Amateur Radio Newsline Report 1562

[AA7BQ]

Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1562 - July 20, 2007


The following is a Q-S-T. Foundation Class mania is starting to sweep the globe, a new emergency communications system is unveiled in New York, and he's retired again. Find out who's left what radio on Amateur Radio Newsline™ report number 1562 coming your way right now.

RESTRUCTURING: FOUNDATION CLASS MANIA IS SWEEPING THE GLOBE

Call it Foundation Class mania. The successful introduction of Foundation Licenses, particularly in Britain and Australia, continues to be food for thought in a number of other countries around the world. Jim Linton, VK3PC, of the W-I-A News is here with the story:

--

The latest to declare such an interest is the New Zealand Association of Radio Transmitters (NZART) which is looking at the possible introduction of a Foundation type license.

New Zealand currently has a single license restructure having abandoned its Novice license which was not a success and in its final year had only about a dozen on issue.

NZART says a Foundation License will be considered over coming months with both the British and Australian models being examined for their suitability.

Canada is still in favor of a new entry license. However the thought there are the moment is that it should be of a limited tenure in order to encourage licensees to upgrade. The regulator Industry Canada is talking about the new license being introduced in years, rather than months.

Papua New Guinea is also looking at the possible introduction of a Foundation License. And decisions have yet to be made on a commonly agreed Foundation license that can be adopted by member nations of the European Community.

For the Amateur Radio Newsline, I'm Jim Linton, VK3PC

--

The bottom line. Its starting to look as if the Foundation Class license could become the ham radio entry point for people, world wide. (WIA)

**

RESCUE RADIO: ITS "NEWS" TO THE BIG APPLE

The Big Apple and its Eastern suburbs will soon have a new emergency communications program. One which encourages the participation of all amateur radio operators to pass messages of any nature during a large-scale emergency. Amateur Radio Newsline's Evi Simons is in the Big Apple with more:

--

Called the Neighborhood Emergency Watch or NEWS System, the program will allow any radio amateur in New York City and on Long Island to help friends and neighbors in time of disaster. This, by providing emergency communications when all other forms of messaging are unavailable.

According to the program administrators, during disasters, phone lines become overloaded, cell phones are rendered useless and most other public communication becomes nearly impossible to use. But with NEWS, Amateur Radio operators will be able to offer assistance by simply passing along messages to other hams who are able to get through to emergency services. This, using the hobby's long established network of Amateur Radio Emergency Service volunteers.

NEWS will also sponsor nets that will liaison with other emergency communications systems that might be concurrently with the NEWS operations. This means that NEWS will have the capability to participate in networks that A-R-E-S and other groups have established with first-responder groups.

Each borough, county and town will have a Local Operations Center, to be developed as the NEWS network evolves. Combined with the ham resident in the Metro New York and Long Island areas, these Local Operations Center will eventually tie into citywide and other logistical emergency nets to provide a venue and lines of communications to serve local needs.

For the Amateur Radio Newsline, I'm Evi Simons, in New York.

--

If you live in that area and if all this sounds exciting to you there is a lot more information about the NEWS program on-line at www.neighborhoodemergencywatchsystem.org (N2YBB)

**

RESCUE RADIO: HAMS WORK THE NEW MEXICO - TEXAS BORDER STORM

Amateur Radio emergency communications took center stage in parts of New Mexico and Texas the evening of June 26th. This when the leading edge of a severe weather front traveled along the border of the two states. Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF, reports:

--

With poor weather spotting coverage in that part of the county, Rob Tice, W5TIC left the town of Lovington heading north. He operated on the Caprock repeater with Alf Lindsey, W5ALL, in Roswell providing reports using Gibson Ridge radar software.

W5TIC met up with the storm in Tatum, New Mexico. He used a handheld anemometer to get a 78 MPH reading as the storm gust front hit. While Lindsay kept him updated with radar reports, Jim Morrison, KM5BS relayed Tice's storm reports back to the weather watch center. As the storm front moved south, Tice tracked along with it and continued to provide reports.

At this point Gaines County activated its EOC providing radio contact with Jack Moore, KC5LNY, in Seminole, Texas. Shortly after the front hit Seminole, Moore requested wthat Hobbs Fire be contacted for mutual aid. He said most of their communications had been knocked out or were on battery backup.

Gaines EOC was in danger of being overwhelmed with reports of damage, injuries and fires. W5TIC went to the EOC and volunteered to take over.

The storm front was approaching the Midland Texas area by then and the net control at SkyWarn requested New Mexico to take traffic as they worked the rest of the event. Clint Lannom, N5MXE, in Midland, came up to serve as net control.

About 0100 CDT, the severe wether event was pretty much over for SkyWarn volunters. The hams serving at the various locations were able to stand down and return home.

A job well done.

For the amateur Radio Newsline, I'm Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF, at the studio in Los Angeles.

--

Severe weather in this part of the country is not uncommon and the hams who live there and are involved in Skywarn are always on the alert. (K5CEC)

**

RADIO LAW: FCC REFUSES TO REVIEW GMRS LICENSE GRANTS

The FCC has told the Personal Radio Association, Inc. that it does not have the legal ground to challenge license grants made in the General Mobile Radio Service. In a letter to the groups president Douglas M. Smith, the FCC says that the fact that an individual’s G-M-R-S license lists a business address as the contact information, does not present sufficient evidence, standing alone, to suggest that the license was improperly granted or that the station is operating in violation of the Commission’s Rules.

The denial comes in response to a complaint to the FCC by the Personal Radio Association filing back on February 12th . It had requested the regulatory agency review the grants of 277 G-M-R-S licenses because the records contains the name of an organization or company in the “attention” field. The Personal Radio Association said this indicated the licenses may have been issued to entities not eligible for licensing in the GMRS.

But the FCC says that’s not the case. It says that the information in the "attention" field is just what is says. It is a note for Commission use and as such it has no impact on the validity of the license. For that reason it is denying the Personal Radio Groups license review request.

**

HAM RADIO IN SPACE: SUPER EFFICIENT AMPLIFIER DESIGNED BY AMSAT HAMS

The Amsat News service reports that Allen Katz, K2UYH and Marc Franco, N2UO have developed a VHF, high-efficiency, class-E, R-F power amplifier. One with a DC to RF efficiency of 86.8%.

A-N-S says that their design is based on silicon carbide metal-semiconductor field effect transistors. The amplifier efficiency was measured at around 86 to 88% with this number holding quite well at almost any drain voltage or output power.

The AMSAT News Service ays that this type of amplifier is under consideration for the envelope elimination and restoration linear amplifier planned for the upcoming AMSAT Eagle ham radio satellite.

The design was presented in a paper at the IEEE International Microwave Symposium in Hawaii. It is now available on-line at http://www.cree.com/products/wireless_docs.htm titled
"Class-E Silicon Carbide VHF Power Amplifier" (ANS)

**

Break 1

From the United States of America, We are the Amateur Radio Newsline, heard on bulletin stations around the world including the K0ASH repeater of the Ashland Amateur Radio Club serving Ashland Nebraka.

(5 sec pause here)


**

NEW PRODUCTS: NEW KENWOOD DUAL BANDER A HIT WITH THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED

A newly released 2 meter and 70 centimeter dual band radio from Kenwood is getting rave reviews from the visually handicapped ham radio community. The transceiver in question is the Kenwood model TM-V71A. Blind and visually impaired amateurs love it because when equipped with the optional VGS-1 voice chip unit, the radio announces even menu-level settings for true accessibility by audio alone. One of those most enthusiastic about this feature is Linda Reeder, N7HVF, of Salt Lake City, Utah:

--

N7HVF: "The 71A is the most blind user friendly radio I have ever see in the 22 years I have been in Amateue Radio."

