The ARRL is now projecting that it will take the FCC until at least sometime
in 2006 to make any changes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:

The ARRL is now projecting that it will take the FCC until at least sometime
in 2006 to make any changes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yup! Easily then if not later. If the current administration is still
in at that time, it may even be later - if at all. Remember that
conservative folks of the neo stripe *don't* like treaties, and this is
a treaty matter.

A conservative type of the old school...

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

The ARRL is now projecting that it will take the FCC until at least sometime
in 2006 to make any changes.

Well, there it is, the "authoritative voice" of U.S. ham radio. :-)

There will be no consensus until the league says there's consensus!

:-)

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

The ARRL is now projecting that it will take the FCC until at least
sometime
in 2006 to make any changes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yup! Easily then if not later. If the current administration is still
in at that time, it may even be later - if at all. Remember that
conservative folks of the neo stripe *don't* like treaties, and this is
a treaty matter.

A conservative type of the old school...

- Mike KB3EIA -


Also why fix it when it isn't broken! So I don't expect any speed on this.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

The ARRL is now projecting that it will take the FCC until at least
sometime
in 2006 to make any changes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yup! Easily then if not later. If the current administration is still
in at that time, it may even be later - if at all. Remember that
conservative folks of the neo stripe *don't* like treaties, and this is
a treaty matter.

Mike,

Why do you consider this a treaty matter today? While the current
treaty may not yet have gone through Senate approval, surely aren't
suggesting (or maybe you are) that anyone here (USA) or elsewhere
considers the prior treaty still in effect.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dee D. Flint wrote:


The ARRL is now projecting that it will take the FCC until at least

sometime

in 2006 to make any changes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yup! Easily then if not later. If the current administration is still
in at that time, it may even be later - if at all. Remember that
conservative folks of the neo stripe *don't* like treaties, and this is
a treaty matter.

Mike,

Where you been Bill? I haven't read one of your posts in a while.


Why do you consider this a treaty matter today?

Well, it kinda is! But read on.

While the current
treaty may not yet have gone through Senate approval, surely aren't
suggesting (or maybe you are) that anyone here (USA) or elsewhere
considers the prior treaty still in effect.

You do raise a good point, since the present Powers that be might not
consider themselves bound by the treaty anyhow.

But this will still probably take longer than any of us that made
thoughtful predictions thought. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Where you been Bill? I haven't read one of your posts in a while.

Very busy summer, some vacation, there's more to life tha the inernet :-)
:-)

Why do you consider this a treaty matter today?

Well, it kinda is! But read on.

While the current
treaty may not yet have gone through Senate approval, surely aren't
suggesting (or maybe you are) that anyone here (USA) or elsewhere
considers the prior treaty still in effect.

You do raise a good point, since the present Powers that be might not
consider themselves bound by the treaty anyhow.

I wonder how long it was after the WARC that created the
"WARC" bands that the FCC changed the USA rules to allow
use of those bands. Did US rules change before Senate ratification?
Hey Jim (N2EY), got your history of the FCC and ham rules
handy?

But this will still probably take longer than any of us that made
thoughtful predictions thought. 8^)

So it seems.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Did US rules change before Senate ratification?
Hey Jim (N2EY), got your history of the FCC and ham rules
handy?


I'll have to go look that one up for exact dates, but here's a general scheme
of what happened:

At WARC-79, the allocation table was changed to allow amateurs access to new
bands at 30, 17 and 12 meters. 30 meters was shared; I'll have to look up 12
and 17. But the changes did not take place instantly, because the then-current
users of those bands had to be given time to move elsewhere, and the various
governments had to be given time to amend their rules.

Most of all, however, signatory countries did not *have to* let their hams use
those bands, nor was there any specific allocation of modes, power levels,
license classes, etc.

Some countries moved quickly; the US less so. I recall ARRL repeatedly
petitioning FCC to open at least some of the bands (12 meters?) because *years*
had passed and some other countries had full access.

