"Bill Sohl" wrote ...

Well Arnie, nice of you to take my text out of context. You try to imply
by my stating the obvious, that I am saying we should end tests and that is
BUNK. The point I was making was simply that even a multiple choice test is
sufficient a barrier to keep 99% of the population from even considering
becoming a ham... that said, the statement does not then lead to any
position or support by me of ending written testing.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

"Not so fast there, Brian. NCI has been on the record as saying that the
tests should be made less technical. Not a far leap at all to presume they
will try and "dumb" them down even more." - Arnie (7-8-2003)

Once again, I have been accused of saying that NCI wants to END testing.
Never said it. BRIAN said it, then tried to attribute it to me. What I
said (above) and stand by, is that NCI is in favor of less technical tests.
They would favor written tests that concentrate more on rules and operating
skills and less on knowing the alpha of a bipolar transistor.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the
US delegation? Seems pretty respected in ITU circles to me.

Blather, he was just another observer with some commercial interest
group he's involved with, had absolutely nothing to do with ham
radio, not even close.

Actually, I was a "Private Sector Advisor" member of the US Delegation
(that's different than an "Observer" ... IARU was an "Observer" not a
member of a Member State Delegation)

I was officially listed on the Delegation as a private sector expert on
Agenda
Item 1.7, as well as the agenda items that my employer sent me for.
(This
is
because I was heavily involved, through NCI, in the US prep process for
the
WRC on 1.7.)

OK . . .

There were also two other private sector "experts" on the US Delegation
for Agenda Item 1.7 ... Paul Rinaldo and Jonathan Siverling of the ARRL.

There's a couple more internationally well known ham radio power
brokers. Who the hell are Rinaldo and Silverling?? Never mind, don't
bother . .

Your ignorance of amateur radio regulatory matters never ceases to
amaze me, Brian ...

Actually, Paul Rinaldo spends a great deal of time in Geneva representing
ARRL at the ITU-R. And when he's stateside, I frequently run into him
in the halls of the FCC.

Jonathan Siverling also works for ARRL in the DC office ... he's a
"Chapter Coordinator" in CITEL and also does ITU-R work. Jon
was the "country outreach coordinator" for the Americas, due to his
CITEL experience/contacts and ability to speak Spanish. (I was
assigned several Latin American countries to work with because I
also speak Spanish pretty well and know delegates from Latin America
from my participatin in CITEL, and I also participated in the US review
of the Spanish translation of some documents from the editorial
committee to make sure the Spanish version was consistent with
the English text ... found some misuse of verbs that we had to have
corrected because they changed the meaning in the Spanish version.)

(However, before anyone "flames" ARRL for not retaining the Morse
requirement in the ITU Radio Regs, I would remind them of two things:
1) the IARU postion was that that requirement should go
2) members of the US Delegation are *bound* to support the US position,
which was also that the Morse requirement should go.)

Making the point to having this squad of "experts" on hand in Geneva
moot before the conclave even it got off the ground eh?

Not really ... the WRC is a VERY complex activity, involving both
technical and political considerations ... sometimes when there are
contentious issues, some "horse trading" goes on behind the scenes.
USG relies on Private Sector Advisors to help develop the strategies
and fallbacks and "talking points" that are used to lobby other delegations
to achieve the delegation's goals ... sometimes it means "giving" a little
on
an issue that's important to another delegation (or group of delegations),
where you have some flexibility, in order to obtain their support on some
other issue that is important to the US. In such cases, the USG folks
consult with the private sector advisors on things like "What can your
constituency live with?" so that they know how much they can "flex"
without hurting US private sector interests. They also often "assign"
private
sector advisors to "work the floor," lobbying other delegations (within
the bounds of the US position) for support (in many cases, the private
sector advisors know and have good relations with members of other
delegations that can be used to the Delegation's advantage in achieving
its overall goals.)

I find enormous humor in *you* of all people floating around Geneva
posing as an "private sector expert" in the testing and use of Morse
in ham radio in the U.S. Sez it all.

I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed for
over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm,
but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing
interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering
colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved
in this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the
WRC prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US
position, etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other
administrations and regional groups. What's so funny about that?

Interestingly, when the US presented its Proposal on 1.7 at the CITEL
meeting in Mexico City last year, the FCC International Bureau rep asked
me to present the document in Plenary (I was also attending that meeting
as a member of the US Delegation) ... I asked him "Why me, not you?"
His response was "You know more about the issue and the background."

That's worse than appalling. One more chunk of evidence that the FCC
has been seriously dumbed down and is dragging ham radio down with it.

It's not reasonable to expect a single VERY high level person from the FCC
to know every detail of every agenda item ... their job at such meetings
is to rely on the lower level staffers and private sector experts,
overseeing things
to make sure everyone's doing their jobs, and (frankly) to do some high
level
"shmoozing" with important people on other delegations to help "grease the
skids" a bit.

