[HCRA] Partial on the rule change

Rick Lindquist, N1RL n1rl at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 21 08:24:54 EDT 2005 

Greetings!

No, the news material on the ARRL Web site is copyrighted just as is
CNN's, ABC News, etc. We have no problem with providing, say, the first
paragraph of an item with a link to our site for the rest. I think the
reasons for copyrighting our Web material should be obvious.

Material from The ARRL Letter and ARRL/W1AW bulletins may, however, be
redistributed freely, but ARRL or The ARRL Letter (as the case may be)
MUST be listed as the source.

QSL on your comments. It's too bad the FCC didn't take additional steps
and just shot down all the other proposals wholesale as well. The FCC's
rationale that the amateur community already has said it wants the
alleged three-tier license system now in place (it's not--it's a
six-class system--Novice, Tech, Tech Plus, General, Advanced and Amateur
Extra) is specious, in my opinion. 

That said, the automatic upgrading concept proposals remain
controversial. A lot of older hams believe that it was so much harder to
get a ticket in "the old days," but no one's proven--as the FCC itself
has stated--that meeting the Morse requirement made anyone a superior
operator or tended to separate the wheat from the chaff. I say this as a
98% CW operator (mostly mobile) and as a veteran Amateur Radio licensee
(47 years and counting) who jumped through the hoops of the day "the
old-fashioned way," when we had to actually draw schematics for the test
(typically of stuff that no one ever needed to know about ever again to
be a good operator).

ARRL most certainly will announce the start of the "official" comment
period for this proceeding, WT Docket 05-235, but I expect that a lot of
the amateur community will simply ignore that and start posting comments
immediately. That's how it went with the BPL proceedings. Typically, it
takes about two weeks for these proceedings to make it into the Federal
Register.

Stay tuned to our Web site for further updates and information on this
topic.

73, Rick, N1RL 

-----Original Message-----
From: hcra-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:hcra-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Peter
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 3:20 AM
To: 'Hamden County Radio Assoc.'
Subject: Re: [HCRA] Partial on the rule change

______________________________________________
-------Hampden County Radio Association-------
-----------e-mail list (reflector)-------------
______________________________________________
Hi Rick (and the list),

If Jim had noted the source of the news story as the ARRL would that
have 
made it OK?  Although that would still be redundant and not a good use
of 
web resources.

Maybe what he could have done instead of cutting and pasting would have
been 
to make his own comments and included a link to further comments at the 
ARRL?  Like this:

BTW,  I have pretty much made my opinion about dropping the code
requirement 
public long ago.  I did not advocate even keeping it for the Extra Class

license requirement.  I had predicted that the FCC would drop it
completely. 
Demonstration of Morse Code proficiency has never and will never be a 
predictor of whether or not a ham will be a good operator or not (in a 
general sense).  When the only way to get on the air was using Morse
code 
(for most hams) it did ensure that hams were ready to operate in that
mode. 
Times have changed since then and I believe ham radio must move on as
well 
however slowly that movement is.

I'm surprised that they didn't address the number of license classes
left; 
to simplify its database and to make self policing the bands easier.  I 
think the comment in the ARRL news story 
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/20/100/?nc=1 that the FCC had
taken 
the easy road is right on target with regards to this issue.  Maybe the
FCC 
feels that it is only a matter of about 30 to 50 years and the issue
will be 
resolved due to the SK factor or non-renewal of licenses.  In the NPRM 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-143A1.pdf the
FCC 
did justify not making changes to the number of license classes in a
number 
of ways which included something to the effect that they didn't want to 
issue additional privileges to hams that hadn't earned the privileges 
through additional testing and said that they felt that if a licensee
were 
compelled to receive the extra privileges of the next higher license it 
wouldn't be too much to expect them to study for the test for that
upgrade. 
That part makes sense but it doesn't address the issue of having an
entry 
level license that the privileges of which make sense for our hobby
today 
(and into the future).

Well, dropping the code is a baby step but, non-the-less, a step in the 
right direction.  I know that there are some out there that want to
cling to 
that proverbial woobie (a type of security blanket that toddlers
typically 
use) of a requirement BECAUSE I HAD TO DO IT THAT WAY and it makes me
feel 
good that others have to be tortured the same way that I was or however
that 
type of logic goes.  For those with that type of thinking, try to
imagine 
what the hobby will look like 50 or 100 years from now.  By then you 
probably won't recognize the bands.  I wonder if anybody will still be
using 
code at all?  Whatever your opinion, our hobby is changing regardless of

whether or not any individual agrees or not with those changes.  With 
regards to the CW issue, I think it is time to move on and the FCC got
it 
right.

I hope when the NPRM gets posted into the Federal Register that someone
will 
post that the comment period has started, possibly with a link to the
part 
of the FCC web site where comments can be made.