I don't recall that Senate ratification had anyhting to do with it.

With WRC-2003, the situation is somewhat different. Changes to S25.5 do not
affect users of other services directly (nobody has to move). The change to the
Morse Code test requirement is straightforward and simple:

Before WRC-2003, the treaty itself required code testing for an HF ham license,
and FCC interpretation backed that up and referenced it as a prime and later
only reason to keep Element 1.

After WRC-2003, the treaty requires code testing policy to be set by each
signatory country. Each country's code-test policy can be anything that country
wants it to be. No requirement to change anything, nor to retain anything.

Yet so far, the US rules are the same as they were on April 16, 2000 -
four-and-a-half years ago almost exactly. Obviously this isn't a high priority
to FCC.

What's odd is that in the R&O for 98-143, FCC specifically cited the treaty
requirement as the one-and-only reason they kept Element 1. Yet they also
refused the idea of a sunset clause that would eliminate Element 1 if the
treaty requirement vanished.

15 months ago, I thought that Senate ratification would be an issue, but that's
obviously not the case. I also thought FCC would just dump Element 1 without
the whole NPRM cycle, but that's obviously not the case either. (And I'm gald
to have been mistaken!)

Back in 2003, ARRL predicted two years (2005) before we'd see rules changes
resulting from WRC-2003. Now ARRL says 2006 - three years.

So far, most of us who entered a date in The Pool have seen the date come and
go with no action.

So what's going on? Some speculations (in order of wildness):

1) Perhaps FCC is simply doing the NPRM cycle. With over a dozen proposals out
there, thousands of comments and reply comments, and limited resources, it
simply takes FCC a while to decide what to do.

2) Perhaps FCC has looked at the comments, seen how much widespread support
Element 1 has, and is not about to do anything at all.

3) Perhaps the whole issue is simply not a big deal to the FCC. The existing
test, complete with all the authorized accomodations, just isn't that hard for
most people to pass. (Remember that VEs can do all kinds of things in the line
of accomodation, even replacing the receiving test with a sending test).

4) Perhaps, as Mike suggests, this administration isn't big on paying attention
to treaties. Look at the flip-flop on support for the Kyoto treaty back in
2001.

5) Perhaps FCC is more focused on BPL, Howard Stern and Janet Jackson than on
requirements for a ham license.

(Devil's Advocate mode = ON)

6) Perhaps FCC has bought the claim that the code test reduces growth in the
ARS, and is keeping it in place for just that reason (!) After all, the vast
majority of opponents to BPL have been hams and ham organizations. Why do
anything to increase our numbers - particularly on HF?

(Devil's Advocate mode = OFF)

Take your pick!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

The ARRL is now projecting that it will take the FCC until at least
sometime
in 2006 to make any changes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yup! Easily then if not later. If the current administration is still
in at that time, it may even be later - if at all. Remember that
conservative folks of the neo stripe *don't* like treaties, and this is
a treaty matter.

Mike,

Why do you consider this a treaty matter today? While the current
treaty may not yet have gone through Senate approval, surely aren't
suggesting (or maybe you are) that anyone here (USA) or elsewhere
considers the prior treaty still in effect.

Bill, they still do... :-)

What was in the past when the present made their rank/status/
privileges must continue on indefinitely. If changes occur, then
their status, etc., will diminish. In their eyes, at least. :-)

On the "Congress must approve any 'treaty'" matter - Tsk, I
thought that the FCC could go right on making their own rules
without needing Congressional approval. They certainly do
over in the International Bureau in regards to tariffs with
international communications service providers. The WRC
administrative team (voting) is made up of the Department of
State, the National Telecommunicaitons and Information Agency,
and the Federal Communications Commission. They represent
the United States to the International Telecommunications Union.
Seems to me that they've done a whole heap of other radio
service decisions without a single "need" for Congressional
approval on amateur radio matters. ?