It is not uncommon for a private sector member of delegation to be
tasked to present a document that he/she has been intimately involved
in crafting.

But the FCC is apparently still smart enough to use tools of
convenience to support it's own agenda. That's all you've been since
the gitgo Carl, an FCC tool.

Attempt to disparage if you must, but it's simply not accurate.
The US position on most WRC agenda items was VERY substantially
driven by the private sector (the FCC's constituency) ... of course
the result had to be acceptable to NTIA, representing DoD and other
USG users of the spectrum, and to the State Dept. as well, but the
bulk of the prep committees that developed position papers, talking
points, strategies and fallbacks, etc. consisted of representatives from
the private sector.

This was, IMHO, truly an example of good governance ... the govt.
REALLY listened to those who actually use the spectrum and took
their technology, spectrum needs, etc. into account.

At no point has eliminating the code tests ever had anything to do
with "modernizing" ham radio, "outdated modes", "taking ham radio into
the 21st century" or any of the rest of transparent bull**** which has
been touted as the rationales for eliminating the code tests Carl.
This whole flap has been based on the "need" for the FCC to bail away
from the labor (cost) associated with governing the code tests,
dealing with waivers, the VEs on code test issues, etc. and nothing
more.

Under the VE system, code testing essentially costs the FCC zilch ...
there are no waivers, the VEs do the work ... where's the beef?

What can I say? I participated in the process ... I don't recall you as
having
participated in any of the US WRC prep meetings, Brian

No kidding! Do you think the FCC or the ARRL would have wanted me
espousing MY position on S25.5?

The process is open to all interested parties ... under the law you have
a right to participate. If you don't, then don't carp about the outcome.

By the way who paid yer air fare to Geneva? You? NCI? The FCC? Thought
so. Otherwise you wouldn't have been there huh?

Not that it's REALLY your business, but my employer paid my travel
expenses ... I was also there to follow two agenda items that were
important to my employer (non-ham stuff, of course).

ARRL paid the expenses for their reps ... IARU probably paid those
for Dave Sumner and the other IARU observers.

Again, where's the beef?

Back to Genesis here Tool: The NCI mission statement has been the
elimination of S25.5. Ya blew it, S25.5 lives on. Now what?

Actually, your statement is not correct. The NCI mission statement
makes NO mention of S25.5 ... (see the web page ... that text hasn't
changed in the time I've been Exectutive Director of NCI ...

You are also wrong that "I(we) blew it." The mandatory Morse requirement
in the ITU Radio Regs ceased to exist July 5, 2003 ... the new language of
S25.5 has EXACTLY the same effect as if S25.5 had been "suppressed"
(eliminated entirely) ... it states that administrations have the right to
decide if
Morse testing will be a part of their national requirements. (In the
absence
of a mandatory requirement, soverign nations ALWAYS have the right to
choose to have a requirement (or not ) in their national rules, whether it's
said
so explicitly in the Radio Regs or not. Similarly, if the Radio Regs were
to
say, for example, "Stations in the Amateur Radio Service shall not employ
transmitter output powers in excess of 1500W PEP." that would NOT preclude
an administration from enacting a national rules limit lower than 1500W PEP.
However, an administration could not enact national rules permitting a power
limit greater than 1500W PEP without being in derrogation of the Radio
Regs.)

The Morse requirement is GONE from the ITU Radio Regs ... administrations
are free to drop Morse testing (many are planning to do so with surprising
rapidity ... we in the US are used to government moving slowly, so the speed
with which some administratons plan to allow access to HF by no-code hams
seems surprising to us ...)

These are facts that you can't change, so I suggest you simply learn to live
with them.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed for
over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm,
but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing
interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering
colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved
in this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the
WRC prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US
position, etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other
administrations and regional groups. What's so funny about that?

I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they will
bring Amateur Radio.

Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham radio, but
the Morse Code test kept them out? just har dto imagine that someone
really interested would do that.


The Morse requirement is GONE from the ITU Radio Regs ... administrations
are free to drop Morse testing (many are planning to do so with surprising
rapidity ... we in the US are used to government moving slowly, so the speed
with which some administratons plan to allow access to HF by no-code hams
seems surprising to us ...)

These are facts that you can't change, so I suggest you simply learn to live
with them.


Last time I checked, we were allowed to voice our opinions. No one
doubts it will be dropped, but we don't have to like it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Arnie Macy wrote:
"Brian" wrote ...

