In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

On 1 Aug 2003 02:52:19 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:


For years the code test was the ONLY factor that restricted
troublemakers from freely roaming the ham bands, FCC having been relegated
by lack of funding
to more or less toothless-watchdog status.

Only problem I have with that statement is the FACT (stated by Riley
himself as quoted in QST, CQ, Popular Communications, Monitoring
Times, Worldradio, and possibly others I didn't read) that the two
frequencies FCC received the most complaints about (14.303 and, I
believe, 3.950) were frequencies where the operators had to pass code
tests in order to obtain privileges to operate there.

Yup. That's true.

They also had to pass at least two written tests to operate there. The written
tests are largely about the rules and regulations of the ARS. Obviously those
written tests didn't keep those ops out of the ARS, nor cause them to behave
correctly. Should we just dump those written tests because they did not work
perfectly?

Also - what mode were those folks using on 14.313 and 3.950?

In a way, I guess we're lucky - if the Liberty Net hadn't attracted
all the jammers (and counter-jammers) to the one frequency they'd have
been...well...freely roaming the bands.

So when a few thousand refugees from way up there descend onto the HF bands
-as some have very recently indicated their intent right here on rrap- and
lonely Riley is left
to sweep up,. just how much enforcement you think there'll be?
But press on- it's "kill the code" even if it kills us.

Dick, the code isn't stopping those few thousand refugees from
descending into the HF bands now, and it wouldn't stop them from doing
so in the future even if we continued to have a code test for the next
267 years...any more than it has stopped them from inhabiting the
so-called "freeband" which is another place they don't have any
privileges or licenses to operate.

See above about written exam...

The *only* thing keeping unlicensed operators off the ham bands in
droves is the well-known determination of licensed hams to keep them
off of here, even if it means going out at 3:00 AM in the middle of an
ice storm to do some DF'ing and tape recording. That's it, period.

No, there's another part: the fact that there may be some enforcement action as
a result of that determination. Didja see where FCC cited a couple of trucking
companies because of truckers' illegal use of 10 meters?

The
code test is not now, never has been, and never will be a deterrent to
anyone contemplating an act of gross stupidity on the bands...and that
applies to hams and non-hams alike.

Then please explain why there are so many NALs for violations committed using
voice modes, and so few for violations using Morse code or data modes. Maybe
it's not the TEST but the MODE that has an effect?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

And we've already heard from the Extra's how if they don't get their
way they are going to destroy the amateur radio service. Dick, Larry,
Dan, Bruce...


Brian:

Is that what I said? Prove it. Keep in mind, if you can't or won't prove it,
then YOU are a liar, and have completely and forever trashed your
credibility in this newsgroup.

As usual, a simple apology to Dick, Dan, Bruce, and myself will get you
off the hook. I will be happy to accept my own via private E-mail, to save
you any further embarrassment.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

And we've already heard from the Extra's how if they don't get their
way they are going to destroy the amateur radio service. Dick, Larry,
Dan, Bruce...

Hmmm. Curious. I don't recall who originally posted this, but I would
certainly be interested in seeing a quote where I said that I intended to
"destroy the amateur radio service" once code testing had been abolished.
To be sure, it would hardly be necessary for me to lift a finger to "destroy
the ARS" since our so-called "newcomers" will be doing their level best
to accomplish that on their own!

Well, I don't intend to. Heck, I'll probably do lot's of "self
policing".

Any attempts at "self policing" will, for the most part, be wasted breath,
once all the eager new HF phone operators are finally liberated from 11 meters
and join their "fellow amateurs" on our HF phone bands. About the only
thing that could possibly work would be some sort of "super Elmering" at
the local club levels -- meaning, put the Codeless General/Extra-class
"newcomers" on a very short leash, and keeping them on it more or less
permanently. However, since I believe that 99.999999999018 percent of
the problems in amateur radio originate on the phone bands, we'd be asking
the inmates to guard the jailhouse.

Looking at it from the bright side, the antics of the present and future
phone operators may be the best "incentive" yet for people to learn the
Morse code! However, as usual, they'll probably just give up entirely,
rather than make the effort to learn a useful communications skill. After
all, the code went away because of laziness.

73 de Larry, K3LT

On 02 Aug 2003 12:27:10 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Then please explain why there are so many NALs for violations
committed using voice modes, and so few for violations using Morse
code or data modes. Maybe it's not the TEST but the MODE that has an
effect?

The days when the monitoring stations would catch ham operators 2
or 3 kHz outside the band edge (especially in contests) are gone
forever. "Cruising" is no longer a daily activity.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On 02 Aug 2003 12:27:10 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Then please explain why there are so many NALs for violations
committed using voice modes, and so few for violations using Morse
code or data modes. Maybe it's not the TEST but the MODE that has an
effect?