--

N7HVF is so enthussed about the new TM-V71A, that she not only bought one. She has also produced and recorded a 12 minute audio netcast that loojks at the new radio and explains what its capable of doing. Heres a samole:

--

N7HVF: (Descriptive audio of how rgw TM-V71A operates demonstrating voice readout.)

--

The TM-V71A is not just for the blind or visually impaired. The radios voice readout also functions as a safety enhancement that lets an operator tune the radio will operating mobile without ever having to take his or her eyes off the road.

But it is the visually handicapped that are the most vocal in singing its praises. You can hear Linda Reeders entire report on the blind friendly new Kenwood radio at the HandiHam website. A link directly to it is in this weeks printed, Amateur Radio Newsline report. Its in cyberspace at http://www.handiham.org/manuals/Kenwood/TMV71A/tmv71a.mp3

More about the TMV-71A is at the Kenewood website in PDF form at http://www.kenwoodusa.com/Dealers/Us1/flyers/TM-V71A.pdf (N7HVF)

**

ENFORCEMENT: FCC TELLS NJ HAM TO CLEAR UP RPT TO RPT INTERFERENCE

Anthony W. Cranston, WA2HYO, of East Brunswick, New Jersey has been told by the by FCC that his uncoordinated repeater is allegedly interfering with a coordinated system. The regulatory agency says it wants to know what Cranston plans to do to remedy the situation.

In its June 29th letter to WA2HYO, the FCC says that representatives of the WA3BXW repeater had contacted Cranston a number of times since 2003, but to this date it remains unresolved. So, as per the Part 97 Amateur Service Rules it is placing the burden to solve the problem on Cranston's uncoordinated repeater since the WA3BXW system is coordinated.

For those not aware Section 97.205 of the Commission's rule states that where there is interference between a coordinated and an uncoordinated repeater, the licensee of the uncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference. And the FCC appears to be placing that responsibility squarely on Cranston.

WA2HYO was given 20 days from the date of the FCC's letter to respond to the inquiry. It instructed him to furnish the Commission with all of the information that it has requested.

Cranston was also warned that failure to resolve this interference problem will result in enforcement action against his license. Enforcement that may include removal of automatic control privileges from his repeater. (FCC)

**

ENFORCEMENT: TEXAS CB'ER FINED $7000

The FCC has affirmed a $7,000 against 11 meter C-B operator Donald Winton of Corpus Cristi, Texas. This for allegedly rebroadcasting a local AM station on CB Channel 19. And for refusing to allow the FCC to inspect his station. Amateur Radio Newlines Bruce Tennant, K6PZW, reports:

--

The FCC says that last February 21st it received a complaint that a CB radio station in Corpus Christi was jamming communications on CB channel 19 by continually re-broadcasting the programming of a local AM broadcast station. An agent from the Commission’s Houston Office used radio direction finding and determined that the signal originated from an antenna mounted on a house in that city

While the agent was making measurements on the radio signal, Donald Winton exited the house and walked down the driveway. The agent introduced himself and requested to inspect the CB radio station inside the house. Mr. Winton confirmed this location was his residence and that the CB station belonged to him, but refused to make it available for inspection.

The agent advised Winton that the Commission’s Rules require the operator of a CB radio station to make the station available for inspection. Winton still refused. The agent then requested that Winton go inside and take the station off the air because it was blocking communications on CB radio channel 19. The FCC says that Winton walked into the house and the station’s transmissions ceased. Winton returned and continued to refuse to make the station available for inspection, so the agent left.

On April 23, 2007, the Houston Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Winton in the amount of $7,000. Winton responded by requesting either a reduction or cancellation of the fine. He also claimed that his CB transmitter was not on when the agent arrived, and that, if it was on, it must have been operated by homeless people whom he allows access to his home. He also claimed that he did not allow the agent access to his home, because the agent did not have a warrant and because he was concerned that his dogs might injure the agent. Finally, he states that he was not aware of any of the Commission’s Rules governing CB radios.

But the FCC says that Winton has no explanation for how the agents used direction finding to locate the source of the signal to his residence. Nor could he explain how the agent was able to observe the signal right before he came out of his house. And the FCC noted that Winton admits that he refused to provide the agent access to his CB station located in his residence. This, even though FCC rules authorize inspection of all CB stations by the Commission. Accordingly, agents are not required to obtain a warrant to inspect a CB station.
The bottom line. The FCC says that it finds no basis for cancellation or reduction of the $7,000 forfeiture and has ordered Donald Winton to pay it within the next 30 days.
For the Amateur Radio Newsline, I'm Bruce Tennant, K6PZW, in Los Angeles.

--
At this point Winton has only two choices. He can pay the $7000 fine or he can appeal the matter higher up the FCC's administrative chain. (FCC)

**
ON THE WEB: IQSLUSA ANNOUNCED

Yet another new electronic QSL service has emerged. Calling itself I QSL USA, the founders says that it is aimed at both electronic as well paper QSL users and contains several innovative features designed to make QSLing a lot easier. More information is on-line at www.iqslusa.com . (VA3FH via qrz.com)

**

ON THE WEB: 14000.NET CELEBRATES ITS FIRST ANNIVERSARY

The 14300.net website will celebrate it’s one year anniversary next month.

The brain child of Steve Wojton, NN2NN, the website was started in August of 2006 to help promote the net activities on the 20 meter frequency of 14.300 MHz. Since then the site has steadily grown in popularity with those assisting with traffic and with the ham radio sailing community.

With some exclusive content and easy to navigate links concerning net operation, 14300.net has become a useful tool for the many net control stations who volunteer countless hours to handling traffic on 14.300 MHz. The site is in cyberspace at http://14300.net (Southgate)

**

NAMES IN THE NEWS: N6USO RELEASE FROM HOSPITAL - RECOVERING AT HOME

Some good news to report. Word that Los Angeles Sheriff's Deputy Burton Brink, N6USO is out of the hospital and recovering at home from injuries suffered in an on-duty accident.

As previously reported, the incident took place on June 13th . This, when a driver tried to exit the carpool lane on the Interstate 10 freeway. The motorist, who was in violation of state law requiring there be more than one person in the car did not check for a clear lane. He collided with Brink who was on motorcycle patrol.

N6USO suffered 9 broken ribs, a broken shoulder blade, a punctured lung and a punctured spleen. He required almost a month of hospital care and it will likely be another half year before he can return to duty.

Brink asks that nobody call him right now as he is still in a lot of pain. Get well wishes are best sent by e-mail to n6uso@officer.com. (WA6ILQ)

**

NAMES IN THE NEWS: WR1B NAMED NEW EDITOR OF QEX

And a word of congratulations to Larry Wolfgang, WR1B, on being named as the new editor of the ARRL publication QEX. He assumes the position from Doug Smith, KF6DX, who has edited QEX since September of `1998. Wolfgang had been serving as QEX Managing Editor for the past year and a half and as a member of Newsline's Young Ham of the Year judging committee for the past two seasons. (ARRL)

**

BREAK 2

This is ham radio news for today’s radio amateur. From the United States of America, We are the Amateur Radio Newsline with links to the world from our only official website at www.arnewsline.org and being relayed by the volunteer services of the following radio amateur:

(5 sec pause here)

**

ON THE NET: WEATHERBRAINS - A FREE NETCAST ABOUT THE WEATHER

If you are a radio amateur involved in severe weather spotting or just ham an interest in the environment, a couple of hams in Alabama have a website you will want to visit and an Internet radio show you will want to hear. The website and the show are both called WeatherBrains. In one recent program they interviewed Gary Woodall of the National Weather Service office in Ft. Worth, Texas to find out about the art of post storm surveys:

--

Audio only. Hear it by downloading the MP3 version of this newscast at www.arnewsline.org

--

Weatherbrains is the brain child of Birmingam weathercaster James Spann, WO4W, television producer David Black, KB4KCH and a couple of their weather centric friends. All experts in the area of weather forecasting. Each week the WeatherBrains crew takes an in depth look at all sides of the weather scene and brings it to their listeners in a way that’s entertaining and easy to understand.

