Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now.

No.

Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government.

Yes, he did.

He violated federal law in the process.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything
for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until
proven
guilty, right?).

He should have gone to prison a long time ago.

IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate.

The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP
wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me
there are several possible explanations for that lack of action:

1) Corruption (no evidence of that)

2) Incompetence (?)

3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not
hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself.
FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash
was doing.

4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask
others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down
their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and
accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself.

And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that
they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly
spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret
and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might
have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash.

5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow
prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public
question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a
waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict,
what he did would not have been an offense any more.

It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether
he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted,
will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or
tried.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim,

I agree with all your comments and analysis.
There was a time you clearly believed Bash broke
the law, but you do seem to now recognize the
many possibilities that are or were potentially in
play back in the 60's.

I still think he broke the law. But that's just my opinion
as a nonlawyer. It must be remembered that he was
never charged with anything, and that "innocent until
*proven* guilty" is a cornerstone of our judicial process.

Nice write-up. You
should keep this text handy for every time the
Bash issue resurfaces in this newsgroup.
Heck, call it the FAQ on Bash :-) :-)

I hereby authorize you to put all 8 reasons in a nice format
and post them whenever the Bash question arises, Bill. Here
or elsewhere. Just acknowledge the original source. Save
you a lot of typing!

73 es HT de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now.

No.

Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government.

Yes, he did.

He violated federal law in the process.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything
for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until
proven
guilty, right?).

He should have gone to prison a long time ago.

IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate.

Perhaps.

I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license.

The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP
wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me
there are several possible explanations for that lack of action:

1) Corruption (no evidence of that)

2) Incompetence (?)

3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not
hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself.
FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash
was doing.

OK..I can buy those.

4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask
others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down
their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and
accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself.

Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their
money, that's theft.

Of course it is theft because the person no longer has
the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to
look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it
theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20,
three 10s and three ones).

Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it
to me?

This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves
a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did.

So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why:

The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like
money. Try this analogy:

Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater.
(Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being
shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the
film!

And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that
they were not to divulge the contents of that exam?

It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's
shown.

Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA
offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my
Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to
divulge the contents of the test.

I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the
test", Jim!

The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to
prohibit post test discussion.

I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of
license
grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's
opinion.

Was it clearly
spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret
and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might
have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash.

If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case
law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in
Washington to "get hot".

Too late. The answer will never be known now.

5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow
prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public
question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a
waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict,
what he did would not have been an offense any more.

It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether
he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted,
will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or
tried.

Our loss, then and ever since.

A waste of tme to discuss.

I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really*
happened.

You can't go back and that's
the bottom line.

Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be
convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one!

One more thought:

9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that
they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically
illegal. His
activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which
incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish
them.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups.




wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now.

How? Dick Bash did not see the actual exams except by taking them.

Then he published them.

And FCC did nothing about it.
Some in the FCC wanted to prosecute,
but the higher ups didn't allow it.
Phil Kane has told about it first-hand -
he was working in the office where Bash
did his thing at the time.

The only thing that can be derive or concluded
from that is the probable fact that there was
disagreement within the FCC as to the ability to
pursue and win any case against Bash.

Or any of the other reasons. All it takes is one!

Whether Bash broke the letter of the law or not isn't
clear, but it *is* clear that he broke the spirit of the law.

I never met anyone convicted of breaking the spirit
of any law.

BINGO!!!

There's also "innocent until proven guilty".

The other issue that would be in play is
the legality of the law itself on constitutional grounds.

Possibly, but I find it hard to believe that the FCC would
have lost on those grounds. Doing so would set a
precedent that *no* license exam contents could be kept
out of the public view.

Still, FCC may have thought it better not to take that chance.

If, back then, FCC had thought
it was OK for people to see the actual exams,
they would have been published
(as they are now) rather than going
through the additional work of making
up study guides.

That's in your opinion anyway.

It's also common sense. FCC made up study guides consisting
of essay questions that indicated the general areas of knowledge
that would be on the test. Those guides were published - ARRL
reproduced them in their License Manuals (they specifically
mention that fact in the Manual). Why would FCC go through
the trouble to make up those guides if it were OK for non-FCC
people to see the actual exam?

Still, unless there existed specific regulations about divulging
and publishing the exam contents, FCC's case agains Bash
might have been very weak.

The Commercial license was still more difficult
than the amateur...NOT because I took any, but because the
Commercial license covered a LOT more EM territory, a LOT
more
modes in Commercial radio then.

But you don't really know because you didn't take both. Some of
those
who *did* take both say the Extra written was "harder".

It's important that you should work harder for a hobby endeavor
than
for a commercial endeavor.

Wasn't too hard for a 16 year old between 10th and 11th grade. In
fact,
I'd have gotten it more than a year earlier except for the 2 year
waiting period.

