"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...
And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.

Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???



Yep, I considered it, then rejected it as inaccurate. Nocoders aren't
about
to dole out $34 per year for *nothing* That's exactly what most of
then see
of value to them in ARRL membership, since they really aren't into ham
radio
beyond their HT, and have no use for al the many ARRL "bennies".


If the ARRL would "get with it" and actively, openly support this
inevitable change, rather than fighting to keep the nocoders off
of HF until the bitter end, they might be able to restore the goodwill
they've lost exactly because of their Morse policy ...



That's about as accurate as your prediction that no code will bring
hordes of geniuses into the hobby.

"Carl R. Stevenson"



BTW, those who want to read the NCI Petition for Rulemaking and see what
Jim doesn't want you to see and consider


Not to be concerned, Jim, he always gets paranoid like this when decision
time looms......

You can bet that far more people agree with your assesment than his.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect

to

the split in their existing membership.

Very much so, I'd agree.


However, outside of their membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ...

What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree
with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you
operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what?


I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I
get from folks, etc. I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those
nocode techs who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse
requirement ... do you REALLY think they are "hot to learn Morse"???
I don't ...

Okay, it's speculation. I guess it depends on who you hang out with. I
know a lot of people who don't like the idea of dropping the
requirement. And most of the tech's I know are pretty happy with their
lot in life. Just a comparison.


thus,
I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand
to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go.

It remains to be seen. Those for who the Morse test is too much trouble
may not be bothered to join the ARRL either.


ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website,
and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio. However, selling
those benefits is difficult when the prospective buyer is someone who knows
his/her membership dues are going to an organization that's dedicated by
current policy to keep them off of HF ... it doesn't take Einstein or a
Gallup poll to figure that one out ...

But they really do benefit the tech's also, Of course that all depends
on the level of interest in amateur radio to begin with. Whether they
are interested in the VHF or HF/MF aspect. Those are pretty much
different worlds.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with
respect to
the split in their existing membership. However, outside of their
membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side
...
thus,
I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand
to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to
go.
(Not
Morse use, not taking away spectrum where Morse can be used, just the
test requirement ...)

You believe but have NO data of any kind. Sorry but that doesn't fly.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL would be wise to sit this one out for the very reasons that
Carl has listed.

So where is your data (of any kind), Dee?

Data on what specifics of the issue? eHam and ARRL have had surveys within
the past year that contradict Carl's statement. And I've already listed
these sources several times before. Must I keep repeating myself?

Of course you must. We had to address and readdress all those Morse
Myths time after time, day after day, year after year.

As an ARRL member, I've yet to see them repeat the debacle that they
tried to pass off as a legitimate survey prior to the last
restructuring. Please tell me what issue it was published in and I'll
look it up.

As for eHam, I'm sorry but I've never heard of them.

You are getting my statements mixed up other peoples. I have already
referenced the current data on ARRL membership, ham radio membership,
surveys on Morse code, etc. I then stated that the ARRL may very well be
wise to not take a stance on the issue

That is correct.

since the split is roughly even and
no matter what stance they take, a significant number of hams will probably
be dissatisfied.

What is "roughly?" 70/30?

Carl has stated that most hams want Morse testing to go away and has
provided no data to support that. I and others have pointed out that the
data that does exist contradicts his "belief". These are the recent surveys
done on the various ham radio sites.

Is this one of those surveys where you can click and click and click?

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
.net...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...
And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.

Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???

That's odd, Carl. I used the ARRL CD's to prepare for Element 1. When I
had
specific questions, league employees responded promptly via e-mail with
helpful answers.

To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL
actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF.

Yes, IF you were willing to meet their criteria by jumping through the
Morse code hoop ...

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

NCI's Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC.

It is available in .pdf format at http://www.nocode.org
under the "Articles" link ...

OK, let's cut to the chase.

Obviously the main request is to dump Element 1 ASAP. And there's
probably lots of reasons given for doing so, including the
Commission's own words "no regulatory purpose".

But what else was in the petition?

I gave you a URL where you could read it ...

Not really. You gave the main website and left it up to the reader to find the
article, then download it and open it as a pdf.

