Alun wrote in message . ..
"Bert Craig" wrote in
t:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net...
Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents on
public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the change,
and how many want to keep the code.

Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there was
a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long as
quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the bejesus
out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet licensed.

But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The big
bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their no-code Tech
ticket and executing a vote.

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To give
those "yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the process.) and
send a ballot out to all those licensed "of record." Makes too much
sense and requires some effort. IOW, against the contemporary trend.

73 de Bert
WA2SI




Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are just
as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I.

I agree, Alun. The Technician license requires no code test.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Alun wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote in
. net:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net...
Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents
on public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the
change, and how many want to keep the code.

Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there
was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long
as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the
bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet
licensed.

But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The big
bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their no-code
Tech ticket and executing a vote.

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To
give those "yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the
process.) and send a ballot out to all those licensed "of record."
Makes too much sense and requires some effort. IOW, against the
contemporary trend.

73 de Bert
WA2SI




Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are
just as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I.

Sure - nobody is saying that should change.

However, note that there has been an amateur radio license with no code
test available here in the USA for almost 13 years now. That license
gives full VHF/UHF operating privileges and requires only a 35 question
written test.

A code test is only required for access to the HF/MF amateur bands.

So anyone who wants to obtain an amateur license can do so without any
code test.

73 de Jim, N2EY





Technically, that's true, but there's no longer any ITU requirement for a
code test for any band. I think at one time there were a lot of people who
wanted HF who would have been waiting for the code test to go. This is
probably no longer true, as the hobby has lost a lot of it's popularity
since the Internet, and as the test speed is now only 5wpm.

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.

I heartily disagree. While ARO's may not be the only "interested"
parties, they are the party that currently defines the hobby/service
from a cultural standpoint. Thus, licensed ARO's are the constituenct
that must lean on those who define the hobby/service from a regulatory
standpoint, the FCC.

Wow, is a 35 multiple-choice question written, for which the Q&A pool
is published, really too much to ask for the Carefully chosen words
follow, don't miss 'em. *right* to vote concerning the *requirements*
to *earn* *privileges?!*

Perhaps the path is clearer than we thought.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.

Actually, we asked them to be rid of code testing then, or, in the
alternative if
they could not find a legitimate "out" on S25.5, to drop the code test to
the
minimum they thought necessary to meet that obligation and enact a sunset
clause.

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?

Yes, but we weren't surprised that they did not adopt it ... the agency
typically
doesn't like to prejudge the future ...
however, the old addage "Don't ask, don't get." has some truth to it ... so
we asked anyway.

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article , Alun
writes:

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.

Who are the non-hams who are interested in the code test issue?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bert Craig wrote:
Alun wrote in message . ..


some snippage


Technically, that's true, but there's no longer any ITU requirement for a
code test for any band. I think at one time there were a lot of people who
wanted HF who would have been waiting for the code test to go. This is
probably no longer true, as the hobby has lost a lot of it's popularity
since the Internet, and as the test speed is now only 5wpm.

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.


I heartily disagree. While ARO's may not be the only "interested"
parties, they are the party that currently defines the hobby/service
from a cultural standpoint. Thus, licensed ARO's are the constituenct
that must lean on those who define the hobby/service from a regulatory
standpoint, the FCC.

Wow, is a 35 multiple-choice question written, for which the Q&A pool
is published, really too much to ask for the Carefully chosen words
follow, don't miss 'em. *right* to vote concerning the *requirements*
to *earn* *privileges?!*

Perhaps the path is clearer than we thought.


There will always be some for whom any amount of testing is too much.
Right now, we're sort of catering to that group.

After all almost everyone uses a two-way radio now, and we don't have to
be very smart to use a cell phone, (proven every day) do we? So why are
all those stuck-up Hams making like they are so hot and smart? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Bert Craig) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
"Bert Craig" wrote in
t:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net...
Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents
on public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the
change, and how many want to keep the code.

Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there
was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long
as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the
bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet
licensed.

But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The
big bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their
no-code Tech ticket and executing a vote.

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To
give those "yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the
process.) and send a ballot out to all those licensed "of record."
Makes too much sense and requires some effort. IOW, against the
contemporary trend.

73 de Bert
WA2SI




Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are
just as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I.

I agree, Alun. The Technician license requires no code test.

