"N2EY" wrote

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

You finally got it! Congratulations, Jim. That's almost absolutely
correct, and would be spot-on accurate if you change the word 'unreasonable'
to 'unnecessary'.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:


"Alun" wrote in message
...

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


How would you then define the group to be polled? Even polling just
the licensed hams would be prohibitive in terms of postage as mentioned
in other posts.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



If I thought it should be decided by a poll, and I'm by no means sure of
that, then it should be done on-line. Just have a web page where you click
your chosen response. Chicago voters might be a problem, though.


Yeah I don't think they have internet access in their grave yards yet.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Alun
writes:

(Bert Craig) wrote in
. com:

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


Well, I guess that's a religeous issue, so I won't be able to convince you
otherwise.

If you look me up you'll see I'm an Extra, and you'll be able to figure
out that I passed 20 wpm. What you won't see, is that I've been a ham
since 1980, not 1992, as I'm not originally from this country.

Alun, with all due respect, such experience ist VERBOTEN in this
chat room.

The requirement to exist in this chat room requires a struct obediance
to morsemanship, tradition forever rooted in old ways back before all
the morseodist regulars ever existed.

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

In this chat room, the REGULARS maintain a LIFESTYLE of devotion,
obediance to love honor and obey amateur radio in all its past glory.

LIFESTYLES take precedence over logic, common sense, and
anything else not associated with amateur radio (except Michael
Jackson, foreign policy, overall economic decisions by government
and partisan politics).

Ham radio to the regulars is far more than a vocation. Vocations
in radio are to be pejorated, denigrated, spat upon, reviled, made fun
of and other niceties of the TURF where chat room homies consider
their 'hood.

There are NO First Amendment "rights" for chat room homies.
Their only constitution is that of the ARRL. E pluribus Sumner..

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

So, Alun, such heretical statements against the True Beliefs of the
morseodist chat room homies are, and will be, reviled, castigated,
denigrated, and shown the door with an angry last phrase of "don't
let it hit your ass on the way out!"

THIS venue is the chat room homies' TURF, Alun. Territorial imperative.

None can venture into this place unless they are of Groupthink,
secure in their Beliefs of the Group.

The notion that only hams should decide the future of ham radio is just
that, a notion.

NOT here. This is morseodist TURF, their neighborhood. NONE may
challenge morseodist groupthink. NONE.

I can absolutely guarantee that it is not a point of view
shared by the FCC, and it makes little sense to me either.

Heresy.

All know that ham radio is governed by the BoD at Newington.

So it shall always be.

Amen.

dit dit

(N2EY) wrote in
:

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?


Not atall. I think the current theory tests are reasonable

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?

It's a pretty silly idea. If we can let someone on the air with a Tech
licence today, then why not 11 years later? Time limitations have always
been artificial. I may think it's a waste if someone stays a Tech for
decades. I will almost certainly encourage them to upgrade, but I don't
think their licence should be cancelled.


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?


They can actually do that on CB, FRS, etc. I have no problem with that. Of
course, there are tight limitations on what they can do, designed to
ensure that they are harmless with their lack of knowledge, and
unfortunately often ignored on 27 MHz.

Why is a Technician Plus class licensee qualified to do anything
allowed by the rules on 2 meters, but not on 20 meters?

Because they know a bit less, and their signals will mostly only be heard
locally, hence limiting the potential effects. Granted that the additional
privileges of the Tech+ are not entirely consistent with that theory.

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

The General doesn't impart much in that way. The Extra does, however
require a better knowledge of radio theory.

I'm not sure that the present licence classes are very well tailored, but
politically it could be hard to change.

Personally, I'm in favour of a two tier system, where those who pass the
easier test stay above 30 MHz, or at least above 28 and maybe with access
to 1.8, but I don't actually think it's going to happen quite like that.
Too much inertia.


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.


Agreed

I was just commenting why I don't think a 'hams only' poll is the right
idea

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


It is, however, important that others could file a comment if they wanted
to.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

snip
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?

I think they include at least the UK, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Australia (not until
Jan 1st). New Zealand may actually do it before Australia, as they have
said it would be before the end of the year, but have given no date. I am
pretty sure I have missed a couple out, too.


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


Most do still retain it, but I think this has far more to do with
bureaucracy than intent

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.


Probably will

What happens next?


Lots of upgrades, plus no-coders on 10m the next day

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




73 de Alun, N3KIP

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
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.

Actually one could consider the opportunity to post comments as functionally
equivalent to a poll. Anyone can file a comment, licensed or not, citizen
or not. That's as democratic as it gets.

All interested persons have the opportunity to know that these issues are up
for comment since they are listed on publicly available government pages.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

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

You finally got it! Congratulations, Jim. That's almost absolutely
correct, and would be spot-on accurate if you change the word
'unreasonable'
to 'unnecessary'.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Having to pass the Extra is both unreasonable and unnecessary to be a ham or
remain a ham.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Alun wrote in
:

snip
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?

I think they include at least the UK, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland,
the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Australia (not
until Jan 1st). New Zealand may actually do it before Australia, as
they have said it would be before the end of the year, but have given
no date. I am pretty sure I have missed a couple out, too.


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


Most do still retain it, but I think this has far more to do with
bureaucracy than intent

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.


Probably will

What happens next?


Lots of upgrades, plus no-coders on 10m the next day

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




73 de Alun, N3KIP


This just in. The code test was abolished in Finland on the 1st of
November.

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"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.

Well, I don't know if disagreeing with the point is intentionally
"missing it" but okay.


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).

If you want to be more precise, they belong to the world.


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.

How you gonna educate them? Most people wouldn't have a clue what we
would be talking about. Do you propose an education system without
either Pro or Anti-code bias?

Should this poll include more input altogether, such as business
interests that would probably prefer us pesky hams to just go away?

Would the results of a poll consisting of people who knew nothing about
the ARS be representative of anything.

How are you going to approach anything like a knowledgable poll pool?

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , Alun
writes:

I can absolutely guarantee that it is not a point of view
shared by the FCC, and it makes little sense to me either.

Heresy.

All know that ham radio is governed by the BoD at Newington.

So it shall always be.

Amen.

dit dit

Praise be to Hiram.

didit