"The Man" still keeping you down?

Not at all. Experience was part of the requirement back then. It was
and is a good idea.

I really have no problem with an experience criteria
(e.g.a time interval between General and Extra).

Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now
anyone can go from any license class or no license at all
to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement
would mean that many hams would need at least two exam
sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra.
More admin work = not something FCC would like.

Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving to all, I thank the
Lord for all the great and wonderful people and things
in my life.

Well said, Bill! I wish the same to all this fine day.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups:




wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now.

No.

Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government.

Yes, he did.

He violated federal law in the process.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything
for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until
proven
guilty, right?).

He should have gone to prison a long time ago.

IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate.

Perhaps.

I think prison was more in order, but OK...take his license.

The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP
wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me
there are several possible explanations for that lack of action:

1) Corruption (no evidence of that)

2) Incompetence (?)

3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not
hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself.
FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash
was doing.

OK..I can buy those.

4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask
others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down
their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and
accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself.

Jim, if I physically reach in to a persons wallet and take their
money, that's theft.

Of course it is theft because the person no longer has
the money. If, on the other hand, you allow me to
look in your wallet and I see you have 53 dollars, is it
theft if I tell someone else I saw $53 dollars (one 20,
three 10s and three ones).

Is it any LESS theft if I demand that they take it out and hand it
to me?

This analogy is totally off the mark because it involves
a physical removal which is NOT what Bash did.

So is the "show me the money" analogy. Here's why:

The alleged "theft" was of intellectual property, not a thing like
money. Try this analogy:

Last Friday I saw the new Harry Potter movie at the local theater.
(Excellent, btw). Suppose I had videotaped it while it was being
shown - wouldn't that be theft? After all, the theater still has the
film!

And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that
they were not to divulge the contents of that exam?

It says right on the movie tickets that you're not to copy what's
shown.

Sure was when I tested, in Ohio, Atlanta and Long Beach, CA
offices all three. My High School science teacher who administered my
Novice read his part of the insructions which stated it was unlawful to
divulge the contents of the test.

I just don't know how many ways you can say "Don't discuss the
test", Jim!

The other legal question comes down to: is it legal to
prohibit post test discussion.

I would say "yes", *if* it's clearly explained as a condition of
license
grant. If not, the situation is legally murky in this nonlawyer's
opinion.

Was it clearly
spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret
and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might
have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash.

If they HAD gone after him, at least it would have set case
law...Or at the very least SHOULD have pushed the reg writers in
Washington to "get hot".

Too late. The answer will never be known now.

5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow
prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to
public
question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a
waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a
verdict,
what he did would not have been an offense any more.

It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether
he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been
convicted,
will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or
tried.

Our loss, then and ever since.

A waste of tme to discuss.

I disagree! It's important to understand the history and what *really*
happened.

You can't go back and that's
the bottom line.

Actually we could "go back" to FCC exams - if FCC could somehow be
convinced that they were necessary. Good luck doing that one!

One more thought:

9) The FCC may have been aware of Bash's activities, and decided that
they did not really harm the ARS, even if they were technically
illegal. His
activities may have convinced them to make the pools public, which
incidentally put him out of business because then anyone could publish
them.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups:




wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now.

No.

Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government.

Yes, he did.

He violated federal law in the process.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything
for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until
proven
guilty, right?).

He should have gone to prison a long time ago.

IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate.

The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP
wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me
there are several possible explanations for that lack of action:

1) Corruption (no evidence of that)

2) Incompetence (?)

3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not
hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself.
FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash
was doing.

4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask
others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down
their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and
accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself.

And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that
they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly
spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret
and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might
have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash.

5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow
prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public
question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a
waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict,
what he did would not have been an offense any more.

It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether
he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted,
will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or
tried.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim,

I agree with all your comments and analysis.
There was a time you clearly believed Bash broke
the law, but you do seem to now recognize the
many possibilities that are or were potentially in
play back in the 60's.

I still think he broke the law. But that's just my opinion
as a nonlawyer. It must be remembered that he was
never charged with anything, and that "innocent until
*proven* guilty" is a cornerstone of our judicial process.

Nice write-up. You
should keep this text handy for every time the
Bash issue resurfaces in this newsgroup.
Heck, call it the FAQ on Bash :-) :-)

I hereby authorize you to put all 8 reasons in a nice format
and post them whenever the Bash question arises, Bill. Here
or elsewhere. Just acknowledge the original source. Save
you a lot of typing!

73 es HT de Jim, N2EY

Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups:




wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now.

No.

Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government.

Yes, he did.

He violated federal law in the process.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything
for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until
proven guilty, right?).

He should have gone to prison a long time ago.

IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate.

