CW problems with arabs and ex-USSR
Fritz Wuehler
The best thing to do IS to suppress
totally the S25.5 .
Who cares about arabs and ex-USSR ??
These are not civilized countries, so
its a great mistake to consider their
wills.
Phil Kane
They and the other 180-some-odd "not civilized countries" each have
one vote. The United States also has one vote.
Starting to see the picture?
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Alun Palmer
news:cuvyxnansvbet....@netnews.comcast.net:
Anyway, CW testing is all over bar the shouting. The unanimously agreed
language, now passed through all the commitee levels, makes it optional.
It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows those
countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without it seeming
that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also allowing every other
country to dump CW teasting.
Bert Craig
news:cuvyxnansvbet....@netnews.comcast.net...
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:35:30 +0200, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>
> >The best thing to do IS to suppress totally the S25.5 .
> >Who cares about arabs and ex-USSR ?? These are not civilized
> >countries, so its a great mistake to consider their wills.
This is nice...sheesh.
> They and the other 180-some-odd "not civilized countries" each have
> one vote. The United States also has one vote.
>
> Starting to see the picture?
It's coming into focus, Phil.
> --
> 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
N2EY
> Anyway, CW testing is all over bar the shouting.
Actually, Alun, I'd say it was the other way around. The shouting is
all overand the test continues until the paperwork is completed.
> The unanimously agreed
> language, now passed through all the commitee levels, makes it optional.
Maybe that's a solution for the FCC. Have code tests at 5, 13 and 20
wpm. Just make them optional.
> It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows those
> countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without it seeming
> that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also allowing every other
> country to dump CW teasting.
We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get
through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more
than a year from today.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Alun Palmer
news:c2356669.03070...@posting.google.com:
> Alun Palmer <elek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93AB47B5620...@130.133.1.4>...
>
>> Anyway, CW testing is all over bar the shouting.
>
> Actually, Alun, I'd say it was the other way around. The shouting is
> all overand the test continues until the paperwork is completed.
>
Good one!
>> The unanimously agreed
>> language, now passed through all the commitee levels, makes it
>> optional.
>
> Maybe that's a solution for the FCC. Have code tests at 5, 13 and 20
> wpm. Just make them optional.
>
I think that would be fine, but I don't think the FCC would go for it.
>> It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows
>> those countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without
>> it seeming that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also
>> allowing every other country to dump CW teasting.
>
> We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get
> through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more
> than a year from today.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
I would think about the same, but surely we should each guess a particular
date, and the winner should be whoever is closest.
Robert Casey
>We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get
>through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more
>than a year from today.
>
>
>
Congress doesn't get involved with these kinds of issues, they deligated
this stuff to
the funny cookie corporation. All that has to happen is the FCC to
issue a notice
of inquiry on rule making, do the comment period, write up the new
rules, and
publish them in the federal register. When the FCC has nothing better
to deal with.
Maybe make it "you have to pass 4 of 5 elements to get your extra.
Those are
the tech written, the general written, the extra written, the code test,
OR a super
extra written. Essentially you select either the super extra written OR
the code
test to complete your extra, the others are required." What to require
for the tech
and general would need to be worked out. Maybe the general needs the
tech written, general written, extra written OR code test.
Phil Kane
>> We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get
>> through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more
>> than a year from today.
>I would think about the same, but surely we should each guess a particular
>date, and the winner should be whoever is closest.
Put me down for March 15, 2004.
"Beware the Ides of March."
N2EY
<wa2...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>N2EY wrote:
>
>>We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get
>>through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more
>>than a year from today.
>Congress doesn't get involved with these kinds of issues, they deligated
>this stuff to the funny cookie corporation. All that has to happen is the FCC
to
>issue a notice
>of inquiry on rule making, do the comment period, write up the new
>rules, and
>publish them in the federal register. When the FCC has nothing better
>to deal with.
I think ypu are mistaken, Robert.
The ITU treaty is what kept FCC from just dumping Element 1 back in 2000. And
FCC doesn't ratify treaties - The Congress does. The revised treaty is not
considered valid by the USA until Congress ratifies it. Which is usually a
quick rubber-stamp thing. But it does have to wait its turn.
Once ratified, however, FCC is not absloutely required to do the NPRM thing.
It's a judgement call on their part. I think they will simply say that the
issue was dealt with back in 98-99 and again in 2000, so they don't need to do
comments and reply comments. Bye bye Element 1.
>
>Maybe make it "you have to pass 4 of 5 elements to get your extra.
> Those are
>the tech written, the general written, the extra written, the code test,
>OR a super
>extra written. Essentially you select either the super extra written OR
>the code
>test to complete your extra, the others are required." What to require
>for the tech
>and general would need to be worked out. Maybe the general needs the
>tech written, general written, extra written OR code test.
I like it!
Some years back I wrote here about a "Chinese menu" system. Basic idea was that
there would be a one or two elements that everybody had to pass for the
entry-level license, then upgrades could be earned by taking various other test
elements, including code.
Maybe such a proposal would get widespread support.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> writes:
HAW!
I'll take April 15, 2004.
Alun?
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<elek...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Actually, Alun, I'd say it was the other way around. The shouting is
>> all overand the test continues until the paperwork is completed.
>
>Good one!
I thought you'd like it.
>
>>> The unanimously agreed
>>> language, now passed through all the commitee levels, makes it
>>> optional.
>>
>> Maybe that's a solution for the FCC. Have code tests at 5, 13 and 20
>> wpm. Just make them optional.
>
>I think that would be fine, but I don't think the FCC would go for it.
WA2ISE's idea has merit. Might be a way to get widespread support.
>
>>> It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows
>>> those countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without
>>> it seeming that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also
>>> allowing every other country to dump CW teasting.
>>
>> We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to get
>> through the various levels of rubberstamping. My wild guess is no more
>> than a year from today.
>I would think about the same, but surely we should each guess a particular
>date, and the winner should be whoever is closest.
>
K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date!
73 de Jim, N2EY
lk
> language, now passed through all the commitee levels, makes it optional.
> It just has to be nodded through at the plenary session. This allows those
> countries mentioned, plus Germany to retain CW testing without it seeming
> that it no longer relates to ITU rules, whilst also allowing every other
> country to dump CW teasting.
Actually, the German radio administration support the deletion
of ITU rule S25.5. They are record that they will not continue
the domestic requirement.
It is the German IARU society that supports code exams.
Larry kc8epo
Jim Hampton
Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :)
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030701185356...@mb-m16.aol.com...
>
> K2ASP has MArch 15, 2004. I have April 15, 2004. Pick a date!
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/03
Alun Palmer
news:cuvyxnansvbet....@netnews.comcast.net:
> On 1 Jul 2003 14:31:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:
I'll say May 1, 2004. Any more takers?
Alun Palmer
Alun Palmer
news:wnpMa.302$dZ1...@news02.roc.ny:
I'm going for May 1, 2004
Dick Carroll;
Jim Hampton wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :)
>
Dang, you beat me out, Jim! Seems FCC likes April Fools Day when it
comes to the ARS. Tha last slam was on April 1, 2000 IFIRC.
Dick
N2EY
<aa...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>Jim,
>
>Can I pick April 1, 2004? April fool! :)
>
Nobody has it yet, so it's yours!
So far:
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
If you mean the recent restructuring - that was April 15, 2000.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dick Carroll;
N2EY wrote:
Close enough! <<G>>
Dave Heil
>
> So far:
>
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
I think you guys are being too optimistic. Odds are that Anderson won't
attempt obtaining an amateur license before sometime in 2011.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
Never mind. I thought this was the "When will Len Anderson deign
amateur radio with his presence" pool.
Dave K8MN
Kim W5TIT
OK. So we're picking dates for when the CW requirement (as it exists now)
will be dropped? Gosh. I think it's going to take a lot longer than a
year. Let's say five years; so, by June of 2008.
Heh heh, the real test here is whether many of us will be around RRAP to
roundabout on it when it happens, unless it does happen in the short term.