If you really wanted people to read it, you'd have it front-and-center on the
webpage and post a direct link.

That's not what I asked.

Here's the answer, to save others the bother of reading 20 pages to
get the answer to my question:

NOTHING.

Jim,

You say "NOTHING"

That's right.

... but in the following paragraphs you admit
that "Most of the 20 pages is supporting reasons to make the change."

Yup. And that was already referred to.

Yes, referred to with a thinly-veiled attempt to dissuade others from
reading and considering all of those reasons.

Not at all. My main concern was whether there were other things in the
petition, such as written test changes, license class changes, etc. There
weren't.

Look again at what I wrote:

"Obviously the main request is to dump Element 1 ASAP."

Which is true.

Yes ... what did you expect?

I expected that much. It's the unexpected that I was concerned about.

Since NCI does not want me as a member, and keeps its internal policy functions
secret, I was simply asking for a quick indication of what other issues would
be covered.

That *IS* NCI's chartered goal.

And it's a good thing they are sticking to it, rather than getting bogged down
in other issues.

"And there's probably lots of reasons given for doing so, including
the
Commission's own words "no regulatory purpose"."

Which is also true.

And then the question:

"But what else was in the petition?"

The "what else" refers to things OTHER THAN dropping Element 1 and
reasons to drop Element 1.

And the correct answer is: NOTHING. The petition consists of a request
to drop element 1 and reasons to do so.

What did you expect?

See above.

That is what a Petition for Rulemaking IS ... a
specific
request(s) and all of the supporting arguments ...

Those specific requests could be anything.

I *really* don't know what else you're asking for ...

Here, I'll spell it out for ya:

You could have simply answered my question this way:

'NCI requested the immediate removal of Element 1 for all classes of license
and the granting of Novice/Tech Plus privileges to all Technicians. Detailed
supporting arguments were included in the proposal. No other changes were
requested because they fall outside the stated purpose of NCI."

One paragraph. Three sentences. Short sweet and concise. 100% accurate. Would
it have been so hard to have answered my question that way?

I think that's important information for folks to consider ... that's
why
I encourage folks to actually READ and consider the NCI Petition,
rather than relying on your "5 cent synopsis."

I've read and cosidered it, and I'm opposed to it.

Really? (what a surprise)

Yes, really.

Why do you want to "save others the bother" of reading the Petition?

Because we already know that it would contain a request to drop
Element 1 and reasons to do so. Those reasons have been argued
endlessly here and elsewhere.

The reasons elaborated in the Petition form the factual, legal, and
rational basis for granting the request ... I think they're presented
clearly in a well-organized manner that, in only 20 pages, tells a
a reader all they need to know to make an informed decision based
on the facts.

My summary, above, boils it down to three sentences.

You don't WANT people reading it and coming to the logical
conclusion, IMHO ...

Not at all! Did I say anyone should not read it? Of course not! I simply wanted
to save the time of wading through 20 pages of same-old same-old looking for
something new.

My question was about what else was in the petition besides dropping
Element 1 and reasons to do so.

That wasn't clear at all ...

Sure it was...if you read what I wrote.

and why you would expect more escapes me,
since, as I pointed out above, all of the essential elements of a Petition
for Rulemaking are there (and you knew the what the goal of the Petition
would be before it was written ...)

Because there is always the chance that something unexpected would be in there.


(Could it be that you find the arguments so compelling that you don't
WANT others to read them???)

Nope. None of the arguments are compelling at all. Not to me, anyway -
YMMV. And we've all read them many times before.

OK, we disagree ... but I believe the FCC (and MANY amateurs) will
find the arguments compelling.

Sure. They've already been convinced. Did not FCC write, almost 4 years ago,
"no regulatory purpose"? Those three little words say it all.

I don't think the petition will change anyone's mind.

You HOPE not ... that's why you try to brush it off as somehow being
insignficant and "not worth the time to read." Interesting tactic, but
I doubt that it will work.

Has anyone's mind been changed?

The NCI petition consists of a request to drop Element 1 without
further delay or discussion and give Techs the same privileges as Tech
Pluses. No other changes proposed. Most of the 20 pages is supporting
reasons to make the change.

Is this synopsis not 100% accurate?