The WeatherBrains program originates from the studios of The Weather Company in Birmingham, Alabama. New shows are posted each Tuesday. To subscribe or learn more about WeatherBrains take your web browser to www.weatherbrains.com And less we forget -- listening to WeatherBrains is free. (ARNewsline™)

**

THE SOCIAL SCENE: LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE 2007 HUNTSVILLE HAMFEST

On the ham radio social scene, Tom Medlin, WA5KUB, reports that he will once again be streaming live audio and video of this years Huntsville Hamfest.

Coverage begins with his drive from Cordova, Tennessee to Huntsville That starts at O8:OO hours Central U-S time on Friday morning August 17th . Once he arrives in Huntsville, he will begin his live broadcast of the Hamfest. Tom will also live stream this years Young Ham of the Year presentation that will take place at 2 P.M. Central of Saturday, August the 18th .

All the action will be in cyberspace at Tom website. Its on his video page at http://wa5kub.com (WA5KUB)

**

HAM RADIO IN SPACE: AO-51 PLAYING SOME FM GAMES

During the period of July 10 to July 12 the AMSAT OSAR 51 satellite was in its FM repeater mode with the uplink on 1268.700 MHz and the downlink on 2401.200 MHz. On July 10th , OE1VKW reported hearing the bird flying over Vienna with very strong signals.

As of July 13th , AO-51 was in the FM repeater mode, with an uplink on 145.920 MHz and downlink on 435.300 MHz. Telemetry is on the 435.150 MHz downlink. Starting on Tuesday, July 24th look for AO-51 to operate with an SSB uplink on 145.880 MHz and FM downlink via 435.300 MHz. An interesting combination of modes to say the least. (ANS)

**

WORLDBEAT - INSONESIA: ORARI PROVIES A NEEDED EMCOMM SERVICE

Indonesian Amateur Radio Organization Vice President M Jusuf Kalla says that his organization is still needed. Especially during emergencies and also to reach areas not accessible by telephones.

In a recent interview with the Antara News Service, Kalla is quoted as saying that experience has shown that telephone transmission towers and cellular phone networks are usually among the first structures to collapse in disasters like earthquakes. Kalls says that in those such situations, Indonesian Amateur Radio Organization members often provide out to be a welcome alternative means of communication.

According to the Kalla, every telecommunication technology device has its advantages and disadvantages. He noted that not all areas of Indonesia`s vast territory are accessible by telephones. As such, two-way radio is still needed as a means of communication with people in these remote areas.

Now in its 39th year, the Indonesian Amateur Radio Organization has been in providing communication support during disaster-caused emergencies in the country (ANTARA News)

**

WORLDBEAT - ROUMANIA: THE NEW PRO - CW - CLUB

From Romania comes word of the newly formed Pro C-W Club. The creation of YO6EX, the organization is dedicated to the preservation and encouragement the art of CW communications world-wide. There are two catagories of membership. These are full and associate. . Dues is 10 Euros. Applications go to YO6EX, P.O.Box 168, SIBIU-1, RO-550450, Romania. (YO6EX)

**

WORLDBEAT - NOVA SCOTIA: 4th ANNUAL MARIIME DX FORUM AUGUST 4

The 4th Annual Maritime DX Forum is slated for Saturday, August 4th , in Upper Tantallon, just outside Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Halifax Amateur Radio Club is sponsoring this years event which includes presentations by Tom Harrell, N4XP, talking about the highly challenging 2007 Scarborough Reef Dxpedition.

Also on hand will be Scott Wood, VE1QD. He will take attendees vicariously on a trip to the British Antarctic Territories, which is some of the rarest DX real estate on the planet.

All DX'ers and contesters are welcome. Complete details and a registration form can be downloaded from www.halifax-arc.org (Halifax ARC)

**

ON THE AIR: WAR ACTIVATED IN CROSSBAND COMMUNICATIONS TEST

A three letter special event callsign with no numeric indicator. That’s the story of the callsign W-A-R as it was used in last May 12th in the 58th running of the Crossband Communications Test sponsored by the Army Military Affiliate Radio System.

The historic W-A-R callsign was originally the property of the old United States War Department as it was known in those days. This year the W-A-R call was rolled out to be used in the cross band ham radio test station operating at the Pentagon. This was very significant to the members of the Pentagon Amateur Radio Club as the W-A-R call has been in exile at Fort Detrick, Maryland.for many years.

The complete story about the W-A-R commemorative call and this years Crossband Communications Test is in the article titled Amateur Radio at the Pentagon by Bill Sexton, N1IN. It begins on Page 29 of the August Worldradio Magazine. (Worldradio)

**

DX

In D-X, plan ahead to work San Andres as K3WT, N0STL,W0OR and
N0AT will be active from there between November 19th and the 27th . Operations will include the CQ World Wide DX CW Contest on November 24th and the 25th . This will be a Multi- Single entry. The contest callsign has not yet been announced.

Also coming on this November is Greneda. This with seven operators active as J3A also during the CQ World Wide DX CW Contest. Outside the contest they will be using their own personal callsigns. QSL J3A via WA1S.

(Above from various DX news sources)

**

THAT FINAL ITEM: ART BELL, W6OBB, RETIRES - AGAIN

And finally this week, he' done it again. Retired that is. The "he" in this case is internationally known talk show host Art Bell, W6OBB. Amateur Radio Newsline's Fred Vobbe, W8HDU, has the details:

--

IF THREE TIMES IS A CHARM, THEN WHAT IS FOUR? VETERAN TALK SHOW HOST ART BELL, W6OBB STUNNED HIS AUDIENCE ON JULY 1ST WITH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT:

W6OBB: "I WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE TONIGHT, THAT FOR THE .... ACTUALLY .... I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES IT IS NOW ....SOMEBODY'S COUNTING .... (LAUGH) FOLLOWING TONIGHTS BROADCAST ... I AM RETIRING FROM REGULAR WEEKEND PROGRAMMING":

--

THE MOVE STUNNED MANY LISTENERS OF THE "COAST TO COAST AM" SHOW THAT ART HOSTED ON THE WEEKEND. SOME LISTENERS SPECULATED THAT THIS WAS A PUBLICITY STUNT, OTHERS WERE JUST DISAPPOINTED AS BELL HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS BEING THE FOUNDER OF WHAT HAS BECOME A RATINGS WINNER IN OVERNIGHT PROGRAMMING, AND THE ONLY SOURCE FOR PARANORMAL TALK.