Kim W5TIT
Alun Palmer
news:be2pd8$g...@library1.airnews.net:
Well Kim, the ITU have actually abolished it effective July 5th, 2003. Do
you really think it will take the FCC five years to implement? I don't
think that even they are that slow!
73 de Alun, N3KIP
N2EY
<elek...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Well Kim, the ITU have actually abolished it effective July 5th, 2003. Do
>you really think it will take the FCC five years to implement? I don't
>think that even they are that slow!
Kim has a point, Alun, but I think 5 years is a bit much. Look how long it took
'em to do the Restructuring. And we're still waiting on some NPRMs.
But I'm sticking with the date I posted. Less than a year.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Kim W5TIT
We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of "stuff."
Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to do with
how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.
Kim W5TIT
lk
news:cuvyxnansvbet....@netnews.comcast.net...
Put me down for December 31, 2003.
"Clean desk rule"
Larry KC8EPO
lk
"N2EY" <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:c2356669.03070...@posting.google.com...
> So far:
>
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
Larry
Bert Craig
--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
"lk" <lkl...@net-link.net> wrote in message
news:vgb6q25...@corp.supernews.com...
N2EY
writes:
>We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
>amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of "stuff."
There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait for
treaty ratification.
>Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to do with
>how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.
Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil, nada.
The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC
kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to
keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're
talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and
reversing itself.
--
So the big question is: What OTHER changes should be made?
73 de Jim, N2EY
WWHD
Kim W5TIT
> In article <be4374$4...@library2.airnews.net>, "Kim" <noway...@nomail.net>
> writes:
>
> >We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
> >amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of "stuff."
>
> There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait for
> treaty ratification.
>
> >Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to do
with
> >how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.
>
> Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil,
nada.
>
True, but that was for a *reduction* in the requirement. I'm not so sure
there will be major support for a complete elimination of the CW
requriement--in some form or another.
The pity is that we must go through this again. The amateur community is
still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.
>
> The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason
FCC
> kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC
to
> keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though
we're
> talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and
> reversing itself.
>
heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right? The FCC is a government
entity=large corporate entity. Right? At least that's the way I see it. I
wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity inside
the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars on
organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less than
a year!
> --
>
> So the big question is: What OTHER changes should be made?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
> WWHD
>
OK, what is WWHD? I know it's "What Would [something] Do," but what? I am
so much more of a "go with the flow" kind of person that I'll just follow
along with whatever everyone else decides. In the world of consensus,
consider me--usually--an abstainer, if that is the term...
Kim W5TIT
Bert Craig
>
> Larry
Robert Casey
>The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason FCC
>kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC to
>keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though we're
>talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical and
>reversing itself.
>
>
If it's the same people in charge at the FCC, yes.
N2EY
<wa2...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
I don't think that's much of a factor, Robert.
Look at the history of code testing, and amateur license testing in general, in
the USA over the past 28 years. FCC has been slowly nibbling away at it, or
trying to, since at least 1975. Little by little, the requirements have been
reduced and the tests made easier to pass until now the single remaining test
is about as basic as can be made. The only exception is the removal of
multiple-choice code tests.
I doubt very much that FCC will change direction at this point.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
writes:
>"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030704122331...@mb-m19.aol.com...
>> In article <be4374$4...@library2.airnews.net>, "Kim" <noway...@nomail.net>
>> writes:
>>
>> >We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
>> >amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of "stuff."
>>
>> There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait for
>> treaty ratification.
>>
>> >Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to do
>> >with how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.
>>
>> Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil,
>>nada.
>
>True, but that was for a *reduction* in the requirement. I'm not so sure
>there will be major support for a complete elimination of the CW
>requriement--in some form or another.
The majority of comments to the Restructuring were for at least two code
speeds. FCC said no.
IMHO the majority opinion today, even among those who haven't taken a code
test, is that Element 1 should stay. But there is no requirement that FCC
follow majority opinion.
And we may not even get the chance to express an opinion. Once the treaty is
ratified, FCC has the authority to simply dump Element 1 with no NPRM or NOI.
>
>The pity is that we must go through this again.
Tell it to those who will write the proposals to dump Element 1
>The amateur community is
>still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.
Heck, there are some who are not over the changes of 1968-69 - even though they
were not hams back then!
You think this is bad, Kim, you shoulda heard the wailing and moaning and
gnashing of teeth back in the '60s when "Incentive Licensing" was proposed and
enacted.
>> The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason
>> FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would be illogical for FCC
>> to keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though
>> we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine FCC being that illogical
and
>> reversing itself.
>
>heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right?
Yes and no ;-)
>The FCC is a government entity=large corporate entity. Right?
Right.
>At least that's the way I see it. I
>wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity inside
>the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars on
>organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less than
>a year!
>
All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving in
the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.
Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
sight.
Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?
>> --
>>
>> So the big question is: What OTHER changes should be made?
>>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>> WWHD
>>
>
>OK, what is WWHD?
Send me an email. I won't abuse or share the address.
73 de Jim, N2EY
>
Bill Sohl
Word has it that the UK will drop it within a month or so.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
for myself.
Bill K2UNK
"Bert Craig" <wa...@arrl.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:yTiNa.21781$5h.71...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Bill Sohl
"Kim W5TIT" <fahg...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:be4acc$9...@library1.airnews.net...
> "N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030704122331...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> > In article <be4374$4...@library2.airnews.net>, "Kim"
<noway...@nomail.net>
> > writes:
> >
> > >We'll see. I think it's going to depend upon the fervor for which the
> > >amateur radio community approaches the FCC and all that bit of "stuff."
> >
> > There will be proposals all over the place. The smart money will wait
for
> > treaty ratification.
> >
> > >Tradition is a strong thing, and I think tradition may have a lot to do
> with
> > >how timely the cancellation of a CW requirement will be.
> >
> > Look at how much effect 'tradition' had on the restructuring. Zip, nil,
> nada.
> >
>
> True, but that was for a *reduction* in the requirement. I'm not so sure
> there will be major support for a complete elimination of the CW
> requriement--in some form or another.
But the "will" of the amateur community doesn't make
the rule or rule change. As Jim noted, the FCC already
weighed in on morse testing not being required EXCEPT
to meet the former treaty requirement S25.5.
> The pity is that we must go through this again. The amateur community is
> still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.
Don't let the rantings in this newsgroup serve as an indicator.
I hear nothing being discussed on the air and even if a few
diehards are pissed off, they'll either get over it someday or
die with their own complaining attitudes.
> > The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only reason
> > reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would
> > be illogical for FCC to
> > keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even though
> > we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine
> > FCC being that illogical and reversing itself.
> >
>
> heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right? The FCC is a government
> entity=large corporate entity. Right? At least that's the way I see it.
I
> wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
inside
> the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars on
> organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
than
> a year!
Here's the question?
Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?
> > So the big question is: What OTHER changes should be made?
None are really needed at all. Some might make sense, but
there's really no reason why 5wpm couldn't just be dropped
totally with no other changes needed.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
Do you seriously believe that the 200 thousand or more
non-code techs support keeping element 1? And, as you
note below...this ain't no ballot issue.
> And we may not even get the chance to express an opinion. Once the treaty
is
> ratified, FCC has the authority to simply dump Element 1 with no NPRM or
NOI.
Zactly!
> >The pity is that we must go through this again.
>
> Tell it to those who will write the proposals to dump Element 1
>
> >The amateur community is
> >still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.
>
> Heck, there are some who are not over the changes of 1968-69 - even though
they
> were not hams back then!
I must be living in a cave then as I've
yet to meet anyone that wasn't a ham
prior to 68/69 yet is complaining
of the changes made then.
> You think this is bad, Kim, you shoulda heard the wailing and moaning and
> gnashing of teeth back in the '60s when "Incentive Licensing" was proposed
and
> enacted.
BUT that denied existing privilegs to many hams...espeially Generals.