73 de Bert
WA2SI


True, but some don't take it because they only want HF, not because they
couldn't answer the questions. All I'm saying is that they should have a
vote in any poll.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

(N2EY) wrote in news:20031121082829.07578.00001764@mb-
m25.aol.com:

In article , Alun
writes:

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.

Who are the non-hams who are interested in the code test issue?

73 de Jim, N2EY




Anyone who has been thinking of becoming a ham, I would imagine

"N2EY" wrote

Who are the non-hams who are interested in the code test issue?

Why that's pretty simple, Jim, I'm surprised you didn't know. It's all
those non-hams who might consider becoming licensed.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote

However, no matter how interested someone is in politics, that person can
*only* vote where he/she resides. IOW the price of voting is having to
join a
community by living there.

Your analogy remains flaccid. Amateur radio exists in the community in
which we all live. It has an effect on all of us, whether we are licensed
or not, and the regulations concerning qualification to participate in it
even more so.

My friend, W4OYI, ex-President of ARRL, compares the ARS to a public park; a
place in the spectrum set aside for citizens to pursue the avocation of
radio. What you are proposing is that persons already in this 'park' by
virtue of having paid some entry price be the only ones allowed to vote on
the conditions under which other citizens can fully participate in every
area of park activities. IOW, "I got mine, now you get yours, and then you
can vote."

Or consider the recent election of a movie actor with no experience as a
government official to the governorship of California.

Are you suggesting that "experience as a government official" should be a
qualification for election to office in the USA? The Constitution contains
no such language. My daughter was recently elected to public office, and
she has no previous experience as a government official. Should she and
Arnold be denied their office? Should only existing or previous government
officials be allowed to be elected?

Or should there be some sort of 'incentive licensing' of government
officials in which you must first be elected to an entry level office, let's
say Canine Capture Technician. Then after gaining the skill and experience
to capture 5 dogs per minute, they be allowed to run for office at some more
responsible level, all the way up to President, and only those already
elected would be allowed to vote for them? What a concept!

The fact that you have an amateur license suggests
that you will have an opinion about amateur radio
regulation, but it gives no credence in and of
itself whether your opinion is or is not worthy of consideration.

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

Yes, it does. (N2EY)
No, doesn't (K0HB)

....we could go on and on....

In general, what happens to the amateur radio service has a greater effect
on
licensed amateurs and those who want to be licensed amateurs than on the
general public.

But we weren't talking about "in general". Wahtoosey was proposing a poll
to vote on the code test as a qualfication for entry (to HF). Since you
"already have yours", such a poll (were it binding on FCC) would not effect
your entry into amateur radio, but would have a far greater effect on those
not yet licensed (the general public). Thus we could much more convincingly
argue that you should *not* be eligible to vote in the poll, but the general
(non-licensed) public *should* be eligible.

One word: motivation.

Ah, yes, the old "motivation" card. We dealt with that back in 1996 at

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm....mn.org&oe= U
TF-8&output=gplain


Who are the people who would want to participate in a one-time survey on
Morse
code testing but who cannot even pass the Technician written test?

Wahtoosey didn't suggest a 'survey'. He talks about a poll where people
vote and democracy rules.

And the discussion was not about those who 'cannot even pass'. It was about
those who (for whatever reason of their own) have not become licensees.
More of your "I've got mine, now you get yours" mindset showing.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

Alun wrote in message . ..
(Bert Craig) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
"Bert Craig" wrote in
t:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net...
Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS documents
on public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the
change, and how many want to keep the code.

Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if there
was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed hams. As long
as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy) frightens the
bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for those not yet
licensed.

But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The
big bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their
no-code Tech ticket and executing a vote.

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To
give those "yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the
process.) and send a ballot out to all those licensed "of record."
Makes too much sense and requires some effort. IOW, against the
contemporary trend.

73 de Bert
WA2SI




Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are
just as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I.

I agree, Alun. The Technician license requires no code test.

73 de Bert
WA2SI


True, but some don't take it because they only want HF, not because they
couldn't answer the questions. All I'm saying is that they should have a
vote in any poll.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Hmm, sounds like a motivational issue. If you want HF, the road to the
General and Extra begins with the Technician exam...no matter what. If
they're truly "interested" in participating in participating in the
process of this change, you'd think the Tech exam would be...wait a
sec, lemme stop. I just remembered whom we're talking about. Kinda
sad. :-(

No, Alun. I really DO believe that Amateur Radio operators should
define Amateur Radio. What a concept, eh?

73 de Bert
WA2SI