Yup ... and that's EXACTLY what's SUPPOSED to be there.

In your opinion. Do you dictate NCI policy, Carl, or is it formulated by the
Board? I'm an outsider, remember - not even privileged to know how many
members NCI has.

As you have pointed out, Carl, FCC hasn't even given any of the
proposals an RM number yet. And it's reasonable to assume there
will
be more proposals - from NCVEC, ARRL, and other groups. FCC may
assign
numbers, or they may take ideas from each one and produce an NPRM.

NCVEC already filed a petition, as have several individuals.

It's clear NCVEC isn't done yet. They're talking about other changes
too.

That's their business ... NCI is focused on the Morse test issue and
is not proposing more sweeping changes that are outside of our
charter ...

That's the smart way to go. Focus on the core issue and don't be
delayed or derailed by other issues.

Bingo ... and I don't believe that the FCC will allow this issue to
get bogged down with other unrelated issues. It's too clear-cut,
whereas other issues (band segmentation, privs by license class,
etc.) are clearly going to be harder to deal with because they are
not so clear-cut.
(They're also not NCI's charter, so they're not our "ox to gore.")

Maybe. OTOH, if the issue is that clear cut, why is FCC dragging its feet? I
actually thought the main delay would be ratification, and that the removal of
Element 1 would be a quick MO&O thing. Now it looks like the whole NPRM cycle
will be invoked. A year - 2 years....?

There are supposedly four other petitions filed, too. Wonder what they
say?

They basically say the same thing, in various levels of detail and
sophistication,
ranging from a 1-pager from a guy who's filed MANY (read between the lines)

Not many lines to read between in a one-pager...

to a few pages of generally well-considered material that doesn't have the
cites
to law, previous FCC decisions/determinations, etc. that NCI's has. They
all
add to the momentum, however ...

Maybe. NPRM means comments...

I urge all to read the NCI proposal and consider the arguments contained
therein. I don't agree with them or find them compleiing - maybe others will.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
.net...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...
And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away
from
ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just
don't
see much in it for them.

Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???

That's odd, Carl. I used the ARRL CD's to prepare for Element 1. When I
had
specific questions, league employees responded promptly via e-mail with
helpful answers.

To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL
actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF.

Yes, IF you were willing to meet their criteria by jumping through the
Morse code hoop ...

Carl - wk3c

Speak for yourself, Carl. I certainly did NOT have to jump through any
hoops. I set a goal, researched the requirements, and then set about meeting
said requirements.

I also make sure that in all the letters and e-mails I send to the league,
FCC, political reps, etc. I inform them that the current Morse code test was
no barrier for this newbie and did NOT "force" me to jump through any hoops.
So please don't allow any individual or group promoting the "barrier/hoop"
line of Bravo Sierra to include me in their demographic. I suspect there are
more NTs (As opposed to OTs or OFs) like me who dislike being associated
with underachievement. I hope they too will take the time to make their
views on the matter heard.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS# 9384

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...

And history runs counter also. No coders have mostly stayed away from

ARRL , and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon. They just don't
see much in it for them.


Dick,

Did you (or the ARRL Board of Directors, more importantly)
EVER CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the nocoders are
staying away from the ARRL (in droves) because they don't
want to contribute dues to an organization that's been dedicated
(and still is, by policy) to keep them off of HF???

If they don't want to join the ARRL, there's no way you're gonna stop
'em! (apologies to Yogi)


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
.net...
Speak for yourself, Carl. I certainly did NOT have to jump through any
hoops. I set a goal, researched the requirements, and then set about
meeting
said requirements.

I also make sure that in all the letters and e-mails I send to the league,
FCC, political reps, etc. I inform them that the current Morse code test
was
no barrier for this newbie and did NOT "force" me to jump through any
hoops.
So please don't allow any individual or group promoting the "barrier/hoop"
line of Bravo Sierra to include me in their demographic. I suspect there
are
more NTs (As opposed to OTs or OFs) like me who dislike being associated
with underachievement. I hope they too will take the time to make their
views on the matter heard.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS# 9384



Nor did I find Morse to be a barrier. Just as you did, I researched the
requirements, investigated study methods, and then proceeded to fulfill the
requirements. Although I did not use the mode all that much at first, I
find in the last two years that my usage is growing by leaps and bounds.