No such LOSS of privileges would accompany the end of Element 1.
(SNIP)
> >At least that's the way I see it. I
> >wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
inside
> >the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars
on
> >organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
than
> >a year!
> >
> All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving
in
> the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.
>
> Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
> sight.
>
> Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?
Should be an interesting answer :-)
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Kim W5TIT
Oh goodness, what a loaded question, and that is very astute of you (you'll
understand that comment much more than many here, I suspect <GRIN>). I
don't want to seem like I'm hedging, and I'm a damned good debater, but let
me preface my "final answer" with the following:
It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so populated
by people who are so pleased with themselves and under the apparent
impression that a ham radio license includes the authority to gnash and hate
anyone different from themselves.
I believe that CW testing has promulgated such behavior as above. It is a
"governmental approval" for a specific mode, thereby warranting that anyone
who has taken and passed this mode test is, somehow, of a higher regard to
the FCC and, at least, to fellow hams.
Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device to keep
their ideas of "no gooders" out of the hobby--promoting a "good 'ol boy"
concept. This is attitude is horrendous in a "goodwill" hobby, and displays
of it are terribly disturbing to me. As amateur radio operators we are
ambassadors of the United States. And, to get so petty as to some of the
arguments spoken in this newsgroup, and even more comments I hear on the
air, it makes me totally embarrassed to even bring the hobby of ham radio up
to anyone any more.
Now, all that given, I respect the tradition of CW. Contrary to such people
as Dick Carroll and Larry Roll, who go off half-cocked thinking they "know"
who someone is based on their dislike of the mode of CW, most of we who are
new to the hobby are quite respectful of the tradition of ham radio, and
know good talent on CW when we see it--indeed even love to watch someone
doing it.
Yes, I want CW to stay as a testing element and I think 5wpm is sufficient.
I also think it should be sending OR receiving (not both), and I think that
waivers should only be given upon the agreement of 2 doctors that a certain
handicap is, indeed, the complaint of any particular individual. Heck,
maybe the Federal Gov't. could even come up with approved doctors--they
approve VEs, right? I hear too many stories of hams who have no business
being any class of ham where CW was required--because they DON'T know CW.
People such as those mentioned earlier here are reprehensible in their
opinion (in *my* opinion <GRIN>), and it is their behavior that does more to
harm ham radio than the choices others make NOT to learn CW or who choose
not to use CW once they've passed and exam requirement. I am happy to have
*anyone* in the hobby--even those with not-so-great-operating practices, as
long as they are friendly, promote ham radio as a positive experience, and
encourage others to simply JOIN, not to GET TO EXTRA.
Kim W5TIT
Kim W5TIT
news:be6ics$kd6$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
in
> > sight.
> >
> > Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?
>
> Should be an interesting answer :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>
And, one that disappoints you, I'm sure, Bill. Sorry, but it's my opinion.
Kim W5TIT
Kim W5TIT
is
> > still not over the backlash from the changes a few years ago.
>
> Don't let the rantings in this newsgroup serve as an indicator.
> I hear nothing being discussed on the air and even if a few
> diehards are pissed off, they'll either get over it someday or
> die with their own complaining attitudes.
>
While it's true that I have not even listened to amateur radio in quite a
while--probably at least six months anyway--the last time I had a radio on
there was still quite frequent "intonations" around here that express dismay
and a great divide between longer-licensed amateurs and newer-licensed
amateurs. My opinions certainly do not emanate from this newsgroup--I
shudder to think that you'd believe that of me, Bill.
> > >
> > > The restructuring R&O made it clear, IMHO, that the one and only
reason
> > > reason FCC kept Element 1 was the treaty requirement. It would
> > > be illogical for FCC to
> > > keep Element 1 now that there's no more treaty requirement. Even
though
> > > we're talking govt. regulations, I can't imagine
> > > FCC being that illogical and reversing itself.
> > >
> >
> > heh heh, and that was tongue-in-cheek, right? The FCC is a government
> > entity=large corporate entity. Right? At least that's the way I see
it.
> I
> > wonder how much shareholders realize that there is complete insanity
> inside
> > the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars
on
> > organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
> than
> > a year!
>
> Here's the question?
> Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?
>
WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good answer
for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can generally
think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just
leave it as it is.
Kim W5TIT
Kim W5TIT
> "Kim W5TIT" <fahg...@nomail.net> writes:
> >
> > It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so
>
> Ridiculous. All achievements encourage pride, which in some translates
> into arrogance. If we beefed up the written tests, and eliminated CW,
> then the arrogance would remain. It's the nature of the beast.
>
True, there are always those that are arrogant. However, is it possible
that the CW testing requirement enhances one's tendency to do that?
>
> > Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device. .
. [snip]
>
> Barriers to entry have their uses. All the best organizations have
> them. Compare CB radio, which has none.
>
I'd have to see some examples. I was not aware that "filtering" was that
widely in use.
> >
> > As amateur radio operators we are ambassadors of the United States.
>
> That's just a piece of rhetoric, used to help justify allocation of
> spectrum by a post-world-war congress. Hams represent only themselves.
>
Well, I don't take it as a piece of rhetoric. I take it seriously.
>
> > I am happy to have *anyone* in the hobby--even those with
> > not-so-great-operating practices, . . . [snip]
>
> Basically agree, depending what "not-so-great" means exactly. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Len.
>
There are those who get all upset over things such as someone saying "10-4"
or "turn my house around," etc. Or those that habitually just make a call
without checking to see if a freq is in use, etc.
Kim W5TIT
Sorry so short, but I've seen a few of my posts today that have some error
related to being too long...
Phil Kane
>Here's the question?
>Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?
Because it's the summertime and the chances of some key person in
the path being on annual leave (governmentese for "vacation") is
higher than any other time except the last two weeks in December.
One learns rapidly not to do essential business with any Federal
agency between Independence Day and Labor Day and between
Thanksgiving and New Years' Day. That's Reality Island.
--
Phil Kane
>Word has it that the UK will drop it within a month or so.
Does the UK have to take the new treaty before Lord So-and-so who
takes it into committee and then to the House of Lords for a debate
followed by a vote and thence to the Queen to make it binding on the
UK or can the Director-General of the RA do that at the stroke of a
(ball-point quill) pen?
I'm sure in Somalia it gets done whenever Warlord Biggshott says so.
--
Phil Kane
>You think this is bad, Kim, you shoulda heard the wailing and moaning and
>gnashing of teeth back in the '60s when "Incentive Licensing" was proposed
>and enacted.
Or the wailing and gnashing of teeth back in 1952 when one couldn't
get an Advanced any more.....I had to wait until 1968 to get mine,
and that was before the "incentive licensing" splitups started.
Kim W5TIT
> "Kim W5TIT" <fahg...@nomail.net> writes:
> > <lbu...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I don't take it as a piece of rhetoric. I take it seriously.
>
> I wonder what your callsign tells our muslim neighbors about America,
> ambassador W5TIT? ;-/
>
Well, likely as not, the religious sect (no matter where located) is going
to have a problem with my callsign. I daresay the religious group you
mention would have a problem even that I am a "woman in a man's hobby."
<GRIN> However, in all seriousness, I've been in contact with quite a few
outside our boundaries, all having the chuckle in their voice as they
returned a call.
I think it says that we Americans are quite lighthearted and enjoy having a
good time while in serious endeavors.
> >>
> >> Basically agree, depending what "not-so-great" means exactly. :-)
> >
> > There are those who get all upset over things such as someone saying
> > "10-4"...
>
> Anyone who says "10-4", and isn't a cop, is a poser[*]. The only
> correct response is "Roger Dodger, copy that."
>
> Regards,
> Len.
>
>
> [*] Anyone who spells it "poseur", is also a poser.
>
heh heh!!!!!
Kim W5TIT
Phil Kane
>In the case of Mensa, it involves taking an IQ test. (It should be noted
>that this tiny requirement doesn't do much: most Mensa members never
>attend a single meeting.)