Heh, I'm sure that someone else in here will go ballistic on that
and make all sorts of "outraged" noises. :-)

N2EY wrote:
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:


Did US rules change before Senate ratification?
Hey Jim (N2EY), got your history of the FCC and ham rules
handy?



I'll have to go look that one up for exact dates, but here's a general scheme
of what happened:

At WARC-79, the allocation table was changed to allow amateurs access to new
bands at 30, 17 and 12 meters. 30 meters was shared; I'll have to look up 12
and 17. But the changes did not take place instantly, because the then-current
users of those bands had to be given time to move elsewhere, and the various
governments had to be given time to amend their rules.

Most of all, however, signatory countries did not *have to* let their hams use
those bands, nor was there any specific allocation of modes, power levels,
license classes, etc.

Some countries moved quickly; the US less so. I recall ARRL repeatedly
petitioning FCC to open at least some of the bands (12 meters?) because *years*
had passed and some other countries had full access.

I don't recall that Senate ratification had anyhting to do with it.

With WRC-2003, the situation is somewhat different. Changes to S25.5 do not
affect users of other services directly (nobody has to move). The change to the
Morse Code test requirement is straightforward and simple:

Before WRC-2003, the treaty itself required code testing for an HF ham license,
and FCC interpretation backed that up and referenced it as a prime and later
only reason to keep Element 1.

After WRC-2003, the treaty requires code testing policy to be set by each
signatory country. Each country's code-test policy can be anything that country
wants it to be. No requirement to change anything, nor to retain anything.

And the simplest thing is........?


Yet so far, the US rules are the same as they were on April 16, 2000 -
four-and-a-half years ago almost exactly. Obviously this isn't a high priority
to FCC.

What's odd is that in the R&O for 98-143, FCC specifically cited the treaty
requirement as the one-and-only reason they kept Element 1. Yet they also
refused the idea of a sunset clause that would eliminate Element 1 if the
treaty requirement vanished.

15 months ago, I thought that Senate ratification would be an issue, but that's
obviously not the case. I also thought FCC would just dump Element 1 without
the whole NPRM cycle, but that's obviously not the case either. (And I'm gald
to have been mistaken!)

Back in 2003, ARRL predicted two years (2005) before we'd see rules changes
resulting from WRC-2003. Now ARRL says 2006 - three years.

So far, most of us who entered a date in The Pool have seen the date come and
go with no action.

So what's going on? Some speculations (in order of wildness):

1) Perhaps FCC is simply doing the NPRM cycle. With over a dozen proposals out
there, thousands of comments and reply comments, and limited resources, it
simply takes FCC a while to decide what to do.

2) Perhaps FCC has looked at the comments, seen how much widespread support
Element 1 has, and is not about to do anything at all.

3) Perhaps the whole issue is simply not a big deal to the FCC. The existing
test, complete with all the authorized accomodations, just isn't that hard for
most people to pass. (Remember that VEs can do all kinds of things in the line
of accomodation, even replacing the receiving test with a sending test).

I don't think it is a big deal to them. I doubt that ease is an issue
(and it isn't necessarily easy for everyone)


4) Perhaps, as Mike suggests, this administration isn't big on paying attention
to treaties. Look at the flip-flop on support for the Kyoto treaty back in
2001.


It isn't much of a stretch. We must remember that the present
administration is very true to their principles. International treaties
are *not* a popular thing with them. Let 'em know that the change would
be due to a change in the treaty, and wanna make a wager on their reaction?

5) Perhaps FCC is more focused on BPL, Howard Stern and Janet Jackson than on
requirements for a ham license.

Of course. More ideology-based stuff.


(Devil's Advocate mode = ON)

6) Perhaps FCC has bought the claim that the code test reduces growth in the
ARS, and is keeping it in place for just that reason (!) After all, the vast
majority of opponents to BPL have been hams and ham organizations. Why do
anything to increase our numbers - particularly on HF?

(Devil's Advocate mode = OFF)

hmmmm, now that is a real stretch....

- Mike KB3EIA -