The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP
wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me
there are several possible explanations for that lack of action:

1) Corruption (no evidence of that)

2) Incompetence (?)

3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not
hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself.
FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash
was doing.

4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask
others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down
their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and
accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself.

And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that
they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly
spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret
and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might
have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash.

5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow
prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public
question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a
waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict,
what he did would not have been an offense any more.

It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether
he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted,
will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or
tried.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, by discussing if Bash broke the letter of the law or the spirit of
the law, you just answered your own question of "Where?" Len might have
seen the Extra material.

Just the opposite.

Len claimed he saw the 1957 Extra test element (not the material - the
actual *test*). Bash didn't do his thing until the 1970s, more than a
decade later.

Thank you and Congrats.

For what?

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Wed 16 Nov 2005 19:09
wrote:
From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 08:35
wrote in message
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:

Way back in time the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as
"extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through
lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket."

Not true, Len.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE, Miccolis. Everyone realizes it. Why not
admit that it is so?

Let's go through it, shall we? Pro-coders (one can only wonder if Len
means those who favored morse testing, those who favored morse use or
those who were simply proficient at morse code) made up their own
regulations. It isn't explained how or if these "pro-coders" all became
Extra Class ticket holders. Extra Class license holders can't obtain
that license without passing the most difficult theory and regulatory
written exam offered in U.S. amateur radio and not all of those with
morse code skills became Extra Class licensees. Len's statement appears
to have some gaping holes.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. NO "holes," Heil. An abbreviated synopsis
is all.

Big holes, Len.

Before Restructuring took effect in 2000, the Extra code test
rate was 20 WPM.

Unless a medical waiver was obtained, in which case the Extra
could be had for a code test of as little as 5 wpm.

The "modern" Extra class license was added in the 1951 restructuring
that
also added the Novice and Technician class licenses. The code test
speed
for the Extra was set at 20 wpm at that time.

That's what Len said.

No, it isn't. He left out the part about the medical waivers, which
became a reality in 1990.

He also said "the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as
"extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through
lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket.""

which wasn't the case at all.

He sees it differently.

He wasn't there, though. His opinion is not backed up by facts.

I agree that a lot of old timers will not like
losing Morse Exam, probably for the reasons Len has cited.

I'm sure that people with disabilities really get under your skin.

Nope - not at all.

Just the one's who get Fast-Code waivers.

13 and 20 wpm are not Fast-Code.

Why? Because the older-timers influencing
the NAAR lobbyists thought they were hot snit for amateur
radio because so many had been professional telegraphers.

No, that's not true at all.

It does have that appearance.

How?

The ARRL did not create the Extra class license in 1951. They did
not lobby for it either.

It was a way of keeping the old pro status past retirement.
Since they were already skilled in telegraphy, they got a free
set of perquisites in a HOBBY activity.

What about the thousands of others - like myself - who earned the
license because we wanted the privileges? In my case, that was
in 1970, at the age of 16.

You mom and dad provided you with three hots and a cot.

So? That's what responsible parents do.

I also had to go to school and make acceptable grades. Do all assigned
chores at home and work (yes, I worked then). Plus all the usual
activities of a kid my age back then.

Or what? Let's say you brought home a "D" in math and science.

Math and science were two different subjects in my high school.

You don't say?

You wrote as if they were one subject.

Let's see...

In math:

9th grade: Algebra 1
10th grade: Geometry
11th grade: Algebra 2 and Trigonometry
12th grade: AP Calculus

In science:

9th grade: Introductory Physics
10th grade: Chemistry
11th grade: Biology
12th grade: AP Physics

Never brought home any "D" marks so I don't know what would have
happened.

I suspect that if I had, there would have been no ham radio until the
marks improved.

But what if you were in the middle of preparing for another ham test
with Bash (or its equivalent) study guides?

Another non-event. I didn't hear of Bash books until long after I had
the
Extra. Nor any "equivalent".

Of course I had a built-in advantage because I'd learned a lot of math
and science for ham radio before I ever got to high school. I earned
the Advanced in the summer between 8th and 9th grade, you see.

You had an advantage because you started your ham "career" in your
youth while supported by your family.

Not really. Sure, I didn't have a fulltime job nor dependents to
support. But
I did have other responsibilities.

OTOH, I had the distinct disadvantage of not having the mobility,
money,
freedom of action or education that most adults have.

Others had an advantage because
if they washed out of ditty bopper school in the military they became
cooks and MPs.

I wasn't one of those - I had already passed the Extra before entering
11th grade.

A tidal wave of Morse Operators left the service at the end of WWII.

Was there an MOS of "Morse Operator"? Or were they called "Radioman" or
"Radio Operator"?

Besides, that conflicts with what Len keeps telling us. He constantly
denies that
Morse Code played any important role in US military communication after
the 1930s.