Joining another organization for which I wouldn't have the time or
deep inclination to be active in is the reason why I never joined
Mensa or the Masonic Order, both of which I had been "proselytized"
for although they supposedly have rules prohibiting members from doing
that.
>Anyone who says "10-4", and isn't a cop, is a poser[*]. The only
>correct response is "Roger Dodger, copy that."
I know a whole bunch of hams who are cops (I do a lot of ARES/RACES
work with them) and everyone seems to be able to keep their jargon
separate.
lk
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
news:cuvyxnansvbet....@netnews.comcast.net...
Since the gestation period of a Report & Order is one year,
what different does it make when you start?
As you know, government can move mountains, particular ones
they created, but it takes a long time.
Larry kc8epo
Bill Sohl
But you didn't answer the question.
Should the USA keep Element 1 now that the treaty
has changed?
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
>
>
Bill Sohl
But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification
of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the
fullest extent possible.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Kim W5TIT
> opinion.
> >
> > Kim W5TIT
>
> But you didn't answer the question.
> Should the USA keep Element 1 now that the treaty
> has changed?
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>
I'm sure you read the post by now, Bill, right?
Kim W5TIT
Kim W5TIT
> > > Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?
> > >
> >
> > WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good
answer
> > for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can
generally
> > think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to just
> > leave it as it is.
>
> But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification
> of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the
> fullest extent possible.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>
Going back to the "corporate entity" theory; the FCC would spend more
dollars revamping the program than to just stay with it the way it is. And,
dropping the CW element wouldn't do a thing in terms of minimizing any R&R,
would it?
Kim W5TIT
Bill Sohl
Yes, saw it a few minutes after asking in the post above.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
> "Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:be86nj$g7m$2...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "Kim W5TIT" <fahg...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> > news:be7353$8...@library2.airnews.net...
> > > >
> > > > Here's the question?
> > > > Tell us WHY the FCC wouldn't dump the code test now?
> > > >
> > >
> > > WOW, that is a good question. And, one I don't think I have a good
> answer
> > > for. So, maybe the FCC will just drop it. The only thing I can
> generally
> > > think of, is that they have no more "incentive" to drop it than to
just
> > > leave it as it is.
> >
> > But the FCC does indeed have an incentive...simplification
> > of the licensing process and minimizing rules to the
> > fullest extent possible.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bill K2UNK
> >
>
> Going back to the "corporate entity" theory; the FCC would spend more
> dollars revamping the program than to just stay with it the way it is.
Yey that ISwhat they are paid to do.
> And, dropping the CW element wouldn't do
> a thing in terms of minimizing any R&R, would it?
Sure it would. It reduces test requirements and
avoids processing the Element 1 has been passed
data from VECs.
More likly than the above, however, will be the movement
of other countries to a nocode structure (e.g. UK, Netherlands,
and others). It appears...although I don't know the legal
detains for those countries, that they may move to nocode
within weeks or only a few months.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
> Kim W5TIT
>
>
lk
>
> Word has it that the UK will drop it within a month or so.
Looks like they will be first.
The Radio Society of Great Britian web site report:
"The Mandatory International Morse Requirement is to Cease
The mandatory international Morse requirement for access to
the HF bands is to cease. Colin Thomas, G3PSM, an advisor
to the UK delegation to the ITU World Radiocommunication
Conference, reported on Monday the 30th of June that the
mandatory Morse code requirement for HF access would
disappear at the end of the conference. However, if any
administration feels that it needs to keep the requirement,
it has the right to do so. Here in the UK, the Radiocommunications
Agency has already stated that it will bring in code-free
HF licences as soon as practical to do so. An announcement
will be made on GB2RS and on the RSGB website when
Full and Intermediate Class B amateurs can start using the
HF bands."
The Radiocommunications Agency reports:
"Amateur operation below 30 MHz - requirement for
Morse code test at 5 words per minute"
"Introduction and background"
"At present, radio amateurs wishing to operate in amateur bands
below 30 MHz must pass a test demonstrating their Morse code
abilities. Article 25.5 of the international Radio Regulations
obliges all national administrations (including the Agency) to
conduct such tests for access to these bands."
"The future need for this obligation is on the agenda of this
year's World Radio Conference (WRC-03), being held in
Geneva from 9 June to 4 July. Having consulted the amateur
community, the UK believes that the Morse test requirement
should be removed. We consider it likely that this will be
the majority view at the conference."
"To speed up the process of implementing WRC-03's decisions,
the Agency is now consulting on a proposal to remove the
Morse requirement for access to amateur bands below 30 MHz.
Please note that, if WRC-03 does not remove the requirement
for Morse code tests, the Agency cannot proceed with the
proposed removal within the UK. We are consulting now only so
that the overall process may be accomplished more quickly."
"We propose to merge the A and B licence classes at Full and
Intermediate levels, so that the UK licences comprise Foundation,
Intermediate and Full. All licensees at each level will have access
to all the frequencies forming part of their respective licences.
Each licensee will keep his/her current call sign. If a licensee
holds both an A and a B licence at the same level (which, if these
proposals are accepted, will offer identical privileges), s/he will
be asked to choose which call sign to retain by not renewing the
other licence when it is next due for renewal. (The discarded
licence may or may not be his/her first licence to fall for renewal.)"
Larry Roll K3LT
writes:
>>
>
>OK, what is WWHD? I know it's "What Would [something] Do," but what? I am
>so much more of a "go with the flow" kind of person that I'll just follow
>along with whatever everyone else decides. In the world of consensus,
>consider me--usually--an abstainer, if that is the term...
>
>Kim W5TIT
Kim:
I ass-u-&-me that the "H" in "WWHD" is none other than Hiram Percy Maxim,
W1AW -- the father of Amateur Radio. So, the question is, What Would
Hiram Do? I think he'd see the way amateur radio is going and probably
start rotating in his grave!
73 de Larry, K3LT
Larry Roll K3LT
Sept. 15, 2004.
73 de Larry, K3LT
Phil Kane
>Since the gestation period of a Report & Order is one year,
>what different does it make when you start?
>
That's an anecdotal statement. Perhaps that's the average, but
there is nothing that requires any particular minimum or maximum
time.
If there is enough "oomph" behind it, an R&O can be issued in one
day if it's a type that does not require public input. That would
have to be a Memorandum Opinion and Order drafted in a quick hurry,
of course, but if it's issued under delgated authority it just needs
one signature, and even if it's a full Commission MO&O it can be
bicycled through the five offices in less than an hour if everything
is lined up. I've seen them do that with various administrative
matters.
>As you know, government can move mountains, particular ones
>they created, but it takes a long time.
Except when they want it to be a short time.
Phil Kane
>
>"Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:be6geo$kqt$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>> Word has it that the UK will drop it within a month or so.
>
>Looks like they will be first.
Still doesn't answer my question about whether the RA can do it
based solely on a report from the Delegation on what has been passed
or whether there is a formal ratification process either on the
Ministerial (agency) level or in Parliament as there is in the
Former Colonies.
Alun Palmer
>
> "lk" <lkl...@net-link.net> wrote in message
> news:vgb6q25...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
>> news:cuvyxnansvbet....@netnews.comcast.net...
>> > On 1 Jul 2003 14:31:19 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:
>> >
>> > >> We oughta have a pool on how long it takes The Congress and FCC to
>> > >> get FCC to get through the various levels of rubberstamping.
>> > >> My wild guess is no more than a year from today.
>> >
>> > >I would think about the same, but surely we should each guess a
>> > >particular date, and the winner should be whoever is closest.
>> >
>> > Put me down for March 15, 2004.
>> > "Beware the Ides of March." 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
>>
>> Put me down for December 31, 2003.
>>
>> "Clean desk rule"
>> Larry KC8EPO
>
> Word has it that the UK will drop it within a month or so.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>
>
>
The UK are dropping the code test on the 20th. It was going to be August
1st, but they brought it forward to come before a big outdoor event that
the RSGB are holding on the 26th/27th of this month. Presumably, this is
to help the RSGB recruit more people into the hobby.