ALTHOUGH PREVIOUS DEPARTURES FROM THE AIR WERE DUE TO PROBLEMS AND TRAGEDY IN HIS LIFE, SUCH AS THE DEATH OF HIS THIRD WIFE, RAMONNA, IN JANUARY OF 2006, BELL SAID THAT THIS IS A HAPPY RETIREMENT.:

--

W6OBB: "THE REASONS, ACTUALLY, ARE STATED BY NEARLY EVERYBODY WHO EVER MAKES SUCH AN ANNOUNCEMENT. ONLY NOW I VERY CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THEM IN A VERY PERSONAL WAY. GOD HAS BLESSED ME WITH LOVE, MY LIFE, AT A TIME FRANKLY WHEN I THOUGHT I HAVE LOST ANY REASON TO LIVE, FOLLOWING MONA'S DEATH. MY WONDERFUL WIFE AIRYN, AND NOW OUR DAUGHTER ASIA."

--

BELL WENT ON TO SAY THAT HIS TIME WOULD BE SPENT WITH HIS NEW FAMILY. ART ALSO SAID THAT SINCE HE IS OF "RETIREMENT AGE" HE WOULD LIKE TO MORE OR LESS STOP AND SMELL THE ROSES, AND TAKE SOME TIME OFF. MANY HAMS HAVE NOTICED THAT HE HAS BEEN RATHER SILENT FROM THE 160 AND 80 METER BANDS, SO ONE HAS TO HOPE THAT ART HAS ALSO NOT RETIRED FROM HAM RADIO. :

FOR THE AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE, IN LIMA OHIO, I'M FRED VOBBE, W8HDU

--

According to Fred, Ian Punnet will fill in for Art Bell on weekends until a permanent replacement is found. (W8HDU, ARNewsline™ - audio use courtesy of W6OBB)

**

NEWSCAST CLOSE

With thanks to Alan Labs, AMSAT, the ARRL, the CGC Communicator, CQ Magazine, the FCC, the Ohio Penn DX Bulletin, Radio Netherlands, Rain, the RSGB, the Southgate News and Australia's W-I-A News, that's all from the Amateur Radio Newsline™. Our e-mail address is newsline@arnewsline.org. More information is available at Amateur Radio Newsline's™ only official website located at www.arnewsline.org. You can also write to us or support us at Amateur Radio Newsline™, P.O. Box 660937, Arcadia, California 91066.

For now, with Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF, at the editors desk, I’m Jim Davis, W2JKD, saying 73 and we thank you for listening.

Amateur Radio Newsline™ is Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.

[W0BKR]

Gee, the word "NOVICE" seems to come to mind..

Oh yeah, we got rid of that..nevermind

[W4KVW]

"ENCOURAGE" upgrades?Well just do away with ALL of the testing,that should just about do it!ANYONE can upgrade NOW so what else could they do but do away with the testing & give EVERYONE an EXTRA CLASS ticket that wants one?That will bring the bands alive for sure.ANOTHER "STUPID" idea on it's way from the folks who are SMARTER than YOU & I & they DO know whats BEST for the ham bands!!!!Just ask them. }:>)

Clayton
W4KVW

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (W0BKR @ July 20 2007,10:44)]Gee, the word "NOVICE" seems to come to mind..

Oh yeah, we got rid of that..nevermind
With all due respect, the very basic concept of the Foundation Class License is as different from the old U.S. Novice Class as apples are from transistors. The Novice was meant as a United States "upgrade or get out" entry point. Most nations consider their Foundation Class licenses at as a renewable-for-life ticket to sustain a nations Amateur Radio service and promote the number of new "operators" coming into the service.

[w4clm]

BREAK -19 !
Yeah Good Buddy.
WeeB~ truck-in on Ham radio now!

Gee Wally!
I guess that's already being done on 14 MHz.

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 20 2007,13:41)]Quote[/b] (W0BKR @ July 20 2007,10:44)]Gee, the word "NOVICE" seems to come to mind..

Oh yeah, we got rid of that..nevermind
With all due respect, the very basic concept of the Foundation Class License is as different from the old U.S. Novice Class as apples are from transistors. The Novice was meant as a United States "upgrade or get out" entry point. Most nations consider their Foundation Class licenses at as a renewable-for-life ticket to sustain a nations Amateur Radio service and promote the number of new "operators" coming into the service.
Uh, did I just read this in the Newsline report:

"
Canada is still in favor of a new entry license. However the thought there are the moment is that it should be of a limited tenure in order to encourage licensees to upgrade. The regulator Industry Canada is talking about the new license being introduced in years, rather than months."


Or was that just a bad dream? Sounds like the US Novice class license to me. I'll have to read the report again to be sure I didn't make that up.

Ed

[k4wde]

Yup, I'm all for a foundation class license in the US.
It's pretty easy to accomplish too! Right now it's
called the Technician class. We just re-name it to
Foundation class. See. Wasn't that easy???

[W3HR]

Quote[/b] ]as different...as apples are from transistors.
Bill, you are too funny! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[n2nov]

Once again, N2YBB steals another idea from others. The Neighborhood Emergency Watch SERVICE was introduced to him at a Field Day visit to Staten Island. He then announces it as an ARRL program a few weeks later.

NEWS has been spearheaded by AA2MF and four organizations on Staten Island whose first initials spell out NEWS. You can read the info about the organization at http://www.neighborhoodemergencywatchservice.org

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (w3hr @ July 20 2007,20:13)] Bill, you are too funny! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif [/QUOTE][/quote]
True, but one day I may outgrow it :-)

de
Bill P.

[ka9ekg]

Before they add any new classes the FCC has to start taking care of the ones they have allready.Way too much jamming,swearing,no call signs,and plain being stupid.

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (aa7bq @ July 20 2007,07:53)]NEWS will also **sponsor nets** that will liaison with other emergency communications systems that might be concurrently with the NEWS operations. #This means that NEWS will have the capability to participate in networks that A-R-E-S and other groups have established with first-responder groups.

Each borough, county and town will have a Local Operations Center, to be developed as the NEWS network evolves. #Combined with the ham resident in the Metro New York and Long Island areas, these Local Operations Center will eventually tie into citywide and other logistical emergency nets to provide a venue and lines of communications to serve local needs.
I fear that we are not keeping up with the times...

Six years ago, the idea of a mesh network thru laptops(LT) was expensive and not sensed as needed. Now, meshed laptop based EC is the way to go. It is, again, THE way to go.

ALL you need is a laptop, a card, and an antenna. Each LT is a RX/TX/ AND repeater.

Especially in NYC, LT based meshes make total sense. Why? Because the user base is very high and the mean free path to a mesh port is hundreds of feet to hundreds of yards. Ideal!

Contrast that with a VOICE BASED ham 'net'--with limited channel capacity and potential for user error on verbal messages.

Why aren't WE pioneering mesh network laptops for EC?? Why are we touting a system suited for 'Jericho'-but not 2007?

73,
Chip W1YW

[k3wrv]

Do I get this right? A foundation license would be tougher to get than a Class D CB license, but easier than a no code tech.. WAZATT mean? You've got to be able to spell your name and address and fill out a form like you used to have to do for a Class D License? And maybe ypou actually have to be able to locate a radio in a picture with no captions? Naw, that'd be too tough:angry:

Wake me up when the dumbing down is over.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (w1yw @ July 20 2007,10:00)]Quote[/b] (aa7bq @ July 20 2007,07:53)]NEWS will also **sponsor nets** that will liaison with other emergency communications systems that might be concurrently with the NEWS operations. #This means that NEWS will have the capability to participate in networks that A-R-E-S and other groups have established with first-responder groups.

Each borough, county and town will have a Local Operations Center, to be developed as the NEWS network evolves. #Combined with the ham resident in the Metro New York and Long Island areas, these Local Operations Center will eventually tie into citywide and other logistical emergency nets to provide a venue and lines of communications to serve local needs.
I fear that we are not keeping up with the times...