Bill, welp, I brought out the fine-toothed comb and swept it through the
citation. Nowhere did I pick up the words "reduced technical material" or
anything remotely like it. Exams that "Rationally and Directly relate to
priveleges" could be quite difficult, making some of these long-time hams
glad that retesting isn't required every 10 years. It is a PCTA ploy that
they continue to cry for no exams. Since we won't let them take their ball
and go home, they want to damage the ARS for all. They're tring to scuttle
the ship rather than let it fall into unworthy hands.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

"This will permit a practical combination of existing study guides and
testing materials to be used until such time as such materials are REVISED
and will result in REASONABLE tests for the three new classes of license
contemplated in these comments."


First, please show me where I said that NCI wants to END testing. You can't
because I never said it. Second, please explain what "revised" and
"reasonable" mean within the context of the above quote from NCI? (that you
conveniently snipped from my answer) Does it mean that NCI wants to make
the test MORE difficult? Even a blind man could see where this is going.


Since we have all this in one place now, just exactly is meant by that
statement?

REVISION means a change, obviously. It happens from time to time.

REASONABLE tests mean what?

You could poll 10 people and get 10 different answers. running from
virtually no esting to those who believe that the test process should
require the equivalent of a Bachelor's in EE. Reasonable means different
things to different people.


That quote is exceptionaly vague. Witness people here with different
interpretations.

Here is a golden chance for NCI to clarify and say *exactly* what they
mean. What is reasonable testing for the ARS?

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the
US delegation? Seems pretty respected in ITU circles to me.

Blather, he was just another observer with some commercial interest
group he's involved with, had absolutely nothing to do with ham
radio, not even close.

Actually, I was a "Private Sector Advisor" member of the US Delegation
(that's different than an "Observer" ... IARU was an "Observer" not a
member of a Member State Delegation)

I was officially listed on the Delegation as a private sector expert on
Agenda
Item 1.7, as well as the agenda items that my employer sent me for.
(This
is
because I was heavily involved, through NCI, in the US prep process for the
WRC on 1.7.)

OK . . .

OK.

There were also two other private sector "experts" on the US Delegation
for Agenda Item 1.7 ... Paul Rinaldo and Jonathan Siverling of the ARRL.

There's a couple more internationally well known ham radio power
brokers. Who the hell are Rinaldo and Silverling?? Never mind, don't
bother . .

Who is Brian Kelly?

(However, before anyone "flames" ARRL for not retaining the Morse
requirement in the ITU Radio Regs, I would remind them of two things:
1) the IARU postion was that that requirement should go
2) members of the US Delegation are *bound* to support the US position,
which was also that the Morse requirement should go.)

Making the point to having this squad of "experts" on hand in Geneva
moot before the conclave even it got off the ground eh?

Squad? Is this your real military experience showing through?

I find enormous humor in *you* of all people floating around Geneva
posing as an "private sector expert" in the testing and use of Morse
in ham radio in the U.S. Sez it all.

I noticed you weren't there.

Interestingly, when the US presented its Proposal on 1.7 at the CITEL
meeting in Mexico City last year, the FCC International Bureau rep asked
me to present the document in Plenary (I was also attending that meeting
as a member of the US Delegation) ... I asked him "Why me, not you?"
His response was "You know more about the issue and the background."

That's worse than appalling. One more chunk of evidence that the FCC
has been seriously dumbed down and is dragging ham radio down with it.
Phil is right.

Yes, yes. The world is going to hell in a handbasket. And the sky is
falling...

But the FCC is apparently still smart enough to use tools of
convenience to support it's own agenda. That's all you've been since
the gitgo Carl, an FCC tool.

At no point has eliminating the code tests ever had anything to do
with "modernizing" ham radio, "outdated modes", "taking ham radio into
the 21st century" or any of the rest of transparent bull**** which has
been touted as the rationales for eliminating the code tests Carl.
This whole flap has been based on the "need" for the FCC to bail away
from the labor (cost) associated with governing the code tests,
dealing with waivers, the VEs on code test issues, etc. and nothing
more.

Do you have an FCC policy letter stating that?

You stuck your head up as a "leading proponent" of the FCC's agenda so
they seized the opportunity and paraded you around the assorted
conferences which have dealt with S25.5 as an "expert". . You've
simply been used as a expendable tool Carl and that's all you've been.
They basically made an ass of you. It's done all the time.

You stick your head up, notice the sky is falling, then back into the
sand.

Let's see how your "clout" holds up when you weigh in on BPL. You
being a self-proclaimed "expert" on wideband wireless technologies.

Rather than your expertise in wide rubberband technologies?

What can I say? I participated in the process ... I don't recall you as
having
participated in any of the US WRC prep meetings, Brian

No kidding! Do you think the FCC or the ARRL would have wanted me
espousing MY position on S25.5?

Its a free country, more or less. Go get involved in something
useful.

... nor did I see you
listed as a member of the US Delegation to the WRC.

Spare me, nail your WRC 2003 Delegate "appointment" to yer shack wall
along with all the rest of your ham radio achievement awards. Whatta
hero.