Alun Palmer
They have to have a consultation period, but the RA 'cheated' by
publishing the consultation document before the WRC!
Alun Palmer
news:vgh193n...@corp.supernews.com:
I'm not sure. I think both Holland and Belgium plan to drop code testing
this month. The UK is doing it on the 20th, but they may not be the first.
Phil Kane
>> Does the UK have to take the new treaty before Lord So-and-so who
>> takes it into committee and then to the House of Lords for a debate
>> followed by a vote and thence to the Queen to make it binding on the
>> UK or can the Director-General of the RA do that at the stroke of a
>> (ball-point quill) pen?
>>
>They have to have a consultation period, but the RA 'cheated' by
>publishing the consultation document before the WRC!
In my sporadic dealings with them in the mid-1960s I was always
impressed by how the GPO (predecessor to the RA) could cut corners
where the FCC couldn't - or wouldn't .....
Ryan, KC8PMX
--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
.. --. .... - . .-. ...
"N2EY" <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:c2356669.03070...@posting.google.com...
> So far:
>
> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> N2EY: April 15, 2004
> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
Kim: June 1, 2008
If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
<Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> writes:
Musta been a really interesting time back in 51-52. First FCC restructures
(1951). Back then you needed an Advanced (old Class A) or the newly re-created
Amateur Extra to have full privileges. Also, no new Advanceds after the end of
1952! Which meant that newbies who got Generals or Conditionals after Jan 1,
1952 would have to go for Extra instead of Advanced if they wanted any amateur
HF 'phone between 2 and 25 MHz.
There was a big rush for those with the required experience to get Advanceds
before the end of 1952. A few even got Extras. Then, just before Christmas, FCC
does a complete 180 and says "never mind, all Generals and Conditionals get
full privs as of mid-February, 1953". Huh?
I can just imagine the squawking of those who had invested serious time and $$
to get the licenses before the door closed, only to find it carried no
additional privs after a few weeks. (Back then the Advanced and Extra were only
available at FCC exam points unless you lived in the remote parts of some of
the territories and possessions. For many hams, just getting to an FCC exam
point in those pre-interstate-highway days was a major undertaking. And FCC
gave no credit for by-mail exam elements - if a Conditional wanted an Advanced,
he/she had to retake the 13 wpm code and General written at the FCC exam point
before being allowed to try the Advanced.
--
I got my Advanced in the summer of 1968. I went to the Philly FCC office early
in the summer and passed General theory and flunked 13 wpm code because the
examiner could not read my writing. So I got a Tech to go with my Novice, back
when you could do things like that. One callsign for HF, different callsign for
VHF/UHF.
Went home and taught myself how to block-print and copy code at 18-20 wpm.
Showed up at FCC office after the required 30 day wait and passed 13 wpm easy.
Examiner says "why not try the Advanced while you're here?" so I did. Passed
with no problem even though I had not studied for it. Not too bad for a kid of
14, between 8th and 9th grades.
Doesn't seem like almost 35 summers have gone by since then.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Kim W5TIT
Just...Kim?
Kim W5TIT
---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to ne...@netfront.net
N2EY
writes:
>"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030708202227...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> So far:
>>
>> WA2SI: September 13, 2003
>> KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
>> K2UNK: January 1, 2004
>> K2ASP: March 15, 2004
>> AA2QA: April 1, 2004
>> N2EY: April 15, 2004
>> N3KIP: May 1, 2004
>> KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
>> K3LT: September 15, 2004
>> Kim: June 1, 2008
>>
>> If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
>>
>>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>>
>
>Just...Kim?
I didn't want to risk reviving the "one step closer to extinction" threads,
Kim.....
73 de Jim, N2EY
>
N2EY
"Kim" <fahg...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<be72fb$4...@library2.airnews.net>...
> "N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030705082334...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> > In article <be4acc$9...@library1.airnews.net>, "Kim" <dont
> hass...@nomail.net>
> > writes:
> > >At least that's the way I see it. I wonder how much shareholders
> > >realize that there is complete insanity inside
> > >the realm of large corporate entities who constantly spend huge dollars
> > >on
> > >organizational/operational changes, often just to change again in less
> > >than a year!
> > >
> > All true. But in the area of code testing, FCC has been constantly moving
> > in the direction of reduction/elimination for at least 28 years.
> >
> > Of course that doesn't mean they will act logically now that the end is in
> > sight.
> >
> > Are you saying we should keep Element 1, Kim?
> > >> --
>
> Oh goodness, what a loaded question,
Wasn't meant to be a loaded question, just a simple inquiry on your
opinion.
> and that is very astute of you (you'll
> understand that comment much more than many here, I suspect <GRIN>).
I do - and thanks!
> I
> don't want to seem like I'm hedging, and I'm a damned good debater, but let
> me preface my "final answer" with the following:
>
> It is extremely disappointing to me to see that this hobby is so populated
> by people who are so pleased with themselves and under the apparent
> impression that a ham radio license includes the authority to gnash and hate
> anyone different from themselves.
I agree there are a few like that, Kim, but in 35+ years I've only
encountered a few of them. Maybe there are more where you are. There
are certainly more here on rrap than I've encountered in the general
ARS population.
I would also say that your description could be applied to many
different induhviduals, on all sides of the various debates.
>
> I believe that CW testing has promulgated such behavior as above.
How? It's just a basic test of a simple skill.
> It is a
> "governmental approval" for a specific mode, thereby warranting that anyone
> who has taken and passed this mode test is, somehow, of a higher regard to
> the FCC and, at least, to fellow hams.
If that's true, then the same can be said of the written tests. And
vanity callsigns. Or any other accomplishment by an individual.
>
> Over time, the CW testing has (by many hams) been a filtering device to keep
> their ideas of "no gooders" out of the hobby--promoting a "good 'ol boy"
> concept.
Maybe where you are. Not around here, or anywhere else I've lived.
Some would describe the code test as an "ante" - an initial
investment, so to speak.
> This is attitude is horrendous in a "goodwill" hobby, and displays
> of it are terribly disturbing to me. As amateur radio operators we are
> ambassadors of the United States. And, to get so petty as to some of the
> arguments spoken in this newsgroup, and even more comments I hear on the
> air, it makes me totally embarrassed to even bring the hobby of ham radio up
> to anyone any more.
I don't hear the sort of argument you describe on the air here in EPA,
Kim. In fact, from what I see and hear, the whole code-test thing
seems to be pretty well confined to rrap and a few other outlets.
Maybe where you are it's different, but among the hams I know, putting
someone or a whole group down because of their license class is simply
Not Acceptable Behavior.
> Now, all that given, I respect the tradition of CW.
That's good. But it's more than a tradition - it's a very popular mode
in the ARS today. Second only to SSB on the amateur HF bands. I would
not be surprised if this year it turned out that CW was #1 in total
QSOs during FD.
> Contrary to such people
> as Dick Carroll and Larry Roll, who go off half-cocked thinking they "know"
> who someone is based on their dislike of the mode of CW, most of we who are
> new to the hobby are quite respectful of the tradition of ham radio, and
> know good talent on CW when we see it--indeed even love to watch someone
> doing it.
Many if not most newcomers are as you describe. But a growing number
are not - in fact, there are some who consider it a put-down even to
be called newcomers.
> Yes, I want CW to stay as a testing element and I think 5wpm is sufficient.
Excellent! But I'm afraid neither you nor I will get our druthers on
this. (I'd be happy with 13 and 20 wpm code tests, actually. 5 wpm was
an FCC mistake, made more than 50 years ago).
> I also think it should be sending OR receiving (not both), and I think that
> waivers should only be given upon the agreement of 2 doctors that a certain
> handicap is, indeed, the complaint of any particular individual.
I think both sending and receiving should be tested (the two reinforce
each other).
