Here's my submission to the FCC.

Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to
other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen?


73

Steve, K4YZ

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings,

The issue of whether or not to remove Morse Code competency
testing has been a heated and hotly contested issue for years. Many
persons cite the evolution of new technologies and methodologies of
communications as having made Morse Code "archaic", while on the
otherhand some demand it's retention as "traditional".

There is certainly precedent for allowing Amateurs access to the
HF spectrum (below 30Mhz) without Morse Code competency, however this
respondent believes that dropping it completely will be an overall
detriment to the Amateur Radio Service.

The Basis And Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service as outlined in
Part 97 provides that the Amateur Service shall provide a trained pool
of radio operators for emergency service. And technology
notwithstanding, Morse Code remains the simplest, most easily deployed
communications mode available to Amateurs worldwide. To drop this
requirement simply because military or commercial users no longer use
it is foolhearty.

However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations
without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction
that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of
the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted.
Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they
are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse
tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have
less likelyhood of causing such interference.

I thank you for this opportunity to participate in the rule-making
process.


STEVEN J ROBESON, LPN
Amateur Radio Licensee K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
Here's my submission to the FCC.

Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to
other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen?


73

Steve, K4YZ

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings,

The issue of whether or not to remove Morse Code competency
testing has been a heated and hotly contested issue for years. Many
persons cite the evolution of new technologies and methodologies of
communications as having made Morse Code "archaic", while on the
otherhand some demand it's retention as "traditional".

There is certainly precedent for allowing Amateurs access to the
HF spectrum (below 30Mhz) without Morse Code competency, however this
respondent believes that dropping it completely will be an overall
detriment to the Amateur Radio Service.

The Basis And Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service as outlined in
Part 97 provides that the Amateur Service shall provide a trained pool
of radio operators for emergency service. And technology
notwithstanding, Morse Code remains the simplest, most easily deployed
communications mode available to Amateurs worldwide. To drop this
requirement simply because military or commercial users no longer use
it is foolhearty.

However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations
without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction
that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of
the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted.
Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they
are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse
tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have
less likelyhood of causing such interference.

I thank you for this opportunity to participate in the rule-making
process.


STEVEN J ROBESON, LPN
Amateur Radio Licensee K4YZ

interesting that it says almost of relavance since it never deals with
the real issue of regulation, that being the Public interest,

and sugesting that HF access be allowed but only where digital mode
that these new folks are suposed to be bring a revolution makes it a
fraud

as well one does not need to to be able to read a morse coded CW
tranmission to hear that it is there, and from what I read pactor and
other mode are stumping on CW at times already in the hand of code
tested hams, therefore code testing is proven ineffective at stoping
this "problem" (I use the word graudly since I lack first hand
knowledge of the nature and frenquency of the "problem")

K4YZ wrote:
Here's my submission to the FCC.

Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to
other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen?

73

KMA

Steve, K4YZ

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings,

Try treating your fellow hams like ladies and gentlemen, Steve.

Your 1,000+ comments each month treat people like dirt.

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's my submission to the FCC.

Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to
other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen?
Steve, K4YZ
---------
OK, here's what I (K2UNK) just sent in:
1. I have been an amateur for over 45 years

and hold an Extra class license. I fully

endorse the proposed rules changes by

the FCC in NPRM 05-235 which, if

so adopted will end all code testing.



2. The discussion and debate on the need

for any code testing was fully covered some

5 years ago by the FCC with not one

compelling reason identified that could justify

continued code testing except for the

international treaty to which the USA was

a party to.



3. As the FCC clearly notes, that treaty has now

eliminated (via WRC-2003) any required code

testing and now clears the path for full deletion

of code testing for USA amateurs.



4. Accordingly, and in the absence of any new

compelling rational to retain a code test, the

FCC has only one logical choice.end all code

Testing.



Respectfully,

Bill Sohl, K2UNK

b.b. wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Here's my submission to the FCC.

Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to
other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen?

73

KMA

Uh huh.

About what I expected and whom I expected it from. Pretty much
substantiates my claims about who pulls threads into rants, etc etc
etc.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings,

Try treating your fellow hams like ladies and gentlemen, Steve.

OK...From now on I will treat you like a lady, Brain, but only
since you asked me to do it.

Your 1,000+ comments each month treat people like dirt.

Nope...Just the liars, deceivers and cheats.

Which pretty much narrows it down to you, Lennie, Mark Morgan and
Toaddie.

Pretty small field when you consider the overall size of the race.

No "73" for you...You very aptly proved who's what here, Brain.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Here's my submission to the FCC.

Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to
other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen?

73

KMA

Uh huh.