Six years ago, the idea of a mesh network thru laptops(LT) was expensive and not sensed as needed. Now, meshed laptop based EC is the way to go. It is, again, THE way to go.

ALL you need is a laptop, a card, and an antenna. Each LT is a RX/TX/ AND repeater.

Especially in NYC, LT based meshes make total sense. Why? Because the user base is very high and the mean free path to a mesh port is hundreds of feet to hundreds of yards. Ideal!

Contrast that with a VOICE BASED ham 'net'--with limited channel capacity and potential for user error on verbal messages.

Why aren't WE pioneering mesh network laptops for EC?? Why are we touting a system suited for 'Jericho'-but not 2007?

73,
Chip W1YW
For purely emcomms, the Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (packet) system offers digipeating. #And, hams have epower whereas the average laptop is only good for a couple of hours without AC power. #And, on top of that, most laptop owners don't have a 12V to 19V auto inverter/charger to charge/supply them from vehicles.

And, besides that, Chip, how many laptops would be on at the moment of necessity anyway? #Few, if any, unless it were to be needed on a pre-planned basis.

Hamdom offers an attentive, purposefully-focused, trained cadre at the ready in time of need. #Whereas the average urban high rise laptop owner's going to grab it and their I ( for "Idiot" Jobs/Wozniak) phone and run for the stairs and the first train out.

You sure like to pump Part 15 devices on amateur radio forums.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (k3wrv @ July 20 2007,11:10)]Wake me up when the dumbing down is over.
You'll be asleep for quite a while.

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ July 21 2007,10:13)]Quote[/b] (w1yw @ July 20 2007,10:00)]Quote[/b] (aa7bq @ July 20 2007,07:53)]NEWS will also **sponsor nets** that will liaison with other emergency communications systems that might be concurrently with the NEWS operations. #This means that NEWS will have the capability to participate in networks that A-R-E-S and other groups have established with first-responder groups.

Each borough, county and town will have a Local Operations Center, to be developed as the NEWS network evolves. #Combined with the ham resident in the Metro New York and Long Island areas, these Local Operations Center will eventually tie into citywide and other logistical emergency nets to provide a venue and lines of communications to serve local needs.
I fear that we are not keeping up with the times...

Six years ago, the idea of a mesh network thru laptops(LT) was expensive and not sensed as needed. Now, meshed laptop based EC is the way to go. It is, again, THE way to go.

ALL you need is a laptop, a card, and an antenna. Each LT is a RX/TX/ AND repeater.

Especially in NYC, LT based meshes make total sense. Why? Because the user base is very high and the mean free path to a mesh port is hundreds of feet to hundreds of yards. Ideal!

Contrast that with a VOICE BASED ham 'net'--with limited channel capacity and potential for user error on verbal messages.

Why aren't WE pioneering mesh network laptops for EC?? Why are we touting a system suited for 'Jericho'-but not 2007?

73,
Chip W1YW
For purely emcomms, the Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (packet) system offers digipeating. #And, hams have epower whereas the average laptop is only good for a couple of hours without AC power. #And, on top of that, most laptop owners don't have a 12V to 19V auto inverter/charger to charge/supply them from vehicles.

And, besides that, Chip, how many laptops would be on at the moment of necessity anyway? #Few, if any, unless it were to be needed on a pre-planned basis.

Hamdom offers an attentive, purposefully-focused, trained cadre at the ready in time of need. #Whereas the average urban high rise laptop owner's going to grab it and their I ( for "Idiot" Jobs/Wozniak) phone and run for the stairs and the first train out.

You sure like to pump Part 15 devices on amateur radio forums.
Lee,

These days 'hams' are used as the baseline from which emergency comms are defined as needing to be above.

The fact that you have dissed not only a VALID point, but one that accurately defines what is happening in EC, is, IMO, a REAL disservice to the American public.

We certainly agree that hams need to PLAY a NEW role, but the TAPR system is NOT designed to do what I have described, and as such is a compromise for the need at hand.

You are correct that I was implying that it has to be a LT-based solution: it does not. Plans are for mobile terminals (read: cell phone like platforms) with cards and antennas.

Right now hams can either DEVELOP a similar system, or merely volunteer service as DISPATCHERS.

We have no other role, moving ahead. And the past is a poor, poor indicator of where things are going: the lessons HAVE been learned and the lesson says:'if you need ham radio, then you've failed in your EC mission'.

I am sorry that troubles you. But the welfare of the American people far outways your, IMO, selfish little intepretation of it.

Have a most pleasant day!

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (w1yw @ July 20 2007,11:49)]We have no other role, moving ahead. And the past is a poor, poor indicator of where things are going: the lessons HAVE been learned and the lesson says:'if you need ham radio, then you've failed in your EC mission'.

I am sorry that troubles you. But the welfare of the American people far outways your, IMO, selfish little intepretation of it.

Have a most pleasant day!
Perhaps, the astute Texas government begs to differ with you.

As per Jim's post:
Quote[/b] ]Texas Senate Bill 11 goes much, much farther in support of Amateur Radio than has already been mentioned.

Section 2 states that #"......a State employee who holds an Amateur Radio license.....may be granted leave ......to participate in specialized disaster relief services without a deduction in salary or loss of vacation time......."

Section 5 states that "...private emergency organizations , such as the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, #Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service, or other similar organizations #with the capability to supplement the State's resources in disaster situations should be authorized to operate certain vehicles as designated emergency vehicles in the case of a disaster......"

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/doc/SB00011F.doc


The #Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) is a "similar organization", and has already been recognized as such by the Texas Department of Public Safety. #The Statewide Radio Communications Interoperability Memorandum of Understanding (which is maintained by DPS) lists Amateur Radio Clubs among it's signatories. #

http://tsiec.region49.org/


Jim KD5PAD

Perhaps Texans learned more than Massachusans (or Alabamans, for that matter) from Katrina's aftermath and expect to use hams to a greater extent in the wake of future disasters.

I should shop for a Motorola PA/Siren and some blue strobes for my multiband, multiservice-capable SUV. #Fun stuff.

Yes, Chip, do your part and purchase a mobile charger for your laptop, and perhaps set up a mobile wireless IP hub for your Caddie. #Just think, you could out do Panera as a hot spot. #But, unless you were to subscribe to Hughes' two way satellite dish internet service, you'd be at a loss in a crisis. #Oh, but you probably already have better than a dish inscribed into your hood or trunk,fractally, and wouldn't need a dish.

ROFLMAO.

[w1yw]

Lee, your comments do not reflect the state of the art of ECOMMS.

The huge PR effort--overhyped-- of how hams are ' the UNSUNG LAST LINE OF DEFENSE WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS' has only made it EASIER for the REAL ECOMMS to push thru this mesh technology approach. It is certainly true that the public views hams as a POOL OF trained operators--but our prototcols and approaches are antiquated. Furthermore, the processes are far too slow, and error ridden.

Lee, when someone DIES because some ham failed to verbally copy a comment properly on a net, don't you agree that it will be people like yourself who are to blame, for encouraging an outmoded system that is not archival, does no bit check, is slow, and is not redundant?

Do you understand that my comments are to ENCOURAGE mesh HAM systems --FAST ONES--that are ARCHIVAL ?

This is a huge and fatal failing that embarrasses us.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] ]Lee, your comments do not reflect the state of the art of ECOMMS.

Agreed. #They weren't offered as same.

Quote[/b] ]The huge PR effort--overhyped-- of how hams are ' the UNSUNG LAST LINE OF DEFENSE WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS' has only made it EASIER for the REAL ECOMMS to push thru this mesh technology approach.