Medical waivers were simply a quick way for FCC to please Papa Bush
and a now-dead King* he wanted to grant a favor. Their implementation
was very poor - any MD or DO could write a waiver, regardless of
specialty or experience. But speech and language pathologists,
occupational therapists, audiologists and other professionals with far
more specialized knowledge and experience in disabilities had no
standing at all. That makes absolutely no sense and shows that the FCC
was simply looking for a quickie solution to a problem.
Again,I'm afraid neither you nor I will get our druthers on this.
> Heck,
> maybe the Federal Gov't. could even come up with approved doctors--they
> approve VEs, right?
Not gonna happen. The VECs approve the VEs, and the FCC oversees the
process.
Last thing FCC wants is more admin work, which is exactly what any
sort of waiver system generates.
Reducing routine admin work is a key FCC goal. That's why all the
emphasis on reduced testing, fewer tests and license classes, online
renewals and modifications, 10 year licenses, etc. It's the whole
reason behind the VEC and QPC systems: Get unpaid volunteers to do the
work and provide the services and facilities formerly performed by
paid govt. personnel. Brilliant, actually.
That's why the smart money approaches FCC with ready-made ideas, at
the right time.
> I hear too many stories of hams who have no business
> being any class of ham where CW was required--because they DON'T know CW.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Do you know hams who have forgotten the code? So do I. I also know
folks who have forgotten all sorts of things they once had to know to
pass various tests, but they don't get their highschool diplomas
pinched for it.
>
> People such as those mentioned earlier here are reprehensible in their
> opinion (in *my* opinion <GRIN>), and it is their behavior that does more to
> harm ham radio than the choices others make NOT to learn CW or who choose
> not to use CW once they've passed and exam requirement.
Agreed - and folks like that exist on all sides of the codetest
debate. Do we really want someone who writes things like "those in the
minority should learn to take 'No' for an answer and get on with
life"? (It wasn't a pro-code-test person who wrote that).
> I am happy to have
> *anyone* in the hobby--even those with not-so-great-operating practices, as
> long as they are friendly, promote ham radio as a positive experience, and
> encourage others to simply JOIN, not to GET TO EXTRA.
I'm happy to have anyone who follows the rules, pulls their own
weight, exhibits a positive attitude towards others, and seeks to
learn and grow.
What gets forgotten too often is that the license test is just the
beginning.
73 de Jim, N2EY
* "who made you king? I don't recall voting for you!" - "Dennis" in
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
kf6...@thin.doobie.com
: If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code
test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect,
they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter.
So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll
just axe Element 1, and leave restructuring the written tests to
whomever is in charge after 2004. Michael Powell is rather busy these
days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.
As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. I think the
written tests should be harder, and I think you should re-test when you
renew your license.
Brian
> N2EY <n2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
>
>
> KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
>
> I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code
> test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect,
> they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter.
>
> So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll
> just axe Element 1, and leave restructuring the written tests to
> whomever is in charge after 2004. Michael Powell is rather busy these
> days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
> consolidation.
Its important for informed Americans to get their news from as few,
controllable sources as possible.
If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
> chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
> Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.
Some in Amateurland have always done that. As long as they congregate
in PCTA groups and invoke the PCTA double standard, they can insulate
themselves from reality.
> As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago. I think the
> written tests should be harder, and I think you should re-test when you
> renew your license.
I think the written exam material IS "harder," but the format lends
itself to less than stellar results in retained knowledge.
bb
N2EY
WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
N2EY
> I think the FCC already decided this one, when they lowered the code
> test to 5 WPM, it was solely due to the treaty requirement. In effect,
> they've already sought, and received, plenty of commentary on the matter.
That's what the R&O said in 2000, and it was reaffirmed in their
dismissal of the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration.
>
> So once everyone in Washington is back from their vacations, they'll
> just axe Element 1,
The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first.
> and leave restructuring the written tests to
> whomever is in charge after 2004.
Possibly. Or they will simply wait for the ARS to come up with a
restructuring proposal.
> Michael Powell is rather busy these
> days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
> consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
> chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
> Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.
I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone
what the issues are. That's his staff's job.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago.
Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular. Learning enough code to
pass the test is about as hard as learning to recognize about 40 words
in a foreign language.
> I think the
> written tests should be harder,
That's easily arranged. All you have to do is write up some "harder"
questions and answers in multiple-choice format, and submit them to
the QPC.
There were a bunch of structural changes for the written tests
suggested to the FCC back in '99 as part of the restructuring, but
they ignored all of them and instead reduced written testing.
> and I think you should re-test when you renew your license.
Nice idea - are you volunteering to be a VE? Because requiring retest
upon renewal would just about triple the tresting workload of the
VECs.
Retesting would be a very tough sell because you would have to
convince FCC that there is some sort of serious problem caused by lack
of it.
73 de Jim, N2EY
KF6TPT
KF6TPT (me) wrote things in a prior post. They're marked like this: TPT>
N2EY> The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first.
I keep hearing this getting thrown around, and certainly, my civics
teacher told me this. However, I can't seem to find any mention in the
congressional record of the ratification after WRC-2000.
Can someone point me at it?
TPT> Michael Powell is rather busy these
TPT> days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
TPT> consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
TPT> chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
TPT> Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.
N2EY> I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone
N2EY> what the issues are. That's his staff's job.
That's exactly my point. Chairman Powell (and other high-ranking FCC
staff) doesn't need to know or care about the ARS. It makes absolutely
no difference to those in charge of the FCC, whether we have a code
requirement or not.
In this current incarnation of the FCC, I think it's reasonable to say
that if code testing doesn't provide a benefit to the FCC, then the FCC
will be eliminating it as quickly as they reasonably can.
TPT> As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago.
N2EY> Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular.
I would even just say "Hams use code". But hams use AM, and RTTY, and
PSK, and FSK and yes, even phone. Some of us like satellites. Should
you have to prove that you're capable of tracking and hearing UO-14
before being granted a license to transmit on 145.975 MHz? Or that you
know all 26 phonetics and how to locate your grid square (a useful item
for a VHF+ operator to know)
CW is the only mode that is -required-. Sure, even hams who
never use RTTY had to answer written questions about it... but the
difference is, you don't have to get all written questions correct. A
person can become at least a General, if not an Extra, without ever
answering a question about RTTY... just skip them, and make sure you
know the rest of the material.
The end of code testing does not mean the end of CW, nor should it. But
as far as I'm concerned, CW is just another mode, albeit one with a
certain history and artistry to it. With regards to testing, it should
have about as much importance as the rest of the modes (i.e. a handful
of questions in the pool, and perhaps a reference in the questions on
frequency allocations, nothing more, nothing less)
N2EY> Learning enough code to pass the test is about as hard as
N2EY> learning to recognize about 40 words in a foreign language.
That's not the point. The fact that just about anyone can learn it
given enough time and practice really just means that all that is really
being tested is a potential ham's level of dedication (and how much free
time he's had in the last few months)
There are plenty of people out there who will say that testing someone's
dedication is a _good_ thing for our hobby. They're the ones that want
to keep the "riff-raff" out. Or at least, that's how it seems.
I just don't see that. The enforcement actions taken by the FCC don't
reflect that either. Many of the people cited for illegal operating
practices have taken 13 and 20wpm code tests.
What I see is a generation of people to whom technology is second nature.
I see hardware engineers and electrical engineers building amazing
commercial applications up in the SHF frequencies. Most of these people
aren't hams. I don't see them knocking down the doors to come join our
ranks, but I don't see us reaching out to them and giving them a reason
to join us, either.
We're doing just the opposite, not entirely with the code test, but with
the attitude that goes with it.
I'd love for some of the current high-tech talent to bring their
knowledge into the Amateur HF arena. We've seen what happens when we
bring them into VHF (I'm thinking about APRS, WSJT/JT44, lots of
software DSP stuff).