As a supporter of Morse, I've recently sent in my membership request to
FISTS. I'll also be putting together a "learn/improve your Morse code"
class for our club sometime this year.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

(WA3IYC) wrote in message ...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

NCI's Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC.

It is available in .pdf format at http://www.nocode.org
under the "Articles" link ...

OK, let's cut to the chase.

Obviously the main request is to dump Element 1 ASAP. And there's
probably lots of reasons given for doing so, including the
Commission's own words "no regulatory purpose".

But what else was in the petition?

I gave you a URL where you could read it ...

Not really. You gave the main website and left it up to the reader to find the
article, then download it and open it as a pdf.

If you really wanted people to read it, you'd have it front-and-center on the
webpage and post a direct link.

I found it, read it, and understood it. And Bunion Heil has all but
called me retarded.

What exactly was your problem?


That's not what I asked.

Here's the answer, to save others the bother of reading 20 pages to
get the answer to my question:

NOTHING.

Jim,

You say "NOTHING"

That's right.

... but in the following paragraphs you admit
that "Most of the 20 pages is supporting reasons to make the change."

Yup. And that was already referred to.

Yes, referred to with a thinly-veiled attempt to dissuade others from
reading and considering all of those reasons.

Not at all. My main concern was whether there were other things in the
petition, such as written test changes, license class changes, etc. There
weren't.

That could be learned by reading it. Congratulations.

Look again at what I wrote:

"Obviously the main request is to dump Element 1 ASAP."

Which is true.

Yes ... what did you expect?

I expected that much. It's the unexpected that I was concerned about.

Since NCI does not want me as a member, and keeps its internal policy functions
secret, I was simply asking for a quick indication of what other issues would
be covered.

I just love these non-members demanding resources and actions.
Typical code welfare mentality.

That *IS* NCI's chartered goal.

And it's a good thing they are sticking to it, rather than getting bogged down
in other issues.

Such as?

"And there's probably lots of reasons given for doing so, including
the
Commission's own words "no regulatory purpose"."

Which is also true.

And then the question:

"But what else was in the petition?"

The "what else" refers to things OTHER THAN dropping Element 1 and
reasons to drop Element 1.

And the correct answer is: NOTHING. The petition consists of a request
to drop element 1 and reasons to do so.

What did you expect?

See above.

See above.

That is what a Petition for Rulemaking IS ... a
specific
request(s) and all of the supporting arguments ...

Those specific requests could be anything.

The supporting arguments could be anything also.

I *really* don't know what else you're asking for ...

Here, I'll spell it out for ya:

You could have simply answered my question this way:

'NCI requested the immediate removal of Element 1 for all classes of license
and the granting of Novice/Tech Plus privileges to all Technicians. Detailed
supporting arguments were included in the proposal. No other changes were
requested because they fall outside the stated purpose of NCI."

All you have to do is denounce the code exam as the true saviour of
amateur radio, join the organization, and issue such a statement
yourself.

One paragraph. Three sentences. Short sweet and concise. 100% accurate. Would
it have been so hard to have answered my question that way?

Yet you have arrived at a short, sweet, concise, and apparently 100%
accurate answer without any help from Carl. The mind is a powerful
tool, isn't it?

I think that's important information for folks to consider ... that's
why
I encourage folks to actually READ and consider the NCI Petition,
rather than relying on your "5 cent synopsis."

I've read and cosidered it, and I'm opposed to it.

Really? (what a surprise)

Yes, really.

That's what I love about America. We can have differences of opinion
without blowing up oil pipelines or water pipelines.

Why do you want to "save others the bother" of reading the Petition?

Because we already know that it would contain a request to drop
Element 1 and reasons to do so. Those reasons have been argued
endlessly here and elsewhere.

The reasons elaborated in the Petition form the factual, legal, and
rational basis for granting the request ... I think they're presented
clearly in a well-organized manner that, in only 20 pages, tells a
a reader all they need to know to make an informed decision based
on the facts.

My summary, above, boils it down to three sentences.

But the FCC contract attorneys get paid by the page.

