I'm wating for the day of reconking!

I'm gonna get you all!

I have tried for many years to learn code! Cannot learn it!

Now that the International law has declared it old, it will not be long till
the FCC give us no-coders the "green light" - then our takeover will begin.

Hello good-buddy!

Hi troll idiot....hope ur not in a hurry. The PCTAs are gonna put you on
hold for another decade at least.

Dan/W4NTI

"LD" wrote in message news:3f26b3a9@shknews01...
I'm wating for the day of reconking!

I'm gonna get you all!

I have tried for many years to learn code! Cannot learn it!

Now that the International law has declared it old, it will not be long
till
the FCC give us no-coders the "green light" - then our takeover will
begin.

Hello good-buddy!

"LD" wrote in message news:3f26b3a9@shknews01...
I'm wating for the day of reconking!

I'm gonna get you all!

I have tried for many years to learn code! Cannot learn it!

Now that the International law has declared it old, it will not be long till
the FCC give us no-coders the "green light" - then our takeover will begin.

Hello good-buddy!

Relax. Get along. Have a good time. Stay away from 3.950 and 14.313.

Let the pigs wallow there.

"Brian" wrote in message
m...
"LD" wrote in message news:3f26b3a9@shknews01...
I'm wating for the day of reconking!

I'm gonna get you all!

I have tried for many years to learn code! Cannot learn it!

Now that the International law has declared it old, it will not be long
till
the FCC give us no-coders the "green light" - then our takeover will
begin.

Hello good-buddy!

Relax. Get along. Have a good time. Stay away from 3.950 and 14.313.

Let the pigs wallow there.

Im gonna tell those Carolina cousins that hang on 3950 what you said.

As for 313. Its peacefull now a days.

Guess you need to 'update' your hard drive, eh Brian?

Dan/W4NTI

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

Hi troll idiot....hope ur not in a hurry. The PCTAs are gonna put you on
hold for another decade at least.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan:

Good point. And the PCTA's may not need to lift a finger. After all,
the FCC just went to a great deal of time and expense to restructure
the U.S. amateur radio licensing system,

A recurring review was and is required. Do you know how often they
must review the regs?

and may not be all that
motivated to go through that process again in such short order.

They don't have a choice. It's called a mandate.

Since
they felt that the 5 WPM test requirement was acceptable to those
who would have burdened them with medical waiver requests had they
kept a higher speed code test, they will not likely see any need to
start the whole NPRM comment/reply ball rolling again very soon.

You haven't been paying attention.

I could be wrong, of course, but time will tell.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry, of course. bb

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Dan:

Good point. And the PCTA's may not need to lift a finger. After
all, the FCC just went to a great deal of time and expense to
restructure the U.S. amateur radio licensing system,

A recurring review was and is required. Do you know how often they
must review the regs?

Brian:

Every four years. Which means that the present Element 1 code test has
at least until April 15, 2004, plus the time it takes for the 2004
Quadrenneal Review, then the time it takes for the FCC to review any
Petitions for Rulemaking I may have received, then the time it would
take for the NPRM, comment, and reply comment process to take place.
Code testing could probably go on for anywhere from 2 to 4 years from
now. I never said that it wouldn't be eliminated, just that it isn't a
"front-burner" issue for the FCC.

and may not be all that
motivated to go through that process again in such short order.

They don't have a choice. It's called a mandate.

What mandate? Who is "mandating" the elimination of code testing?
The ITU left it up to the individual administrations whether or not
they would require code testing in their country's ARS licensing
system. There is no "mandate" to eliminate it whatsoever.

Since
they felt that the 5 WPM test requirement was acceptable to those
who would have burdened them with medical waiver requests had they
kept a higher speed code test, they will not likely see any need to
start the whole NPRM comment/reply ball rolling again very soon.

You haven't been paying attention.

The things I'm posting would give an unbiased observer the exact
opposite impression.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Do you realise if it does take two years, the US will be just about the
only country with code testing, except maybe Russia!

Alun Palmer wrote:

Do you realise if it does take two years, the US will be just about the
only country with code testing, except maybe Russia!

Which would mean?

- Mike KB3EIA -

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Dan:

Good point. And the PCTA's may not need to lift a finger. After all,
the FCC just went to a great deal of time and expense to restructure
the U.S. amateur radio licensing system,

A recurring review was and is required. Do you know how often they
must review the regs?

Brian:

Every four years. Which means that the present Element 1 code test has
at least until April 15, 2004, plus the time it takes for the 2004 Quadrenneal
Review, then the time it takes for the FCC to review any Petitions for
Rulemaking I may have received, then the time it would take for the NPRM,
comment, and reply comment process to take place. Code testing could
probably go on for anywhere from 2 to 4 years from now. I never said that
it wouldn't be eliminated, just that it isn't a "front-burner" issue for the
FCC.

and may not be all that
motivated to go through that process again in such short order.

They don't have a choice. It's called a mandate.

What mandate? Who is "mandating" the elimination of code testing?
The ITU left it up to the individual administrations whether or not they would
require code testing in their country's ARS licensing system. There is
no "mandate" to eliminate it whatsoever.

Calm down, Larry. The review is mandated. And the FCC already said
that the only reason they kept the code exam was the ITU requirement.
There is no longer an ITU requirement, so during the next review...

Since
they felt that the 5 WPM test requirement was acceptable to those
who would have burdened them with medical waiver requests had they
kept a higher speed code test, they will not likely see any need to
start the whole NPRM comment/reply ball rolling again very soon.

You haven't been paying attention.

The things I'm posting would give an unbiased observer the exact
opposite impression.

They did not "feel" that the 5wpm exam was acceptable. They "felt"
that it was required by the ITU.

Brian

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

Hi troll idiot....hope ur not in a hurry. The PCTAs are gonna put you on
hold for another decade at least.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan:

Good point. And the PCTA's may not need to lift a finger. After all,
the FCC just went to a great deal of time and expense to restructure
the U.S. amateur radio licensing system,

A recurring review was and is required. Do you know how often they
must review the regs?

and may not be all that
motivated to go through that process again in such short order.

They don't have a choice. It's called a mandate.



Really, Brain? Would you care to cite exactly the source and contents of that mandate?

Do you think the FCC reviewed Part 97 last time because they thought
it was a neat thing to do?

See Larry's reply. He's got something on the ball that you don't.

When are we going to hear "The "Pop" Heard Around the World" when you
pull your head out?

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in
:



Mike Coslo wrote:

Alun Palmer wrote:

Do you realise if it does take two years, the US will be just about
the only country with code testing, except maybe Russia!

Which would mean?

Simple, Mike - instant gratification foiled again!



Well, given that I already have an Extra Class licence, how would that be
relevant?