But to do that, we need to change. By telling a 22 year old
engineer with a 10-hour a day job and a girlfriend that he needs to
spend "just an hour a day" sitting and listening to code on headphones
for the next month, we are essentially telling him to get lost. He
won't have that kind of free time until he's retired. Plus he's got
other methods of global communication, so the overall gee-whiz factor of
HF is definitely not as much of a draw as it was years ago.
But show the same engineer a PSK31 pileup and his eyes light up.
Perhaps he's thinking of a better way to discriminate between the
colliding warbles and pull yet another call sign out of the morass.
Maybe he's a software engineer. Maybe a DSP guru. Whatever he is, he
could be an asset to the ARS, and play a part in enhancing the radio
art. But he's probably not very interested in CW. Perhaps he will
grow to work CW, perhaps not. But he definitely won't learn it until he
has been exposed to other modes of HF. So, under today's rules, he
moves on to other things... and we'll never know whether his DSP ideas
would work.
There was a time when children were frequently exposed to ham radio, but
those days are past. Not every EE graduate has a dipole in his attic
anymore. The fact is, if the kids and the geeks aren't joining us...
something's wrong, and maybe we should fix it.
I think that it's time for us to grow up, evolve with the times, welcome
newcomers into our ranks, and continue furthering the radio art.
-Jeff
PS.
TPT> and I think you should re-test when you renew your license.
N2EY> Nice idea - are you volunteering to be a VE?
Yes. I'd be happy to be a VE.
N2EY
writes:
>N2EY <N2...@aol.com> wrote things. They're marked like this: N2EY>
>KF6TPT (me) wrote things in a prior post. They're marked like this: TPT>
>N2EY> The Senate has to ratify the new treaty first.
>
KF6TPT>I keep hearing this getting thrown around, and certainly, my civics
KF6TPT>teacher told me this. However, I can't seem to find any mention in the
KF6TPT>congressional record of the ratification after WRC-2000.
>
KF6TPT>Can someone point me at it?
>
N2EY>I'm not sure when the Senate ratified the WRC-2000 treaty. But I do know
that the Senate has to do so.
>TPT> Michael Powell is rather busy these
>TPT> days, what with all the brouhaha surrounding ClearChannel and the media
>TPT> consolidation. If we think that he, or anyone all that high on the food
>TPT> chain at the FCC gives a rat's patootie about what's going on in
>TPT> Amateurland, we're fooling ourselves.
>
>N2EY> I doubt Mr. Powell has much knowledge of what the ARS is, let alone
>N2EY> what the issues are. That's his staff's job.
>
TPT>That's exactly my point. Chairman Powell (and other high-ranking FCC
>staff) doesn't need to know or care about the ARS. It makes absolutely
>no difference to those in charge of the FCC, whether we have a code
>requirement or not.
>
Sure - but they're not hams, and they really don't care that much. We ARE hams,
and we do care.
TPT>In this current incarnation of the FCC, I think it's reasonable to say
>that if code testing doesn't provide a benefit to the FCC, then the FCC
>will be eliminating it as quickly as they reasonably can.
>
I agree 100%. I'd go one step farther - eliminating it reduces the FCC's admin
work, so they have a reason to get rid of it.
>TPT> As far as I'm concerned, it should have happened years ago.
>
>N2EY> Why? Hams still use code. It's very popular.
>
TPT>I would even just say "Hams use code".
I just got off 40 meters. CW QSOs from the low end of the band to up above
7050, whcih is as far as I listened. Even though there's lots of QRN tonight,
things are jumping. Worked a guy at a campsite in NH near Franconia Notch
running 25 W to a dipole.
TPT>But hams use AM, and RTTY, and
>PSK, and FSK and yes, even phone. Some of us like satellites.
Sure - but except for FM and SSB voice, all of those modes are far less popular
on HF/MF than CW. None of those modes require that the user learn a new skill
in order to use them.
TPT>Should
>you have to prove that you're capable of tracking and hearing UO-14
>before being granted a license to transmit on 145.975 MHz?
Might not be a bad idea, if satellites were as popular on 2 as CW is on HF.
TPT>Or that you
>know all 26 phonetics and how to locate your grid square (a useful item
>for a VHF+ operator to know)
I'd say the phonetics, definitely. Grid square, maybe.
>
TPT>CW is the only mode that is -required-.
You mean the only mode where it's necessary to demonstrate an operating skill
at a very basic level. That's certainly true - but there's no way to test Morse
skill with a purely written test.
TPT>Sure, even hams who
>never use RTTY had to answer written questions about it... but the
>difference is, you don't have to get all written questions correct.
True - but then again, you don't know how many RTTY questions will be on the
test you get. All it takes is one too many wrong answers and you flunk the
written.
TPT>A
>person can become at least a General, if not an Extra, without ever
>answering a question about RTTY... just skip them, and make sure you
>know the rest of the material.
Ah, but that means learning stuff about other things you may never use.
>
TPT>The end of code testing does not mean the end of CW, nor should it.
Not as long as there are folks like me using it.
TPT> But
>as far as I'm concerned, CW is just another mode, albeit one with a
>certain history and artistry to it.
Have you ever really tried it?
N2EY> With regards to testing, it should
>have about as much importance as the rest of the modes (i.e. a handful
>of questions in the pool, and perhaps a reference in the questions on
>frequency allocations, nothing more, nothing less)
But it's far more popular than any HF mode except SSB. Does it make sense to
have as many CW questions on the test as, say, PACTOR questions, when CW is at
least 10 times more used by hams than PACTOR?
>
>N2EY> Learning enough code to pass the test is about as hard as
>N2EY> learning to recognize about 40 words in a foreign language.
>
TPT>That's not the point. The fact that just about anyone can learn it
>given enough time and practice really just means that all that is really
>being tested is a potential ham's level of dedication (and how much free
>time he's had in the last few months)
What's really being tested is a radio operating skill at a very basic level.
>
TPT>There are plenty of people out there who will say that testing someone's
>dedication is a _good_ thing for our hobby. They're the ones that want
>to keep the "riff-raff" out. Or at least, that's how it seems.
Perhaps they are concerned by what has happened to radio services without any
testing at all.
>
TPT>I just don't see that. The enforcement actions taken by the FCC don't
>reflect that either. Many of the people cited for illegal operating
>practices have taken 13 and 20wpm code tests.
>
True - but were they using CW when they were doing the alleged illegal
activities?
>
TPT>What I see is a generation of people to whom technology is second nature.
Nothing new about that. Look back 100 years or more and its the same story,
just different hardware.
>I see hardware engineers and electrical engineers building amazing
>commercial applications up in the SHF frequencies. Most of these people
>aren't hams. I don't see them knocking down the doors to come join our
>ranks, but I don't see us reaching out to them and giving them a reason
>to join us, either.
They're professionals, doing it because it's their job. They have the time, the
resources and the training. Most hams don't, because it's a part-time avocation
for them.
>
>We're doing just the opposite, not entirely with the code test, but with
>the attitude that goes with it.
I don't know what you mean.
I'm an EE, with bachelor's and master's degrees from accredited universities. I
was led to EE because of amateur radio, not the other way around. I also build
my own ham gear, mostly from scratch with the occasional kit thrown in. I know
very few EEs who are also homebrewers.
>
TPT>I'd love for some of the current high-tech talent to bring their
>knowledge into the Amateur HF arena. We've seen what happens when we
>bring them into VHF (I'm thinking about APRS, WSJT/JT44, lots of
>software DSP stuff).
>
But if you check into who designed and promoted all that stuff, again and again
it turns out to be hams who are code-tested.
TPT>But to do that, we need to change. By telling a 22 year old
>engineer with a 10-hour a day job and a girlfriend that he needs to
>spend "just an hour a day" sitting and listening to code on headphones
>for the next month, we are essentially telling him to get lost.
I disagree!
For one thing, it takes perhaps 20-30 minutes a day for 30 days to learn enough
code to pass the test - not an hour a day. For another, if said person hasn't
got the time to study for the test, when's that person going to have the time
to use the license?
I was once one of those 22 year old engineers, btw. Now I'm a 49 year old
engineer.