Really? #Who/what are the REAL ECOMMS? #The ARRL is sponsoring an international forum on ECOMMS next month, perhaps I'll ask them....

Mesh techology, whatever it REALLY is, is only as good as the infrastructure upon which it is cast. #If it is hardened, and redundant such that not one element being lost will kill it, perhaps it has merit.

Quote[/b] ]our prototcols and approaches are antiquated. Furthermore, the processes are far too slow, and error ridden.

Perhaps antiquated and slower, but, not error ridden. #False premise. #Show me where errors by hams have cost time, money, or worse in times of crises.

Quote[/b] ]Lee, when someone DIES because some ham failed to verbally copy a comment properly on a net, don't you agree that it will be people like yourself who are to blame, for encouraging an outmoded system that is not archival, does no bit check, is slow, and is not redundant?

Chipster, how truly uninformed about amateur protocols are you? #Even the first version of X.25 had checksums. #And, that's what, at least 24 years old? (When TAPR began offering TNC kits) #And, all of the other new ones like Pactor, PSK, Clover, all have same, I do believe.

Not redundant? #Well, storing and forwarding of IP traffic isn't normally redundant unless the service provider backs it, but the paths can be, if multiple users send the same item. #When one applies the term redundancy to the geographically distributed audience of hams, it certainly fits. #Each with separate, unaffected infrastructure, if sufficiently distant.

And, you think an arbitrary, random network of laptops in an urban environment offers more? #Go search for more extraterrestrial smarts.

Quote[/b] ]
This is a huge and fatal failing that embarrasses us.

I'm glad "us" in #your statement includes you and your image. #It doesn't include the rest of hamdom.

[w1yw]

Lee,

You're the person who often asserts false statements--such recent ones as: the ARRL was the AMATEUR RADIO RELAY LEAGUE; and that I wear a hairpiece. Both false.

So tell us why we should believe anything you say.

Have a happy hamster day!

73,
Chip W1YW

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (w1yw @ July 21 2007,19:02)]Lee,

You're the person who often asserts false statements--such recent ones as: the ARRL was the AMATEUR RADIO RELAY LEAGUE; and that I wear a hairpiece. Both false.

So tell us why we should believe anything you say.

Have a happy hamster day!

73,
Chip W1YW
Well, like I told Ron, I admit it when I make mistakes. And did with respect to the ARRL.

As to the hairpiece point, it wasn't I who came to the conclusion first, but someone else. The person who forwarded the newspaper link. And, as I looked at the newspaper photo of your mug a second time, yes, you surely did appear to be wearing one. The only other picture we've seen was one of you picking a guitar and wearing a hat a while back. Lids are often used to hide a shiny cranium.....

Nice two tone blue suit as well, BTW. You could have passed for an IBMer wearing all the blue.

But, that's OK. At least I know where checksums count......


LMAO.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (W0BKR @ July 19 2007,11:44)]Gee, the word "NOVICE" seems to come to mind..

Oh yeah, we got rid of that..nevermind
But we shouldn't have. What we should have done is update it.

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (k3wrv @ July 21 2007,10:10)]Do I get this right? A foundation license would be tougher to get than a Class D CB license, but easier than a no code tech.. WAZATT mean? You've got to be able to spell your name and address and fill out a form like you used to have to do for a Class D License? And maybe ypou actually have to be able to locate a radio in a picture with no captions? Naw, that'd be too tough:angry:

Wake me up when the dumbing down is over.
...and all of which is yet more "sour grapes" from those who are STILL royally peeved that the FCC has now (finally!) seen fit to start dismantling their highly discriminatory, 1950's-era "exclusive club" approach to licensing for our Service.

What such people seem to have (conveniently?) forgotten is that it was the FCC (at the ARRL's urging) who, in the late 1950s first decided to "dumb UP" what USED to just be a simple series of examinations for full participation in our Service so as to (I say illegally under the ITU rules) turn us into the "No Budding Professional RF Engineer Left Behind" Radio Service. That regulatory overkill ultimately became known as "incentive licensing".

And, sadly, what also seems to have been largely forgotten by the "we're being dumbed down" crowd is that, for several decades in our early years, our Service functioned just beautifully without having ANY technical requirements in our licensing system WHATSOEVER!

Back then, the government's regulatory emphasis was based largely on demonstrating one's ability to communicate, NOT on demonstrating one's technical prowess to someone in authority. We simply didn't need to. That's because our contributions to advancing the state of the radio art were being clearly demonstrated for all to see on a daily basis by our collective inventiveness.

However, in the late 1950s, when the FCC (at the ARRL's urging) decided to hatch their stupid "incentive licensing" foolishness, they also (and I say quite needlessly) pushed the licensing requirements for full access to our Service in the United States WELL beyond those minimally required by other nations, not to mention those minimally required under the ITU rules. The official reason they (and the ARRL) gave for doing so at the time was to "improve the technical qualifications of US Hams". This presumes such "improvement" was needed. Who made that assessment and how they arrived at that particular conclusion is anyone's guess.

However, my hunch is that a FAR more important (spelled "ego-driven")) reason for this sudden change in policy at the time was most certainly made by the Hams then on the ARRL and FCC staff who wanted to keep the dreaded "riff raff" (otherwise known as "those #*%$ CBers") out of our Service at all costs...if for no other reason than they happened to be interested in CB.

Clearly, incentive licensing was designed with one primary purpose in mind...to find ways to keep "them" out rather than to warmly welcome "them" (as well as other new people) into our Service. The ARRL and the FCC may have been able to get away with such blatant, government-sponsored regulatory discrimination in the 1950s. However, such discrimination has since become patently illegal today.

And, sadly, there are STILL far too many crusty curmudgeons in our ranks who justify their own boorish snobbery toward ALL new (or would-be) Hams (particularly those who might have their roots in that "other" radio service) by continually spouting their undying support for such regulated elitism.

The fact that relying on the licensing system to keep the "riff raff" out has been proven, over and over again, to be utterly ineffective at doing so doesn't seem to matter to this crowd. All one has to do is look at the long list of 20 WPM Extra Class licensees who have since made their way onto Mr. Hollingsworth's "scofflaw list" to find irrefutable proof of that fact.

But, then again, when have facts ever gotten in the way of snobbery?

Unfortunately, by turning what USED to be simple licensing requirements for full access to our supposed AMATEUR Radio Service prior to the 1950s into a series of ever-more-irrelevant "hazing rituals", all the FCC has REALLY managed to do over the last 50 years has been to keep tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of otherwise well qualified people out of the mainstream of Amateur Radio. Such regulatory foolishness has also now resulted in a cumulative stunting of our needed growth to the point that our Service in the United States is no longer sustainable.

Think not? Think again.

Our average age is now approaching 60 and…at least since 2003…our Service in the United States has been experiencing a net LOSS of some 11,000 licensees per year. Any way you cut it, such evidence also underscores one other, quite irrefutable fact: Our Service is…quite literally…dying.

And if we aren't dying outright, those of us still left behind are apparently now expressing our wholesale rejection of the FCC's entire ego-based "exclusive club" approach to licensing by "voting with our feet" in ever increasing numbers…or not even bothering to join up at all.

I firmly believe that perpetuating such needless (and now clearly illegal) overkill in the licensing requirements for full access to the mainstream of our Service well into the 21st Century will eventually prove to have been a major, contributing factor to its eventual demise.

Or, to put it another way, thanks to the FCC's highly discriminatory (and therefore clearly illegal) 1950s era "incentive licensing" approach to regulating our Service (along with the all-too-frequent displays of blatant snobbery from the "exclusive clubbers" within our ranks who have been eagerly exploiting it to justify their own boorish behavior) we've been quite happily "eating our young" in the Amateur Service in the United States for going on 50 years now.

But what's REALLY sad is that, despite invoking ALL of these clearly self-destructive regulatory precepts designed specifically to keep them all out, we've STILL had the "riff-raff" in our ranks to contend with over the years!

The bottom line here is that the evidence is becoming ever clearer that all the bogus regulatory "lid filters" (including multi-speed Morse tests along with ever-more irrelevant "achievement tests") in the licensing and regulatory structure for our Service have only succeeded in horribly stifling our own critically needed growth and technological advancement.

That is, right now, not only have we stopped growing...we aren't even maintaining the status quo! And could it also be true that one of the main reasons our Service remains firmly stuck in the technological 1950s is because we are still being licensed and regulated by the FCC as if we were?

Fortunately, the FCC is (finally!) waking up to this fact. They said as much in their Report and Order that formally buried the Morse testing requirement for good. "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct," the FCC observed. "As a result, we concur with the observation that 'maintaining the code requirement does NOT (emphasis mine) purge Amateur Radio of bad operators. Education and self-policing does.'"

Sadly, I'm afraid this radical change in FCC regulatory policy for our Service has now come FAR too late in the game for it to have any real effect on the eventual outcome. That's because the lethal damage inflicted by perpetuating nearly 50 years of FCC-enabled hazing rituals and "regulated snobbery" in the licensing system for our Service has already been done.

Pogo was right…we HAVE met the enemy and he is us.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ July 22 2007,20:48)]Quote[/b] (k3wrv @ July 21 2007,10:10)]Do I get this right? A foundation license would be tougher to get than a Class D CB license, but easier than a no code tech.. WAZATT mean? You've got to be able to spell your name and address and fill out a form like you used to have to do for a Class D License? And maybe ypou actually have to be able to locate a radio in a picture with no captions? Naw, that'd be too tough:angry:

Wake me up when the dumbing down is over.
...and all of which is yet more "sour grapes" from those who are STILL royally peeved that the FCC has now (finally!) seen fit to start dismantling their highly discriminatory, 1950's-era "exclusive club" approach to licensing for our Service.

What such people seem to have (conveniently?) forgotten is that it was the FCC (at the ARRL's urging) who, in the late 1950s first decided to "dumb UP" what USED to just be a simple series of examinations for full participation in our Service so as to (I say illegally under the ITU rules) turn us into the "No Budding Professional RF Engineer Left Behind" Radio Service. That regulatory overkill ultimately became known as "incentive licensing".

And, sadly, what also seems to have been largely forgotten by the "we're being dumbed down" crowd is that, for several decades in our early years, our Service functioned just beautifully without having ANY technical requirements in our licensing system WHATSOEVER!

Back then, the government's regulatory emphasis was based largely on demonstrating one's ability to communicate, NOT on demonstrating one's technical prowess to someone in authority. We simply didn't need to. That's because our contributions to advancing the state of the radio art were being clearly demonstrated for all to see on a daily basis by our collective inventiveness.

However, in the late 1950s, when the FCC (at the ARRL's urging) decided to hatch their stupid "incentive licensing" foolishness, they also (and I say quite needlessly) pushed the licensing requirements for full access to our Service in the United States WELL beyond those minimally required by other nations, not to mention those minimally required under the ITU rules. The official reason they (and the ARRL) gave for doing so at the time was to "improve the technical qualifications of US Hams". This presumes such "improvement" was needed. Who made that assessment and how they arrived at that particular conclusion is anyone's guess.

However, my hunch is that a FAR more important (spelled "ego-driven")) reason for this sudden change in policy at the time was most certainly made by the Hams then on the ARRL and FCC staff who wanted to keep the dreaded "riff raff" (otherwise known as "those #*%$ CBers") out of our Service at all costs...if for no other reason than they happened to be interested in CB.

Clearly, incentive licensing was designed with one primary purpose in mind...to find ways to keep "them" out rather than to warmly welcome "them" (as well as other new people) into our Service. The ARRL and the FCC may have been able to get away with such blatant, government-sponsored regulatory discrimination in the 1950s. However, such discrimination has since become patently illegal today.

And, sadly, there are STILL far too many crusty curmudgeons in our ranks who justify their own boorish snobbery toward ALL new (or would-be) Hams (particularly those who might have their roots in that "other" radio service) by continually spouting their undying support for such regulated elitism.

The fact that relying on the licensing system to keep the "riff raff" out has been proven, over and over again, to be utterly ineffective at doing so doesn't seem to matter to this crowd. All one has to do is look at the long list of 20 WPM Extra Class licensees who have since made their way onto Mr. Hollingsworth's "scofflaw list" to find irrefutable proof of that fact.

But, then again, when have facts ever gotten in the way of snobbery?

Unfortunately, by turning what USED to be simple licensing requirements for full access to our supposed AMATEUR Radio Service prior to the 1950s into a series of ever-more-irrelevant "hazing rituals", all the FCC has REALLY managed to do over the last 50 years has been to keep tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of otherwise well qualified people out of the mainstream of Amateur Radio. Such regulatory foolishness has also now resulted in a cumulative stunting of our needed growth to the point that our Service in the United States is no longer sustainable.

Think not? Think again.

Our average age is now approaching 60 and…at least since 2003…our Service in the United States has been experiencing a net LOSS of some 11,000 licensees per year. Any way you cut it, such evidence also underscores one other, quite irrefutable fact: Our Service is…quite literally…dying.

And if we aren't dying outright, those of us still left behind are apparently now expressing our wholesale rejection of the FCC's entire ego-based "exclusive club" approach to licensing by "voting with our feet" in ever increasing numbers…or not even bothering to join up at all.

I firmly believe that perpetuating such needless (and now clearly illegal) overkill in the licensing requirements for full access to the mainstream of our Service well into the 21st Century will eventually prove to have been a major, contributing factor to its eventual demise.

Or, to put it another way, thanks to the FCC's highly discriminatory (and therefore clearly illegal) 1950s era "incentive licensing" approach to regulating our Service (along with the all-too-frequent displays of blatant snobbery from the "exclusive clubbers" within our ranks who have been eagerly exploiting it to justify their own boorish behavior) we've been quite happily "eating our young" in the Amateur Service in the United States for going on 50 years now.

But what's REALLY sad is that, despite invoking ALL of these clearly self-destructive regulatory precepts designed specifically to keep them all out, we've STILL had the "riff-raff" in our ranks to contend with over the years!

The bottom line here is that the evidence is becoming ever clearer that all the bogus regulatory "lid filters" (including multi-speed Morse tests along with ever-more irrelevant "achievement tests") in the licensing and regulatory structure for our Service have only succeeded in horribly stifling our own critically needed growth and technological advancement.

That is, right now, not only have we stopped growing...we aren't even maintaining the status quo! And could it also be true that one of the main reasons our Service remains firmly stuck in the technological 1950s is because we are still being licensed and regulated by the FCC as if we were?

Fortunately, the FCC is (finally!) waking up to this fact. They said as much in their Report and Order that formally buried the Morse testing requirement for good. "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct," the FCC observed. "As a result, we concur with the observation that 'maintaining the code requirement does NOT (emphasis mine) purge Amateur Radio of bad operators. Education and self-policing does.'"

Sadly, I'm afraid this radical change in FCC regulatory policy for our Service has now come FAR too late in the game for it to have any real effect on the eventual outcome. That's because the lethal damage inflicted by perpetuating nearly 50 years of FCC-enabled hazing rituals and "regulated snobbery" in the licensing system for our Service has already been done.

