"Bert Craig" wrote in message
. ..
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...
Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the
Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation
and involved both during and before the WRC.

Sounds like an awful lot of effort....to get something removed that
required
a much smaller amount of effort.
73 de Bert, WA2SI

The effort is of no consequence when judging the need
for any specific requirement. The only thing that matters
is clear and compelling reason(s) to have or not have
a particular requirement. The FCC weighed in on
morse rational in the R&O for 98-143 plus the
subsequent petitions for reconsideration.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bert Craig wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the

Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation
and involved both during and before the WRC.


Sounds like an awful lot of effort....to get something removed that required
a much smaller amount of effort.

Yup, a celebration of less knowledge.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"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.)

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.
(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.)

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."

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

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just
WHY
should there be testing for a ham license?

Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is
a
requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to
operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource,
sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways.
73, de Hans, K0HB

Well said Hans.

Well said indeed, but what if enough people just reject that logic?
What if it is decided that the licenses just need to be bought? Say 200
bucks a shot? Or maybe a yearly sort of thing. Why have any other
qualifications for the license?

- Mike KB3EIA -

When the FCC takes that position then I'll fight
against it. For now, that's just empty speculation.
I have long sgo stated my opposition to any
elimination of written testing...and, have made
suggestions to the VCCs on ways to improve
written testing.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
NCI Director

I fully agree with Bill ... I will also oppose any attempt to eliminate
written testing on technical, RF safety, rules/regs, etc. THAT's
what separates ham radio from "personal radio services."

73,
Carl - wk3c

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
I still think that if morse code is so important for the hams to have to
know how to do, then all others utlizing public service and business band
frequencies should have to know it as well such as law enforcement, fire,
ems, governmental entities, transportation frequencies etc. Especially the
emergency service people, as if there were ever a case where they may be
caught in a position where morse code may be useful, I don't know what would
be. Can you imagine if they used it for at least a secondary level of
communications if not a primary one?? People in scannerland would have to
learn morse code as well to figure out what the hell is being sent!

ALL-CODE INTL.!!!!!!!!



Whoaaa there, Ryan! You're getting spun up here!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bert Craig wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...
Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the
Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation
and involved both during and before the WRC.

Sounds like an awful lot of effort....to get something removed that required
a much smaller amount of effort.




Carl has obviously been on a Jihad against Morse code for most of his adult
life.
Seems he must have flunked his 13wpm code test for the General in San Diego many
years ago and wound up getting enough of that 13wpm to qualify for an
old-category Tech. That daunting experience seems likewise to have left him with
a load of bile that has taken all these years to find a relief outlet for...NCI
and its
"mission" have been right up his alley.

And you're right, of course- it would have been much easier for him to have
just
tuned in W1AW code practice a few more sessions and retested, but what the hey!

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote ...

Arnie, go ahead and let her take your answer. No sense in both of you
being wrong.
__________________________________________________ ___________________

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 -
KT4ST

Arnie, citation please. It is the disgruntled PCTA that have
advocated a "No Test International" concept.

I do not speak for NCI, but am on record for saying that the entry
level exam is far to technical for an entry level license, and the
entry level priveleges of 1,500 watts of UHF radiation are far too
great for an entry level safety.

Of course, the Technician license was never meant to be an entry
license, being the consolation prize for General-level knowledge w/o
the outdated, superfluous and irrelevant psycho-motor skills to
twiddle a paddle at 13wpm.

Brian

Still no citation from Arnie concerning his claim that NCI is on
record for less technical exams.

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bert Craig wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...
Did you know that Carl was in Geneva as a member of the
Call it whatever you like. Fact is Carl was on the delegation
and involved both during and before the WRC.

Sounds like an awful lot of effort....to get something removed that
required
a much smaller amount of effort.

Carl has obviously been on a Jihad against Morse code for most of his
adult
life.
Seems he must have flunked his 13wpm code test for the General in San
Diego many
years ago and wound up getting enough of that 13wpm to qualify for an
old-category Tech. That daunting experience seems likewise to have left
him with
a load of bile that has taken all these years to find a relief outlet
for...NCI
and its
"mission" have been right up his alley.

And you're right, of course- it would have been much easier for him to
have
just
tuned in W1AW code practice a few more sessions and retested, but what the
hey!

Talk about a "load of bile"! NCI followed all the rules, participated
actively in the preparation for WRC and had an NCI Director at the
WRC itself and all Dick can do is whine. Seems like the PCTA
folks didn't care enough about morse to even try to retain it. Guess
morse will really die off if the PCTA folks are the sole recruiting
effort for morse going forward.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just
WHY
should there be testing for a ham license?

Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is
a
requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to
operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource,
sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways.
73, de Hans, K0HB

Well said Hans.

Well said indeed, but what if enough people just reject that logic?
What if it is decided that the licenses just need to be bought? Say 200
bucks a shot? Or maybe a yearly sort of thing. Why have any other
qualifications for the license?

- Mike KB3EIA -

When the FCC takes that position then I'll fight
against it. For now, that's just empty speculation.
I have long sgo stated my opposition to any
elimination of written testing...and, have made
suggestions to the VCCs on ways to improve
written testing.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
NCI Director

I fully agree with Bill ... I will also oppose any attempt to eliminate
written testing on technical, RF safety, rules/regs, etc.

The way it works is a slow, gradual reduction of written testing, not
complete elimination all in one go.