It is plausible that some of them liked the idea of having a special
ticket just for high and higher speed code operators with spectrum
set-aside just for them. Some might even have found their way into the
federal government, and even into the FCC and put the concept of
Inventive Licensing into motion.

Wild speculation that is not backed up by the facts of what really
happened.

And recall that Len wrote:

"Why? Because the older-timers influencing
the NAAR lobbyists thought they were hot snit for amateur
radio because so many had been professional telegraphers."

and

"It was a way of keeping the old pro status past retirement.
Since they were already skilled in telegraphy, they got a free
set of perquisites in a HOBBY activity."

The Extra was created in 1951, not 1968. It was meant as a
replacement for the Advanced/Class A.

I wonder where all the Veteran ditty-boppers ended up?

Prove that the "old First Phone" examination was "less hard"
than the Amateur Extra exam. You never completed that last
test element on your alleged Commercial radio operator license
and could only get a SECOND class.

Kindly prove that the old Amateur Extra was less difficult than the old
First Phone.

Heil, quit being the snotty lil kid trying to turn tables. That
makes YOU look dumb. I took all the test elements for a First
'Phone 49 years ago. I've seen the test elements for an Extra
of that time.

Where?

Back then those test elements were only given by FCC examiners. They
were not legally available to folks like you (outside of FCC). In fact,
back then
FCC required 2 years' experience as a General or higher license just to
*try*
the Extra test.

Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now.

How? Dick Bash did not see the actual exams except by taking them.

Then he published them.

And FCC did nothing about it. Some in the FCC wanted to prosecute,
but the higher ups didn't allow it. Phil Kane has told about it
first-hand -
he was working in the office where Bash did his thing at the time.

Whether Bash broke the letter of the law or not isn't clear, but it
*is*
clear that he broke the spirit of the law. If, back then, FCC had
thought
it was OK for people to see the actual exams, they would have been
published
(as they are now) rather than going through the additional work of
making
up study guides.

The point is that you think Len was incapable of seeing an actual FCC
exam or study material published by Bash or other Publishing Houses.

Incorrect.

Len claimed he saw the 1957 Extra written test. Not a Bash book or
other
study guide but the actual test. While not absolutely impossible, it is
highly improbable because non-FCC folks were not shown the test
unless they were taking it.

Bash did not do his thing until more than a decade after 1957.

The Commercial license was still more difficult
than the amateur...NOT because I took any, but because the
Commercial license covered a LOT more EM territory, a LOT more
modes in Commercial radio then.

But you don't really know because you didn't take both. Some of those
who *did* take both say the Extra written was "harder".

It's important that you should work harder for a hobby endeavor than
for a commercial endeavor.

Wasn't too hard for a 16 year old between 10th and 11th grade. In fact,
I'd have gotten it more than a year earlier except for the 2 year
waiting period.

"The Man" still keeping you down?

Not at all. Experience was part of the requirement back then. It was
and is
a good idea.

How about "life" experience, such as an age requirement?

Bad idea. No one has been able to show that the licensing of young hams
has *ever* caused problems in the amateur radio service. Len cannot
name
even one case where a ham licensee's youth was a factor in a rules
violation
or other problem.

"A Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to Morse Code use." N2EY

Brian Burke, you have written that quote here several times, and
claimed I
wrote it. But I did not write that sentence - you did. Check google and
show us what I actually wrote on that subject.

I agreed with you then and I agree with you now.

You're only agreeing with something you wrote. Not what I wrote.

In all fairness, I should recheck the quote.

Yes, you should. And its context.

I've searched and cannot find it.

Then why have you quoted me as writing it?

Unlicensed Community Radio wrote:
Reposted for the guys in the Pirate Radio groups.


I guess the guys in the pirate radio groups too stupid to read it here.

hey, care to join us for a mutual jacking session.
FM Community Radio wrote:
The guys in the Pirate Radio groups will find the below
interesting:



wrote in message
ups.com...
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now.

No.

Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government.

Yes, he did.

He violated federal law in the process.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything
for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until
proven
guilty, right?).

He should have gone to prison a long time ago.

IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate.

The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP
wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me
there are several possible explanations for that lack of action:

1) Corruption (no evidence of that)

2) Incompetence (?)

3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not
hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself.
FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash
was doing.

4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask
others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down
their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and
accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself.

And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that
they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly
spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret
and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might
have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash.

5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow
prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public
question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a
waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict,
what he did would not have been an offense any more.

It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether
he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted,
will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or
tried.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:

I really have no problem with an experience criteria
(e.g.a time interval between General and Extra).

Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now
anyone can go from any license class or no license at all
to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement
would mean that many hams would need at least two exam
sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra.
More admin work = not something FCC would like.

Any idea what percent of people actually pass both
the General and the Extra in one session?

I suspect the number is relatively small.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK