Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send e-mails
to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance, all Techs would
automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1 is retained for
General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite any
volume of sentiments to the contrary?

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails
to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance, all Techs
would
automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1 is retained for
General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite any
volume of sentiments to the contrary?

Bert,

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic"
or "self-initiated" way ... the status quo is 5 wpm for General and
Extra.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the FCC
proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would, at this
point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC staffers
who would have to deal with them. (and no matter what our respective
views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want the ARS
to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the result
was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and cause
them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something that they
DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this question
finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time to comment
(when they ASK for comments). In the meantime, a major mail/e-mail
"blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the standing of the ARS
as a whole at the FCC.

73,

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


snippage

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the result
was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and cause
them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something that they
DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'll show my ignorance here What is a LEO? Low Earth Orbiter?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance,
all Techs would automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1
is retained for General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite
any volume of sentiments to the contrary?

Bert,

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic"
or "self-initiated" way ... the status quo is 5 wpm for General and
Extra.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the
FCC proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would, at
this point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC staffers
who would have to deal with them. (and no matter what our respective
views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want the ARS
to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the
result was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and
cause them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something
that they DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this question
finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time to comment
(when they ASK for comments). In the meantime, a major mail/e-mail
"blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the standing of the ARS
as a whole at the FCC.

73,


Bert, as I see it the basic facts are these:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will be a
rubber stamp excercise);

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the Amateur
service. You could file one too;

3)This will be followed by requests for comments, and you could then file
yours too.

The bottom line is yes, there's still plenty of recourse, but not yet, and
very little chance they won't dump element 1 completely anyway (see the
previous poster's explanation).

If you want to petition for all Techs getting Tech+ privileges, or file a
comment to that effect, that may be worthwhile, all the same.

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for instance,
all Techs would automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies while Element 1
is retained for General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1 despite
any volume of sentiments to the contrary?

Bert,

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic"
or "self-initiated" way ... the status quo is 5 wpm for General and
Extra.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the
FCC proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would, at
this point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC staffers
who would have to deal with them. (and no matter what our respective
views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want the ARS
to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the
result was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and
cause them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something
that they DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this question
finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time to comment
(when they ASK for comments). In the meantime, a major mail/e-mail
"blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the standing of the ARS
as a whole at the FCC.

73,


Bert, as I see it the basic facts are these:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will be a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the Amateur
service. You could file one too;

Maybe. Time will tell.

3)This will be followed by requests for comments, and you could then file
yours too.

Not necessarily. Since the FCC already stated (in R&O 98-143)
that code was only retained because of the S25.5 requirement, it is possible
for the FCC to just drop Element 1 altogether based solely on
prior consideration.

The bottom line is yes, there's still plenty of recourse, but not yet, and
very little chance they won't dump element 1 completely anyway (see the
previous poster's explanation).

Agree.

If you want to petition for all Techs getting Tech+ privileges, or file a
comment to that effect, that may be worthwhile, all the same.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

That was reaffirmed in their response to the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli Petiton for
Reconsideration, too. I recall that the FCC said they thought code testing
"serves no regulatory purpose" other than meeting the treaty requirement.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

The USA has to ratify the revised treaty first. Ink up the rubber stamps...

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic"
or "self-initiated" way ...

Why not? They said the test is there for Reason X. Reason X no longer exists.
Bye-bye code test.

Of course there will be petitions all over the place just to make sure.

the status quo is 5 wpm for General and Extra.

Hard to see what all the fuss is about, really.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the FCC
proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would, at this
point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC staffers
who would have to deal with them.

The real problem is that FCC can't do anything about it until the treaty is
ratified anyway.

(and no matter what our respective
views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want the ARS
to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

OK, fine. Then let's ALL not send any letters, emails, proposals or petitions
to the FCC about code testing from now on. We'll just wait until FCC initiates
something and asks for comments. Deal?

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the result
was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and cause
them great difficulty in conducting normal business ... something that they
DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

So we should all just be quiet, huh?

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this question
finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time to comment
(when they ASK for comments).

OK, fine. I promise not to bother FCC about the subject of code testing if
everyone else promises not to bother FCC about the subject of code testing.

Does everyone agree?

In the meantime, a major mail/e-mail
"blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the standing of the ARS
as a whole at the FCC.

The thing to "blitz" the FCC about is Broadband over Power Line. They've only
got about 1800 comments - and we have over 685,000 hams.

Did anyone besides me comment to the FCC about it?

Or should I have kept quiet, so as not to annoy FCC? The way the NOI was
written, it seemed like BPL was the latest new golden technology. Sure seemed
like FCC liked it a lot.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified the
new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part will be a
rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Bill. But it's academic - has the USA
ever not ratified a revised ITU-R treaty?

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the Amateur
service. You could file one too;

Maybe. Time will tell.

The smart money will wait until the treaty is ratified.

3)This will be followed by requests for comments, and you could then file
yours too.

Not necessarily. Since the FCC already stated (in R&O 98-143)
that code was only retained because of the S25.5 requirement, it is possible
for the FCC to just drop Element 1 altogether based solely on
prior consideration.

BINGO. In fact, considering both the R&O and the FCC response to the
Worser-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration, I would be very, very
surprised if FCC bothered with an NPRM.

The bottom line is yes, there's still plenty of recourse, but not yet, and
very little chance they won't dump element 1 completely anyway (see the
previous poster's explanation).

Agree.

If you want to petition for all Techs getting Tech+ privileges, or file a
comment to that effect, that may be worthwhile, all the same.

The next step is "what other changes are needed?" That will take an NPRM


73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
:


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
Here's a question. Forgive me if it appears trollish, but I gotta
ask.

Is there any individual or dept. within the FCC that folks can send
e-mails to in support of retaining the 5-wpm exam? Or, for
instance, all Techs would automatically get Novice/Tech+ privies
while Element 1 is retained for General and Extra?

Or is it a forgone conclusion that the FCC WILL drop Element 1
despite any volume of sentiments to the contrary?

Bert,

Back a few years ago, when the FCC issued its Report and Order
"restructuring" the ARS, the ONLY reason they gave for keeping
ANY Morse testing at that time was the requirement in S25.5 of
the ITU Radio Regs.

Now that that is gone, all of the countries of the world are free to
drop Morse testing from their national rules.

While I think it's a fairly good bet that the FCC WILL drop Morse
testing, frankly, I don't see the FCC acting on this in any sort of
"automatic" or "self-initiated" way ... the status quo is 5 wpm for
General and Extra.

And, since there is currently no petition or open docket item at the
FCC proposing to make any such changes, letters and e-mails would,
at this point,
most likely be considered an unwarranted annoyance by the FCC
staffers who would have to deal with them. (and no matter what our
respective views on code/no-code, I don't think that ANY of us want
the ARS to be viewed as being a thorn in the FCC's side ...)

I remember a few years back when the ARRL got the amateur community
all fired up over "little LEOs trying to take the 2m band" ... the
result was
a firestorm of e-mails to the FCC that overloaded their servers and
cause them great difficulty in conducting normal business ...
something that they DEFINITELY did NOT appreciate!

I'm sure that the amateur community will get notice when this
question finally does come up at the FCC ... THAT will be the time
to comment (when they ASK for comments). In the meantime, a major
mail/e-mail "blitz" on the FCC will almost certainly harm the
standing of the ARS as a whole at the FCC.

73,


Bert, as I see it the basic facts are these:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before congress has ratified
the new treaty (no point approaching congress, though, as that part
will be a rubber stamp excercise);

And even if congress failed to ratify it would change nothing
in the ITU treaty. In fact, if congress doesn't
ratify, then the USA would simply NOT be a participant
in the treaty. The former treaty is, as of 7/5/03, null and void.

2)Everyone and his dog will then file petitions to restructure the
Amateur service. You could file one too;

Maybe. Time will tell.

3)This will be followed by requests for comments, and you could then
file yours too.

Not necessarily. Since the FCC already stated (in R&O 98-143)
that code was only retained because of the S25.5 requirement, it is
possible for the FCC to just drop Element 1 altogether based solely on
prior consideration.


Agreed, but do you really think that will stop people from submitting
petitions for restructuring?

The bottom line is yes, there's still plenty of recourse, but not yet,
and very little chance they won't dump element 1 completely anyway
(see the previous poster's explanation).

Agree.

If you want to petition for all Techs getting Tech+ privileges, or
file a comment to that effect, that may be worthwhile, all the same.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Alun Palmer" wrote:

1)The FCC won't respond to anything filed before
congress has ratified the new treaty (no point
approaching congress, though, as that part will
be a rubber stamp excercise);


Is there no clause in the treaty Congress previous ratified that allows
for modifications in compliance with ITU changes?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:


Is there no clause in the treaty Congress previous ratified that allows
for modifications in compliance with ITU changes?



Do you mean that the ITU treaty allows the retention of a code test if
the FCC decides
to? It says as much that it is now an option.

There is quite likely many new things in the new treaty that the USA
really wants and
the code thing for hams is likely at the very bottom of the list of
priorities. Most members
of congress are not likely to even know what ham radio is, much less
care about the
code requirement for hams......

We're not banning code. Some new hams will likely start playing it and
find it
easy to pick up, and become good at it. As long as there is interesting
DX to
be had on CW, hams will keep using it. "CW gets thru when nothing else
does,
and only needs the simplest of equipment".