and how to locate your grid square (a useful item
for a VHF+ operator to know)

CW is the only mode that is -required-. Sure, even hams who
never use RTTY had to answer written questions about it... but the
difference is, you don't have to get all written questions correct. A
person can become at least a General, if not an Extra, without ever
answering a question about RTTY... just skip them, and make sure you
know the rest of the material.

The end of code testing does not mean the end of CW, nor should it. But
as far as I'm concerned, CW is just another mode, albeit one with a
certain history and artistry to it. With regards to testing, it should
have about as much importance as the rest of the modes (i.e. a handful
of questions in the pool, and perhaps a reference in the questions on
frequency allocations, nothing more, nothing less)


N2EY Learning enough code to pass the test is about as hard as
N2EY learning to recognize about 40 words in a foreign language.

That's not the point. The fact that just about anyone can learn it
given enough time and practice really just means that all that is really
being tested is a potential ham's level of dedication (and how much free
time he's had in the last few months)

There are plenty of people out there who will say that testing someone's
dedication is a _good_ thing for our hobby. They're the ones that want
to keep the "riff-raff" out. Or at least, that's how it seems.

I just don't see that. The enforcement actions taken by the FCC don't
reflect that either. Many of the people cited for illegal operating
practices have taken 13 and 20wpm code tests.


What I see is a generation of people to whom technology is second nature.
I see hardware engineers and electrical engineers building amazing
commercial applications up in the SHF frequencies. Most of these people
aren't hams. I don't see them knocking down the doors to come join our
ranks, but I don't see us reaching out to them and giving them a reason
to join us, either.

We're doing just the opposite, not entirely with the code test, but with
the attitude that goes with it.

I'd love for some of the current high-tech talent to bring their
knowledge into the Amateur HF arena. We've seen what happens when we
bring them into VHF (I'm thinking about APRS, WSJT/JT44, lots of
software DSP stuff).

But to do that, we need to change. By telling a 22 year old
engineer with a 10-hour a day job and a girlfriend that he needs to
spend "just an hour a day" sitting and listening to code on headphones
for the next month, we are essentially telling him to get lost. He
won't have that kind of free time until he's retired. Plus he's got
other methods of global communication, so the overall gee-whiz factor of
HF is definitely not as much of a draw as it was years ago.

But show the same engineer a PSK31 pileup and his eyes light up.
Perhaps he's thinking of a better way to discriminate between the
colliding warbles and pull yet another call sign out of the morass.
Maybe he's a software engineer. Maybe a DSP guru. Whatever he is, he
could be an asset to the ARS, and play a part in enhancing the radio
art. But he's probably not very interested in CW. Perhaps he will
grow to work CW, perhaps not. But he definitely won't learn it until he
has been exposed to other modes of HF. So, under today's rules, he
moves on to other things... and we'll never know whether his DSP ideas
would work.


There was a time when children were frequently exposed to ham radio, but
those days are past. Not every EE graduate has a dipole in his attic
anymore. The fact is, if the kids and the geeks aren't joining us...
something's wrong, and maybe we should fix it.

I think that it's time for us to grow up, evolve with the times, welcome
newcomers into our ranks, and continue furthering the radio art.


-Jeff

PS.

TPT and I think you should re-test when you renew your license.
N2EY Nice idea - are you volunteering to be a VE?

Yes. I'd be happy to be a VE.