The days when the monitoring stations would catch ham operators 2
or 3 kHz outside the band edge (especially in contests) are gone
forever. "Cruising" is no longer a daily activity.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon



Heh heh, and maybe CW is not so commonly understood by those at the FCC?
Phil?

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

And we've already heard from the Extra's how if they don't get their
way they are going to destroy the amateur radio service. Dick, Larry,
Dan, Bruce...


Wait a minute ... don't tar all of us Extras with the same brush that
Dick, Larry, et al deserve ...

For example the vast majority of the Directors of NCI are Extras (or
their national equivalent thereof).

Additionally, there are a significant number of Extras amongst our
membership ... at least in proportion to the % of Extras to other
license classes.

So, it's not "the Extras" ... it's the PCTAs ...

Please don't lump all Extras in with that crowd ... it just 'aint so.

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Is that the music to the Twilight Zone I hear?

Yes, yes it is...

Believe it or not, folks, this is one of Kim's more reasonably intelligent
posts!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


In article ,
(Brian) writes:

And we've already heard from the Extra's how if they don't get their
way they are going to destroy the amateur radio service. Dick, Larry,
Dan, Bruce...


Wait a minute ... don't tar all of us Extras with the same brush that
Dick, Larry, et al deserve ...

For example the vast majority of the Directors of NCI are Extras (or
their national equivalent thereof).

Additionally, there are a significant number of Extras amongst our
membership ... at least in proportion to the % of Extras to other
license classes.

So, it's not "the Extras" ... it's the PCTAs ...

Please don't lump all Extras in with that crowd ... it just 'aint so.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

Brian made the statement that "Extras" such as Dick, Dan, Bruce, and
myself wish to "destroy the amateur radio service." Obviously, he thinks
we want to do this because we *are* PCTA's, and see the value of retaining
code testing (what's left of it) in the ARS. In other words, because we
don't agree with him and the NCTA's, we want to "destroy" the ARS.
Do you think this is accurate? Do YOU think that us PCTA's want to
"destroy" the ARS?

AFAIC, when the FCC finally gives us a No-Code Test ARS licensing
system, the "destruction" of our hobby/service is self-assured. About
the best we can hope for is for the NCTA's to continue with their traditional
apathy and laziness, and somehow not flock to the ARS in any great
numbers. We would also require the assistance of the ARRL and the
FCC to resist the urge to expand HF phone spectrum, but I don't see that
as something the ARRL would do, so the FCC will be happy to oblige
when the petitions start coming in. In any case, the future of the ARS
looks bleak, and it will be the non-code tested "newcomers" who will
be administering the coup de gras.

BTW, Carl -- the only reason you're an "Extra" is because you waited until
the code test was dumbed down to a maximum of 5 WPM. That's not being
a Real Extra(tm) in the opinion of any of the traditional PCTA's. You're
just a wannabe Extra Pretender who got in on an Affirmative Action
program.

73 de Larry, K3LT
Amateur Extra since 1983

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:45:41 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:

The days when the monitoring stations would catch ham operators 2
or 3 kHz outside the band edge (especially in contests) are gone
forever. "Cruising" is no longer a daily activity.

Heh heh, and maybe CW is not so commonly understood by those at the FCC?
Phil?

Nope - I am told that the requirement still is 16 wpm for field
office enforcement agents and 20 wpm for monitoring techs - yes,
there still are those, just not as many because the mon stas are
all remoted to a central point now, where each can be brought up as
necessary by a single tech. Several of the field office agents are
ex-monitoring techs as well.

As long as Morse is permitted in any radio service for any purpose,
such as IDs in the land mobile services or "permissive" Morse in the
maritime services, or "permissive" Morse in the ARS, that job
requirement will stay.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:45:41 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:

The days when the monitoring stations would catch ham operators 2
or 3 kHz outside the band edge (especially in contests) are gone
forever. "Cruising" is no longer a daily activity.

Heh heh, and maybe CW is not so commonly understood by those at the FCC?
Phil?

Nope - I am told that the requirement still is 16 wpm for field
office enforcement agents and 20 wpm for monitoring techs - yes,
there still are those, just not as many because the mon stas are
all remoted to a central point now, where each can be brought up as
necessary by a single tech. Several of the field office agents are
ex-monitoring techs as well.

As long as Morse is permitted in any radio service for any purpose,
such as IDs in the land mobile services or "permissive" Morse in the
maritime services, or "permissive" Morse in the ARS, that job
requirement will stay.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Wow, Phil! I had no idea. And, I am glad to hear it.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to