About what I expected and whom I expected it from. Pretty much
substantiates my claims about who pulls threads into rants, etc etc
etc.

if by that you mean that some folks like myself will not allow you to
control the newsgroup then of course you are right


Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings,

Try treating your fellow hams like ladies and gentlemen, Steve.

OK...From now on I will treat you like a lady, Brain, but only
since you asked me to do it.

Your 1,000+ comments each month treat people like dirt.

Nope...Just the liars, deceivers and cheats.

Which pretty much narrows it down to you, Lennie, Mark Morgan and
Toaddie.

Pretty small field when you consider the overall size of the race.

No "73" for you...You very aptly proved who's what here, Brain.

Steve, K4YZ

From: "an old friend" on Thurs 4 Aug 2005 09:14


K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Here's my submission to the FCC.

Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to
other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen?

73

KMA

Uh huh.

About what I expected and whom I expected it from. Pretty much
substantiates my claims about who pulls threads into rants, etc etc
etc.

if by that you mean that some folks like myself will not allow you to
control the newsgroup then of course you are right

Stebie has a terrible NEED to control others and acts like all
his diagreers are the Antichrist, spawn of satan, or evil
incarnate come to bedevil HIM, the DILL Instructor of this
murine corpse. :-)

I love Stebie's opening "salutation" to the FCC on WT Docket
05-235:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings,

Geez, Stebie is giving a SPEECH for an assembled group! :-)

He steps up to the podium, adjusts the microphone, takes a
sip of water, opens his speech text copy notebook and beings
to SPEAK! [poor guy didn't get any thunderous applause when
he was finished...snif, snif...]

At 445 12th St. S.W. in DC is someone at a desk, using a
workstation, pulling down incoming Comments on WT Docket
05-235 at an average rate of about 52 a day...and Stebie
thinks he is making a SPEECH! Gotta love the immense EGO
on the DILL Instructor with the askew campaign hat. Like
the FCC folks love "getting SPOKEN to?" :-)

If Bill Cross had the FCC making a decision contrary to what
Stebie wants, Stebie would probably yell "Get down and gimme
ten!" at him. :-)

Ve are all Putzes in da ghetto while Stebie is up on the roof
vid his fiddle, playing while his mind burns. Shalom!

oye veh

Len:

The test of any great speaker is if he can sell 'em the BS as sanity
deserving a sane mans time... even George Bush is still hunting how to
make that dream come true, and he has closets full of aids to assist him!

John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 12:03:46 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: "an old friend" on Thurs 4 Aug 2005 09:14


K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Here's my submission to the FCC.

Can we have just post our comments here and take the editorials to
other threads, Ladies and Gentlemen?

73

KMA

Uh huh.

About what I expected and whom I expected it from. Pretty much
substantiates my claims about who pulls threads into rants, etc etc
etc.

if by that you mean that some folks like myself will not allow you to
control the newsgroup then of course you are right

Stebie has a terrible NEED to control others and acts like all
his diagreers are the Antichrist, spawn of satan, or evil
incarnate come to bedevil HIM, the DILL Instructor of this
murine corpse. :-)

I love Stebie's opening "salutation" to the FCC on WT Docket
05-235:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, Greetings,

Geez, Stebie is giving a SPEECH for an assembled group! :-)

He steps up to the podium, adjusts the microphone, takes a
sip of water, opens his speech text copy notebook and beings
to SPEAK! [poor guy didn't get any thunderous applause when
he was finished...snif, snif...]

At 445 12th St. S.W. in DC is someone at a desk, using a
workstation, pulling down incoming Comments on WT Docket
05-235 at an average rate of about 52 a day...and Stebie
thinks he is making a SPEECH! Gotta love the immense EGO
on the DILL Instructor with the askew campaign hat. Like
the FCC folks love "getting SPOKEN to?" :-)

If Bill Cross had the FCC making a decision contrary to what
Stebie wants, Stebie would probably yell "Get down and gimme
ten!" at him. :-)

Ve are all Putzes in da ghetto while Stebie is up on the roof
vid his fiddle, playing while his mind burns. Shalom!

oye veh

John Smith wrote:
Len:

The test of any great speaker is if he can sell 'em the BS as sanity
deserving a sane mans time... even George Bush is still hunting how to
make that dream come true, and he has closets full of aids to assist him!

....and more than a few aides, though I don't think any are in the closet.

Dave K8MN

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's my submission to the FCC.


[snip]


However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations
without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction
that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of
the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted.
Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they
are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse
tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have
less likelyhood of causing such interference.

Steve, I have to disagree with you on the concept that only Morse tested
operators be allowed to operate Morse. If the FCC is going to drop the code
requirement (which seems certain now), the operators should be allowed the
privileges of the comparable classes of today. Besides you don't have to be
familiar with a mode to hear that someone is using the frequency and thus to
know that you should go find another.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE