Alun wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in
:

Alun wrote:

(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

Maybe a fellow like Leonard H. Anderson! He's been mulling it over for
decades.


Sure, why not? I think the FCC should even take his point of view into
account.

The Commission is forced by law to accept his input. Nothing forces the
FCC to act on it.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil"

The answer is quite simple. I get my prescriptions at cost.

Are you retired Fed guys eligible for TMOP? Check it out. If you are,
you'll dump your cousin in a hurry.

73, Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) What we're saying is that on the single
issue of continued Morse code testing, (snip)

(snip) Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage
others to EARN theirs. Is that bad? Shall I
apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly
by while others try to trash a community I
belong to?


If what you're demanding to "earn" that license is unnecessary and based
on a false premise, then I think it is bad. You haven't established, at
least not to my satisfaction (nor the satisfaction of the ITU, FCC, and
several countries around the world), why Morse code is necessary (notice I
said necessary, not enjoyable) for ham radio today. And there is no truth
whatsoever to the premise that those without code skills in the ham radio
community are trashing anything. Instead, the vast majority are dedicated,
well-behaved, enthusiastic, participants of this community.

Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving, forward to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States sits
back and watches. Is this the actions of a modern, progressive, country with
feet planted firmly on today and eyes on the future? It's time to move on,
Jim. Morse code is going to be even less necessary in the future. As such,
Morse Code testing has no ligitimate place in that future.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
N2EY wrote:
(snip) Is that bad? Are you against direct
democracy and polling of those most affected?

(snip) You're avoiding the central issue. I think
you know that if such a poll were actually taken,
you might not like the results. (snip)

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines".
I'm just about certain that the more non-amateurs
included in any poll, the lower the support for
Morse code, and vice versa.


I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.
This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans). As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

As for myself, if you're going to ask Amateur Radio Operators if code
testing is necessary today to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service (as defined in Part 97) and serves some valid need as far as
the American public is concerned, then I would love to see the results of
that poll - it would be very interesting to see how many (or how few)
operators would actually place the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, and the needs of the American public, above their own desire to
keep a code testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Bert Craig" wrote:

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


And where does the rest of the American people fall into that, Bert? The
frequencies we use belong to all Americans, not just us. Do you plan to take
them into account when defining Amateur Radio, like the FCC must do when
regulating this radio service (including it's license requirements)?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Alun wrote in message . ..
Dave Heil wrote in
:

Alun wrote:

(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

Maybe a fellow like Leonard H. Anderson! He's been mulling it over for
decades.

Dave K8MN


Sure, why not? I think the FCC should even take his point of view into
account.

Some of us are even counting on it. ;-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article , Alun
writes:

However, ham radio is not a job or a vocation, just a hobby.

For many hams that's true.

But does that mean there should be no standards or requirements to join?

I welcome the
unmotivated as much as I would welcome anyone else. Why shouldn't they
have fun too?

OK, fine.

What do you think of this idea, Alun:

Require all new hams to pass the Extra written in 10 years or less or they get
tossed off the amateur bands.

Is that a good idea or a bad idea?

If someone wants HF and doesn't want to learn code, why
should they bother to study for a VHF and above licence, when they could
be scuba diving or building model railroads or what have you? (Not hobbies
of mine, personally, but whatever turns you on). I know this is sacrilege
to true beleivers, but so what?

OK, fine.

If someone wants to operate radios rather than build them, why must they learn
a lot of theory stuff that they are not interested in? To suit someone else's
idea of what amateur radio should be?

Why is a Technician Plus class licensee qualified to do anything allowed by the
rules on 2 meters, but not on 20 meters? What special knowledge is imparted by
the General and Extra class written tests?

The notion that only hams should decide the future of ham radio is just
that, a notion. I can absolutely guarantee that it is not a point of view
shared by the FCC, and it makes little sense to me either. At the very
least all prospective hams have a vested interest, irregardless of the
reasons they don't have a licence, reasonable or otherwise. I'm sure the
FCC would cast their net a lot wider than that.

Actually the FCC won't cast their net at all. They don't do polls or surveys -
just comments, petitions and proposals.

How many comments did the last restructuring get - 2500? Almost all of them
were from already-licensed hams. Less than 1/2 of 1%, too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) What we're saying is that on the single
issue of continued Morse code testing, (snip)

(snip) Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage
others to EARN theirs. Is that bad? Shall I
apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly
by while others try to trash a community I
belong to?


If what you're demanding to "earn" that license is unnecessary and based
on a false premise, then I think it is bad.

OK, fine.

You haven't established, at
least not to my satisfaction (nor the satisfaction of the ITU, FCC, and
several countries around the world), why Morse code is necessary (notice I
said necessary, not enjoyable) for ham radio today.

You mean the code itself, or the test?

And there is no truth
whatsoever to the premise that those without code skills in the ham radio
community are trashing anything. Instead, the vast majority are dedicated,
well-behaved, enthusiastic, participants of this community.

I wasn't just talking about the end of code testing "trashing ham radio". There
are a lot of other bad ideas out there.

Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving, forward to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States sits
back and watches.

What's the count now?

How many countries have eliminated the code test, vs. how many have retained it
so far?

Is this the actions of a modern, progressive, country with
feet planted firmly on today and eyes on the future?

What does all that mean, exactly? Besides the removal of the last remaining
vestige of code testing?

It's time to move on, Jim.

To what?

Let's say that tomorrow FCC just dumps Element 1. One sentence: "Element 1 is
waived for all applicants, pending revision of the rules". Could happen,
y'know.

What happens next?

Morse code is going to be even less necessary in the future. As such,
Morse Code testing has no ligitimate place in that future.

My mileage varies on that...

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.
This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans). As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies, and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

Almost all Americans can become hams without a code test. Been that way for
almost 13 years.

As for myself, if you're going to ask Amateur Radio Operators if code
testing is necessary today to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service (as defined in Part 97) and serves some valid need as far as
the American public is concerned, then I would love to see the results of
that poll - it would be very interesting to see how many (or how few)
operators would actually place the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, and the needs of the American public, above their own desire to
keep a code testing requirement.

So you assume that the goals and purposes of the ARS are incompatible with any
code testing at all?

And let's consider a basic principle of Hans' "learner's permit" proposal:
forced upgrading.

If FCC adopted his proposal, all new hams would have to either get Extras
within 10 years or leave ham radio. He's said that if 80% of newcomers drop out
under such a system, that's OK with him.

IOW, a 5 wpm code test is an unreasonable burden, but having to pass the Extra
written within isn't.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

What special knowledge is imparted by
the General and Extra class written tests?

The tests aren't designed to 'impart' knowledge. They are designed to
determine if an applicant meets some predetermined minimum qualifications
for the level of license being sought. (I'd have thought you knew that.)



What do you think of this idea, Alun:

Require all new hams to pass the Extra written in 10
years or less or they get tossed off the amateur bands.

I don't know what Alun thinks, but I think it is a superb idea. In fact,
I've suggested it to the regulators.

73, de Hans, K0HB