Consider the 2000 restructuring. IIRC, to get a full-privileges
license, we went from 5 written tests totalling 190 questions
(30/35/35/50/40) to 3 written tests totalling 120 questions
(35/35/50). For a General, it went from 3 written tests totalling 100
questions to 2 questions totalling 70 questions. Technician got the
biggest reduction - from two tests totalling 65 questions to one test
of 35 questions.

Yes, the Q&A pools were merged and the rules simplified, but does that
account for the large drop in both the number of tests and number of
questions? Note that the NPRM comments were full of suggestions to
improve the written tests. Indeed, if there was any subject in which
there was general consensus among those responding, it was that the
written tests were either adequate as they were or needed to be
improved. But all that was done was to reduce written testing and
remove the requirement that each test contain a certain number of
questions from each category.

In fact I recall that several of us were in agreement back before
restructuring that the then-current tests for a Tech were inadequate
for the privileges granted, particularly being able to run 1500 W
output at meat-cooking wavelengths. But FCC disagreed, and cut the
testing for a Tech almost in half.

Some folks here have proposed either a single license class, or at
most two license classes. It is logical to conclude that such changes
would result in even less written testing.

Perhaps the rewording of S25 wrt written testing standards will have
an effect - but I sincerely doubt it.

I have read that W5YI, Fred Maia, has proposed making the license
tests "less technical" in order to attract more newcomers. Perhaps
this is where the misunderstanding about NCI's stand on written
testing originated.

THAT's
what separates ham radio from "personal radio services."

That and a lot more. Like the use of a wide variety of bands and modes
- including Morse/CW.

But to ask the devil's advocate question:

Why MUST there be so much written testing for an amateur license,
given that most hams use modern, manufactured equipment today, and
that almost all FCC enforcement actions against hams are for
"operating" violations rather than technical ones?

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@ mygate.mailgate.org...


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message


Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just

WHY

should there be testing for a ham license?

Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is

a

requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to
operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource,
sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways.
73, de Hans, K0HB

Well said Hans.

Well said indeed, but what if enough people just reject that logic?
What if it is decided that the licenses just need to be bought? Say 200
bucks a shot? Or maybe a yearly sort of thing. Why have any other
qualifications for the license?

- Mike KB3EIA -

When the FCC takes that position then I'll fight
against it. For now, that's just empty speculation.
I have long sgo stated my opposition to any
elimination of written testing...and, have made
suggestions to the VCCs on ways to improve
written testing.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
NCI Director

I fully agree with Bill ... I will also oppose any attempt to eliminate
written testing on technical, RF safety, rules/regs, etc.


The way it works is a slow, gradual reduction of written testing, not
complete elimination all in one go.

Consider the 2000 restructuring. IIRC, to get a full-privileges
license, we went from 5 written tests totalling 190 questions
(30/35/35/50/40) to 3 written tests totalling 120 questions
(35/35/50). For a General, it went from 3 written tests totalling 100
questions to 2 questions totalling 70 questions. Technician got the
biggest reduction - from two tests totalling 65 questions to one test
of 35 questions.

Yes, the Q&A pools were merged and the rules simplified, but does that
account for the large drop in both the number of tests and number of
questions? Note that the NPRM comments were full of suggestions to
improve the written tests. Indeed, if there was any subject in which
there was general consensus among those responding, it was that the
written tests were either adequate as they were or needed to be
improved. But all that was done was to reduce written testing and
remove the requirement that each test contain a certain number of
questions from each category.

In fact I recall that several of us were in agreement back before
restructuring that the then-current tests for a Tech were inadequate
for the privileges granted, particularly being able to run 1500 W
output at meat-cooking wavelengths. But FCC disagreed, and cut the
testing for a Tech almost in half.

Some folks here have proposed either a single license class, or at
most two license classes. It is logical to conclude that such changes
would result in even less written testing.

Perhaps the rewording of S25 wrt written testing standards will have
an effect - but I sincerely doubt it.

I have read that W5YI, Fred Maia, has proposed making the license
tests "less technical" in order to attract more newcomers. Perhaps
this is where the misunderstanding about NCI's stand on written
testing originated.


Well put, Jim. It's what I've been trying to say, without getting into
a "slippery slope" argument. You've phrased it very well indeed. Thanks much


THAT's
what separates ham radio from "personal radio services."


That and a lot more. Like the use of a wide variety of bands and modes
- including Morse/CW.

But to ask the devil's advocate question:

Why MUST there be so much written testing for an amateur license,
given that most hams use modern, manufactured equipment today, and
that almost all FCC enforcement actions against hams are for
"operating" violations rather than technical ones?


I've been trying to say the same thing as devil's advocate, and I fear
that Carl and Bill may not quite grasp the concept.

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.

Those responsible for such a reduction in knowledge needed for a
license, regardless of their reasons, now find themselves in league with
those who propose even less knowledge needed for that ticket. Politics
makes for strange bedfellows.

I understand that Carl and Bill do not support lessening of the
knowledge needed. But that does not really matter. Those who want the
tests to consist of nothing but sending in an application (if that)
**applaud their efforts** That is another thing that is pretty hard to deny.

Let's put it this way: Those who do not believe that the tests should
be radically simplified or eliminated, but believed the Morse code
requirement should have been eliminated may some day find themselves on
the losing end of the proposition, just as those who support Morse code
testing have lost the battle at this time.

I remember when you had to have a license to use CB.


just something to think about......


- Mike KB3EIA (and one time KBM-8780)