Actually, Carl, you might want to save your delegate name badge and
submit it to the NCI museum so that future generations will see that
at least a few tried to improve our service.

By the way who paid yer air fare to Geneva? You? NCI? The FCC? Thought
so. Otherwise you wouldn't have been there huh?

Oh, yeh. Must be time for the voluntary annual dues.

Back to Genesis here Tool: The NCI mission statement has been the
elimination of S25.5. Ya blew it, S25.5 lives on. Now what?

Obviously there's more work to do.

Way too much sour grapes around here. Kelley's probably another "No
Test International" advocate.

73, bb

Dick Carroll wrote:



Mygawd, Dwight, are you really licensed as a ham? And *that's* all you know of
radiotelegraphy?
You been hiding out in the wilderness somewhere, in a cave? What do you think
it was that started
radio in the first place, semaphores?

You mean you and Larry boy don't know semaphore Dick? Why that is
just plain LAZINESS. You know, when conditions are so bad that you
and Larry have to rely on CW and your faithful CW rigs gives up
the ghost or conditions get SO bad that CW can't even get through
you and Larry could save the world by using semaphore, if you had
that skill, that is.

Mike Coslo wrote:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


I fail to find the humor ... it must be you. Having been licensed for
over 25 years, having learned Morse, passed a test (albeit 5 wpm,
but my skill increased as I *used* it in the early days), then losing
interest in using Morse, seeing Morse keep many of my engineering
colleagues from becoming hams over the years, and being involved
in this issue for a number of years, both before the FCC and in the
WRC prep process, I knew all the background, the issues, the US
position, etc. I also knew the postions of many/most other
administrations and regional groups. What's so funny about that?

I await the influx of all these engineers and the advances they will
bring Amateur Radio.


Yeah, Mike, we all do.....as we have lo these many years now.



Did anyone seriously say they were really interested in Ham radio, but
the Morse Code test kept them out? just hard to imagine that someone
really interested would do that.

The Morse requirement is GONE from the ITU Radio Regs ... administrations
are free to drop Morse testing (many are planning to do so with surprising
rapidity ... we in the US are used to government moving slowly, so the speed
with which some administratons plan to allow access to HF by no-code hams
seems surprising to us ...)

These are facts that you can't change, so I suggest you simply learn to live
with them.

Last time I checked, we were allowed to voice our opinions. No one
doubts it will be dropped, but we don't have to like it.



Ah, but you DO. Carl sez so.

Mike Coslo wrote:

Arnie Macy wrote:
"Brian" wrote ...

Bill, welp, I brought out the fine-toothed comb and swept it through the
citation. Nowhere did I pick up the words "reduced technical material" or
anything remotely like it. Exams that "Rationally and Directly relate to
priveleges" could be quite difficult, making some of these long-time hams
glad that retesting isn't required every 10 years. It is a PCTA ploy that
they continue to cry for no exams. Since we won't let them take their ball
and go home, they want to damage the ARS for all. They're tring to scuttle
the ship rather than let it fall into unworthy hands.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

"This will permit a practical combination of existing study guides and
testing materials to be used until such time as such materials are REVISED
and will result in REASONABLE tests for the three new classes of license
contemplated in these comments."


First, please show me where I said that NCI wants to END testing. You can't
because I never said it. Second, please explain what "revised" and
"reasonable" mean within the context of the above quote from NCI? (that you
conveniently snipped from my answer) Does it mean that NCI wants to make
the test MORE difficult? Even a blind man could see where this is going.

Since we have all this in one place now, just exactly is meant by that
statement?

REVISION means a change, obviously. It happens from time to time.

REASONABLE tests mean what?

You could poll 10 people and get 10 different answers. running from
virtually no esting to those who believe that the test process should
require the equivalent of a Bachelor's in EE. Reasonable means different
things to different people.

That quote is exceptionaly vague. Witness people here with different
interpretations.

Here is a golden chance for NCI to clarify and say *exactly* what they
mean. What is reasonable testing for the ARS?

Mike, you can Google up enough of Carl's stuff to show clearly what it means.
Which is exactly what Carl wants it to mean.

On 11 Jul 2003 05:30:06 -0700, Brian wrote:

Please cite the manual giving explicit directions for gaining
permission to operate amateur radio in a country w/o a government, and
now without an occupying military force that has jurisdiction over my
person.

Ah, effendi, you are starting to understand.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) Whether or not the Morse Code is an
anachronism, whether or not it should or
should not be tested for, the elimination of
the Morse code test *is* a reduction in the
amount of knowledge needed for a amateur
radio license; undeniable unless a person
wants to look silly.


Isn't Code more of a skill than a knowledge? Any person can look at a
piece of paper with a code chart on it and translate code, but that doesn't
mean they have the skill to send or receive code over a radio. Wasn't the
latter the ultimate purpose of the code test?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/