TPT>He
>won't have that kind of free time until he's retired.
Then he better not have any kids, get married, or buy a house.
TPT> Plus he's got
>other methods of global communication, so the overall gee-whiz factor of
>HF is definitely not as much of a draw as it was years ago.
Then he doesn't need an HF license, does he?
>
TPT>But show the same engineer a PSK31 pileup and his eyes light up.
>Perhaps he's thinking of a better way to discriminate between the
>colliding warbles and pull yet another call sign out of the morass.
>Maybe he's a software engineer. Maybe a DSP guru.
Maybe. But will he actually DO any of that? When will he have the time, if he
doesn't have 20-30 minutes a day?
And he could just as easily be a she.
TPT>Whatever he is, he
>could be an asset to the ARS, and play a part in enhancing the radio
>art. But he's probably not very interested in CW. Perhaps he will
>grow to work CW, perhaps not. But he definitely won't learn it until he
>has been exposed to other modes of HF. So, under today's rules, he
>moves on to other things... and we'll never know whether his DSP ideas
>would work.
I have to disagree with this characterization of engineers, as if we're all
alike.
>
>
TPT>There was a time when children were frequently exposed to ham radio, but
>those days are past. Not every EE graduate has a dipole in his attic
>anymore. The fact is, if the kids and the geeks aren't joining us...
>something's wrong, and maybe we should fix it.
I think you've got it backwards. Ham radio led a lot of people to EE, not the
other way around. Look at many famous engineers, and you often find they were
hams long before they became engineers.
>
TPT>I think that it's time for us to grow up, evolve with the times, welcome
>newcomers into our ranks, and continue furthering the radio art.
>
OK, fine - exactly how is that going to happen? I predict the code test will be
gone very soon after the Senate ratifies the new treaty. In fact, I predict
that there won't be an NPRM, comments, etc., just a Memorandum Opinion and
Order from FCC saying, in effect, "we argued this back in 98-99 and again in
2000 and now we're just finishing the job that was delayed by the old treaty"
Bye bye code test.
Now, what else has to change?
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
>
> They
{meaning the FCC}
> have other incentives, too. One is minimizing bad operators who
> will QRM services in ARS or in other bands. Another may or may not be
> to discourage participation in ARS and whittle away bandwidth for
> lucrative reallocation, or at least to keep it small enough that the
> need for new bandwidth is minimized.
How about this motivation:
One of FCC's biggest headaches in the avocational-radio area is the
pirate/freebander/bootlegger, who simply ignores FCC rules and goes on
the air using whatever mode/frequency/power/equipment/ID strikes their
fancy. Enforcement agains such folks is more challenging because
they're not in the database and they don't really care about "the
rules" anyway.
This is not a new problem - the FCC rules about RF power amplifiers
covering 12 and 10 meters were a response to these folks and the
manufacturers who sold to them, not any problem in ham radio. Those
rules date from 1978.
Perhaps FCC figures that if they make it easier to get an amateur
license, there will be more hams and fewer
pirates/freebanders/bootleggers. And if they get out of line,
enforcement will be easier.
A few weeks ago, FCC went after several hams who were operating
illegally on about 26 MHz. These were relatively new hams - wonder
what they did before they got their tickets?
Waddya think?
73 de Jim, N2EY
WWHD
Phil Kane
>One of FCC's biggest headaches in the avocational-radio area is the
>pirate/freebander/bootlegger, who simply ignores FCC rules and goes on
>the air using whatever mode/frequency/power/equipment/ID strikes their
>fancy. Enforcement agains such folks is more challenging because
>they're not in the database and they don't really care about "the
>rules" anyway.
>
>This is not a new problem - the FCC rules about RF power amplifiers
>covering 12 and 10 meters were a response to these folks and the
>manufacturers who sold to them, not any problem in ham radio. Those
>rules date from 1978.
This sort of thing was debated amongst the cognoscenti in the hard
times before the CB license was abandoned by pressure from the Ford
Administration (Remember "First Momma" Betty Ford ??). Here are some
scenarios:
Imagined Scenario #1
Judge to Prosecutor - "What has this defendant violated?"
Prosecutor to Judge - "He operated a transmitter without a license"
Judge to Prosecutor - "Is there anything barring him from getting
a license?"
Prosecutor to Judge - "No, your honor"
Judge to Prosecutor - "Will he be legal when he gets one?"
Prosecutor to Judge - "Yes, your honor"
Prosecutor to Defendant - "I order you to get a license. Next Case"
Imagined Scenario #2:
Congress to FCC - "What is your number one headache that is costing
a lot of money?"
FCC to Congress - "Tracking down and punishing all the unlicensed
CB operators"
Congress to FCC - "Well, just drop the CB license requirement. Then
you won't have an "unlicensed" CB operator problem
any more"
Unfortunately, both of them were real and the FCC did the latter.
>Perhaps FCC figures that if they make it easier to get an amateur
>license, there will be more hams and fewer
>pirates/freebanders/bootleggers. And if they get out of line,
>enforcement will be easier.
Not at all. It's the same amount of work to DF the bozo, and the
penalty phase is just as difficult.
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
>What gets forgotten too often is that the license test is just the
>beginning.
Amen to that, OM.
73 DE John, KC2HMZ
A.Melon
Dave Heil <k8...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dave Heil wrote:
> >
> > N2EY wrote:
> > >
> > > So far:
> > >
> > > K2ASP: March 15, 2004
> > > AA2QA: April 1, 2004
> > > N2EY: April 15, 2004
> > > N3KIP: May 1, 2004
> >
> > attempt obtaining an amateur license before sometime in 2011.
>
> Never mind. I thought
Dream the impossible dream, ASSHOLE.
N2EY
Mike Coslo
KB3EIA - minimum 4 years from date of requiremen drop.
- Mik KB3EIA -
Alun Palmer
news:aHWfb.34627$qj6.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net:
That would be July 5, 2007, then. I don't think it will be that long,
though. I'm on the list for May 1, 2004.
BTW, Luxembourg just ditched the code test. There's a new country every
couple of weeks.
Bert Craig
Quite pleased to *lose* this one.
--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
N2EY
away):
WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
Kim: June 1, 2008
If I missed anybody, please add your guess to the list.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2EY
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
KØHB
"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur
Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be
eliminated in this decade.
While it's a cop out, it's probably the only way they can get 15 politicians
to sign up for a "New Amateur Radio Plan" without a palace revolt on their
hands at the BoD meeting. They'll be able to go back to East Overshoe, Iowa
and Resume Speed, Arizona and mumble platitudes to their membership about
how "We've opened HF to non-Morse applicants, but where it really counts we
actually increased the Morse requirement."
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Carl R. Stevenson
that we'll see a Report and Order in December, 2004.
Carl - wk3c
"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040104185711...@mb-m03.aol.com...
KØHB
> Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
> eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur
Dee D. Flint
Put me down for July 1, 2005.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Mike Coslo
KŘHB wrote:
> "N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote
>
>
>>Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be
>>eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
>
>
> Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for Amateur
> Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be
> eliminated in this decade.
You mean they will increase the requirements from 5wpm?
- Mike KB3EIA -
N2EY
<wk3...@wk3c.com> writes:
>I'm going to guestimate
>that we'll see a Report and Order in December, 2004.
Carl,
Need an exact date for the pool. Dec 1? Dec 15?
Let me know and I'll put you in.
73 de Jim, N2EY
KØHB
"Mike Coslo" <mco...@enoughalreadyadelphia.net> wrote
>
> You mean they will increase the requirements from 5wpm?
>
I don't know if FCC will or will not, but I expect ARRL to ask for an
increase.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Carl R. Stevenson
Carl - wk3c
"N2EY" <n2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040104220914...@mb-m06.aol.com...
N2EY
eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past.
WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007 ("minimum 4 years from date of requirement drop")
Kim: June 1, 2008
Closest date (before or after) wins. Anyone else?
73 de Jim, N2EY