"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Do you think we'd still have code testing in the USA today if, back in
1998,
there had been an overwhelming majority of support for NCI's "5 wpm and
sunset
clause" idea?

Yes, I do ... because the FCC was bound by S25.5 of the ITU Radio
Regulations.
(The ONLY reason they gave for keeping the 5 wpm requirement at the time.)

NCI asked the FCC to eliminate code testing if they could see their way
clear,
but we frankly were not surprised by the outcome.

73,
Carl - wk3c

KØHB wrote:

First off, your analogy is flaccid at best. In order to register to vote, I
generally need only to reveal my place of residence (with evidence like an
ID card, or be vouched for by another person registered to vote in the
jurisdiction). I need not take any written or skills test, nor pay any
examination fee, nor demonstrate any particular knowledge of the issues.
(In fact such impediments to registering/voting used to exist in some
jurisdictions, notably in the south, and are deemed unconstitutional.) It
speaks volumes that you'd suggest such impediments to comment on something
as mundane as regulations regarding a hobby radio service.

Second off, regardless of the applicability of your analogy, I do not judge
a persons political opinion based on whether he/she has taken the time to
register to vote. (I don't even raise that question, because it is
irrelevant to the value I place on their opinion.) I attach credence to
their opinion based on their ability to make well constructed arguments, to
succinctly state their views without resort to emotion or cliché, and
evidence that they may have considered alternate or opposing views.

Hans, do you consider your occasional foray into profanity, referring to
Jim's anology as flaccid, or calling me stupid as something other than
emotional responses?

Of course, I'm stupid, so I might not know th edifference!! 8^)



- Mike KB3EIA -

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

Actually, outlining some experience/qualifications to render a view lends
a certain degree of credibility to comments.

And a distinct image of pompousness.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Hans, do you consider your occasional foray into profanity, referring to
Jim's anology as flaccid, or calling me stupid as something other than
emotional responses?

That's a stupid question. (Regardless of the old bromide about "there ain't
no such thing as....")

73, de Hans, K0HB

Mike Coslo wrote

Hans, do you consider your .... referring to Jim's anology as flaccid .....
as something other than emotional responses?

I call it descriptive (certainly it's not emotional!!).

According to my Funk and Wagnalls (gotta love a guy with a funky name
like that!):

==== flaccid: adj. soft and limp: (example: flaccid biceps)

In other words, without strength, weak, ie., "flaccid analogy"

If that strikes an emotional chord with you, then you must truly be a
"sensitive" guy!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:42:20 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Actually, outlining some experience/qualifications to render a view lends
a certain degree of credibility to comments. It also helps to establish
one's status as an "interested party" in the legal sense.

And, as I know full well, sometimes it is legally required to
disclose one's background and present status to avoid claims of
"conflict of interest" based on present or past associations with
the matter or the agency.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 19 Nov 2003 23:33:34 GMT, N2EY wrote:

But I have it on good authority that FCC does place some value on the
"credentials" of the person making the comments.

Perhaps K2ASP would comment on this.

The same is true in any professional field. It's called "credibility".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"N2EY" wrote

Perhaps K2ASP would comment on this.

I'd BET on it!!! And I'll bet on his answer too. It'll have an anecdote
to some incident back when he had a life.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Do you think we'd still have code testing in the USA today if, back in
1998,
there had been an overwhelming majority of support for NCI's "5 wpm and
sunset
clause" idea?

Yes, I do ... because the FCC was bound by S25.5 of the ITU Radio
Regulations.
(The ONLY reason they gave for keeping the 5 wpm requirement at the time.)

You misunderstood me, Carl. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Note that I wrote "still have code testing in the USA today" (emphasis on
"today")

IIRC, NCI asked for 5 wpm right away and a sunset clause that would dump
Element 1 if/when S25.5 removed the treaty requirement. FCC did the 5 wpm thing
but did not enact the sunset provision.

My point was that I think if there had been overwhelming support of both parts
of the NCI proposal, FCC would have done the sunset clause thing and code
testing would have disappeeared in the USA more than five months ago. YMMV.

NCI asked the FCC to eliminate code testing if they could see their way
clear,
but we frankly were not surprised by the outcome.

Was there not a request for a sunset clause that would do it automatically?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:42:20 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Actually, outlining some experience/qualifications to render a view lends
a certain degree of credibility to comments. It also helps to establish
one's status as an "interested party" in the legal sense.

And, as I know full well, sometimes it is legally required to
disclose one's background and present status to avoid claims of
"conflict of interest" based on present or past associations with
the matter or the agency.

Thanks, Phil and Carl, for explaining it far better than I did.

73 de Jim, N2EY