73 de KI1I,
Peter


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rick Lindquist, N1RL" <n1rl at earthlink.net>
To: "'Jim Harrington'" <jldhjr at verizon.net>; "'Hamden County Radio
Assoc.'" 
<hcra at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:51 PM
Subject: RE: [HCRA] Partial on the rule change


> ______________________________________________
> -------Hampden County Radio Association-------
> -----------e-mail list (reflector)-------------
> ______________________________________________
> Greetings!
>
> I appreciate that you're trying to make this convenient for folks, but
> please don't copy material from the ARRL Web site to the list or to
any
> other Web site for that matter. It's copyrighted.
>
> Just list the URL for the story, which, in this case, is
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/20/100/.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Rick, N1RL
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hcra-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:hcra-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of Jim Harrington
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:33 PM
> To: Hamden County Radio Assoc.
> Subject: [HCRA] Partial on the rule change
>
> ______________________________________________
> -------Hampden County Radio Association-------
> -----------e-mail list (reflector)-------------
> ______________________________________________
>
>
> FCC Proposes to Drop Morse Code Requirement for All License Classes
>
> NEWINGTON, CT, July 20, 2005--The FCC has proposed dropping the 5 WPM
> Morse
> code element as a requirement to obtain an Amateur Radio license of
any
> class. The Commission recommended the change to its Part 97 Amateur
> Service
> rules in a Notice of Proposed Rule Making .
> in WT Docket 05-235. Any rule changes proposed in the NPRM would not
> become
> final until the FCC gathers additional public comments, formally
adopts
> any
> changes to its rules and concludes the proceeding by issuing a Report
> and
> Order (R&O) spelling out the changes and specifying an effective date.
> That's not likely to happen for several months. The FCC declined in
its
> NPRM to go forward with any other suggested changes to Amateur Service
> licensing rules or operating privileges beyond elimination of the
Morse
> requirement.
>
> "Based upon the petitions and comments, we propose to amend our
amateur
> service rules to eliminate the requirement that individuals pass a
> telegraphy examination in order to qualify for any amateur radio
> operator
> license," the FCC said in its NPRM, released July 19. This week's NPRM
> consolidated 18 petitions for rule making from the amateur
> community--including one from the ARRL--that proposed a wide range of
> additional changes to the amateur rules. The FCC said the various
> petitions
> had attracted 6200 comments from the amateur community, which soon
will
> have the opportunity to comment again--this time on the FCC's
proposals
> in
> response to those petitions.
>
> The Commission said it believes dropping Element 1--the 5 WPM Morse
> examination--would "encourage individuals who are interested in
> communications technology, or who are able to contribute to the
> advancement
> of the radio art, to become amateur radio operators." The FCC said it
> also
> would eliminate a requirement it believes "is now unnecessary and that
> may
> discourage" current licensees from advancing their skills, and that it
> would "promote more efficient use" of current Amateur Radio spectrum.
>
> The FCC cited changes in Article 25 of the international Radio
> Regulations
> adopted at World Radiocommunication Conference 2003 as the primary
> reason
> to go forward with eliminating Morse code as an Amateur Radio
licensing
> requirement in the future. Among other changes, WRC-03 deleted the
Morse
> testing requirement for amateur applicants seeking HF privileges,
> leaving
> it up to individual countries to determine whether or not they want to
> mandate Morse testing. Several countries already have dropped their
> Morse
> requirements.
>
> ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, said he was not surprised that the FCC
> proposed altogether scrapping the Morse code requirement. The League
and
> others had called for retaining the 5 WPM requirement only for Amateur
> Extra class applicants. Sumner expressed dismay, however, that the FCC
> turned away proposals from the League and other petitioners to create
a
> new
> entry-level Amateur Radio license class.
>
> "We're disappointed that the Commission prefers to deny an opportunity
> to
> give Amateur Radio the restructuring it needs for the 21st century,"
he
> said. "It appears that the Commission is taking the easy road, but the
> easy
> road is seldom the right road."
>
>
> ------Hampden County Radio Association-------
> An ARRL Special Services Club for over 50 years
> ------------http://www.hcra.org------------
> ________________________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the list please visit:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcra
>
> Address any comments to:
> -Jim, KK1W  -  jmullen at rockys.com
> _______________________________________________
> HCRA mailing list
> HCRA at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcra
>
> ------Hampden County Radio Association-------
> An ARRL Special Services Club for over 50 years
> ------------http://www.hcra.org------------
> ________________________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the list please visit: 
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcra
>
> Address any comments to:
> -Jim, KK1W  -  jmullen at rockys.com
> _______________________________________________
> HCRA mailing list
> HCRA at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcra
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/52 - Release Date:
7/19/2005
> 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/52 - Release Date: 7/19/2005

------Hampden County Radio Association-------
An ARRL Special Services Club for over 50 years
------------http://www.hcra.org------------
________________________________________________________

To unsubscribe from the list please visit:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcra

Address any comments to:
-Jim, KK1W  -  jmullen at rockys.com
_______________________________________________
HCRA mailing list
HCRA at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcra

More information about the HCRA mailing list