You don't WANT people reading it and coming to the logical
conclusion, IMHO ...

Not at all! Did I say anyone should not read it? Of course not! I simply wanted
to save the time of wading through 20 pages of same-old same-old looking for
something new.

Code is something old. Code Exams are something old. What did you
expect, Farnsworth?

My question was about what else was in the petition besides dropping
Element 1 and reasons to do so.

That wasn't clear at all ...

Sure it was...if you read what I wrote.

and why you would expect more escapes me,
since, as I pointed out above, all of the essential elements of a Petition
for Rulemaking are there (and you knew the what the goal of the Petition
would be before it was written ...)

Because there is always the chance that something unexpected would be in there.

More the reason to read it yourself.

(Could it be that you find the arguments so compelling that you don't
WANT others to read them???)

Nope. None of the arguments are compelling at all. Not to me, anyway -
YMMV. And we've all read them many times before.

OK, we disagree ... but I believe the FCC (and MANY amateurs) will
find the arguments compelling.

Sure. They've already been convinced. Did not FCC write, almost 4 years ago,
"no regulatory purpose"? Those three little words say it all.

Yet you disagree. Is that not enough for you?

I don't think the petition will change anyone's mind.

You HOPE not ... that's why you try to brush it off as somehow being
insignficant and "not worth the time to read." Interesting tactic, but
I doubt that it will work.

Has anyone's mind been changed?

Nope.

The NCI petition consists of a request to drop Element 1 without
further delay or discussion and give Techs the same privileges as Tech
Pluses. No other changes proposed. Most of the 20 pages is supporting
reasons to make the change.

Is this synopsis not 100% accurate?

Yup ... and that's EXACTLY what's SUPPOSED to be there.

In your opinion. Do you dictate NCI policy, Carl, or is it formulated by the
Board? I'm an outsider, remember - not even privileged to know how many
members NCI has.

All you have to do is denounce the code exam as the true saviour of
amateur radio. We might even initiate you into the Wolf Wong Club,
the PTT Pounders Club, and DX Millenium Club (DXMC).

Just kidding. We have none of that in NCI.

As you have pointed out, Carl, FCC hasn't even given any of the
proposals an RM number yet. And it's reasonable to assume there
will
be more proposals - from NCVEC, ARRL, and other groups. FCC may
assign
numbers, or they may take ideas from each one and produce an NPRM.

NCVEC already filed a petition, as have several individuals.

It's clear NCVEC isn't done yet. They're talking about other changes
too.

That's their business ... NCI is focused on the Morse test issue and
is not proposing more sweeping changes that are outside of our
charter ...

That's the smart way to go. Focus on the core issue and don't be
delayed or derailed by other issues.

Bingo ... and I don't believe that the FCC will allow this issue to
get bogged down with other unrelated issues. It's too clear-cut,
whereas other issues (band segmentation, privs by license class,
etc.) are clearly going to be harder to deal with because they are
not so clear-cut.
(They're also not NCI's charter, so they're not our "ox to gore.")

Maybe. OTOH, if the issue is that clear cut, why is FCC dragging its feet? I
actually thought the main delay would be ratification, and that the removal of
Element 1 would be a quick MO&O thing. Now it looks like the whole NPRM cycle
will be invoked. A year - 2 years....?

Why does the government drag its feet? It took 10 months to hire a
Sky Marshall after 9/11, and you want them to address the code exam
issue within moments of the end of the meeting?

There are supposedly four other petitions filed, too. Wonder what they
say?

They basically say the same thing, in various levels of detail and
sophistication,
ranging from a 1-pager from a guy who's filed MANY (read between the lines)

Not many lines to read between in a one-pager...

The key word was "MANY."

to a few pages of generally well-considered material that doesn't have the
cites
to law, previous FCC decisions/determinations, etc. that NCI's has. They
all
add to the momentum, however ...

Maybe. NPRM means comments...

So does NOI.

I urge all to read the NCI proposal and consider the arguments contained
therein. I don't agree with them or find them compleiing - maybe others will.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I encourage all thinking people to read and consider the proposal,
especially should the FCC address it through an NOI or NPRM.
Participatory government fails when citizens don't participate.

Brian