Pogo was right…we HAVE met the enemy and he is us.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
The Fat Lady sung awhile ago, Keith. You are old and your droning, looped-back, message is old.



Break the cycle; cut the looped tape.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ July 23 2007,23:23)]The Fat Lady sung awhile ago, Keith. #You are old and your droning, looped-back, message is old.



Break the cycle; cut the looped tape.
Hey Steve. You'd think ole Keith would be talking his head off over on the Canadian Bandplan revision thread. But, nobody's home.

Keith is a Canadian resident, I do believe....

He hasn't used KB1SF in a while now...

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ July 24 2007,22:23)]The Fat Lady sung awhile ago, Keith.
Not quite.

Morse tests may have gone the way of the dinosaur, but the rest of the FCC's ego-based licensing system is (unfortunately) still very much with us.

Whether or not it, too, will go by the wayside before those of us left in our Service die off remains to be seen.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ July 24 2007,21:29)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ July 24 2007,22:23)]The Fat Lady sung awhile ago, Keith.
Not quite.

Morse tests may have gone the way of the dinosaur, but the rest of the FCC's ego-based licensing system is (unfortunately) still very much with us. #

Whether or not it, too, will go by the wayside before those of us left in our Service die off remains to be seen.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
Keith, you have nothing to worry about. #You're in Canada now. #Industrie Canada must test for some degree of knowledge, don't they? #Or, according to your line of thinking, maybe they shouldn't.

Since Canada eliminated the code first, it would serve as a better example for a test-bed to further "dumb-down" amateur theory testing, since it apparently likes to do so to set an example. #If you want to experiment, propose making a VA/VE license equivalent to our CB or GMRS services and tell us all how it turned out.

Besides, IC could apply another tax in the form of a hefty license fee. #

Why don't you go over to the Canadian Bandplan thread and suggest it instead of carping about a regulatory agency's rules that don't regulate you any longer?

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ July 26 2007,04:57)]Keith, you have nothing to worry about. You're in Canada now. Industrie Canada must test for some degree of knowledge, don't they? Or, according to your line of thinking, maybe they shouldn't.

Since Canada eliminated the code first, it would serve as a better example for a test-bed to further "dumb-down" amateur theory testing, since it apparently likes to do so to set an example. If you want to experiment, propose making a VA/VE license equivalent to our CB or GMRS services and tell us all how it turned out.

Besides, IC could apply another tax in the form of a hefty license fee.

Why don't you go over to the Canadian Bandplan thread and suggest it instead of carping about a regulatory agency's rules that don't regulate you any longer?
Oh, but Lee, they still do!

In fact, as a US citizen, I regularly use my US call at least a couple of times a week (when I'm doing personal and other business in the States). I also use that call for several months in the summertime and then again around Christmastime when I'm visiting with family and close friends at my home in New Hampshire.

But, as I've said, your comments also appear to be yet more "sour grapes" from the "we're being dumbed down" crowd. Sadly, what's often left out of such bogus arguments is the fact that our whole US Amateur licensing system USED to be quite simple...that was, of course, until it was needlessly (and I say illegally) "dumbed UP" in the 1950s to justify the FCC's stupid incentive licensing foolishness.

In fact, your comments about "making a VA/VE license equivalent to our CB or GMRS services" also sounds like more of the same "sky is falling" hysteria now being regularly spouted by those who are STILL royally peeved that the blatantly discriminatory Government "filters" in the licensing system they have all been relying on for so many years to institutionalize their snobbery are, one by one, going by the wayside.

If you’d done your homework, Lee, you would have also learned that, unless and until the ITU's Radio Regulations are changed by a consensus of the US and many other countries in the world, both Industry Canada AND the FCC have no choice but to follow the those regulations for the Amateur Service in the matter. And those regulations leave absolutely NO doubt that Amateurs are to be both tested AND licensed before being granted access to our bands.

Specifically, Article 25.6 (part of the Article that establishes the Amateur Service internationally) of the Radio Regulations clearly states that: "Administrations (i.e. counties) shall verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing to operate an Amateur station. Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the most recent version of Recommendation ITU-R-M.1544."

What's more, the recommendation cited in the Article (ITU-R-M.1544) says, among other things, "…that any person seeking a license to operate an Amateur station should demonstrate a theoretical knowledge of the Radio Regulations (both international and domestic); Methods of radio communication (including radiotelephony, radiotelegraphy, as well as data and image); Radio system theory (including transmitters, receivers, antennas and propagation and measurements); as well as Radio emission theory, electromagnetic compatibility and the avoidance and resolution of radio frequency interference."

Now, mind you, nowhere in those regulations or guidelines does it say to what LEVEL such testing will be conducted. My contention is that the FCC has gone WAY overboard in that department. However, the words "shall verify the operational and technical qualifications of" as well as "demonstrate a theoretical knowledge of" in these documents sure sounds like it necessitates SOME form of testing to me. What's more, the words "any person seeking a license to operate" also sounds like the ITU fully intends for us all to be licensed.

In addition, the provision of Article 25 that dropped the Morse requirement also discusses licensing by stating, "Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a license to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code signals". Note again the word "license" in that provision.

In fact, there should be no doubt that, even from a casual reading of the ITU's Radio Regulations for our Service (and the recommendations they promulgate), that the ITU clearly intends for Amateurs to be both tested for their competency in the listed aspects of the Radio art, as well as for us to be licensed.

However, I encourage you and others here not to take my word for it. I suggest you read this information for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Article 25 of the Radio Regulations can be found at:

http://life.itu.int/radioclub/rr/art25.htm.

There's also an internal link contained in the words for Article 25.6 that will take you to the recommendations.

Oh…and one more thing…. Industry Canada didn't ELIMINATE Morse testing, they made it OPTIONAL. In fact, passing a Morse test is but one of a NUMBER of different ways one can now obtain full HF privileges in Canada. I find it ironic that such an option no longer exists in the ego-based (and over regulated) Amateur licensing system in the United States, but yet still remains a viable option for Hams in so-called "giveaway" Canada.

In fact, it would seem our Canadian friends found a very creative way to maintain this long-standing tradition in Amateur Radio for those new folks who still wanted to have that particular badge of honor displayed on their shack walls.... WITHOUT also continuing to ram a clearly archaic licensing requirement down everyone's throats.

And far from creating another source of revenue as you suggest, routine Ham Radio Certificates of Proficiency (as Ham licenses are called north of the border) have been fee free since 2000. What's more, those Certificates are now granted for LIFE...without the constant irritation of having to renew them every 10 years as in the States.

So, Lee, I suggest you might want to ask a few more questions (and do a bit more homework as to what the ITU rules and the Canadian regulations REALLY say) BEFORE you leap to erroneous conclusions and start lobbing personal insinuations at others based on half-baked assumptions.


Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[W9WHE]

KB1SF is STILL spouting his nonsensical giberish:

"Clearly, incentive licensing was designed with one primary purpose in mind...to find ways to keep "them" out rather than to warmly welcome "them" .... into our Service. #The ARRL and the FCC may have been able to get away with such blatant, government-sponsored regulatory discrimination in the 1950s. #However, such discrimination has since become patently illegal today'

Sheer nonsense.
Keith (a genuwine internet lawyer) repeatedly overlooks the FACT that insentive licensing systems are in place everywhere and are PATENTLY LEGAL, to wit:

1) Pilots;
2) Nursing;
3) Actuarial science; and
4) Medicine.

But Keith (a genuwine internet lawyer) knows what the FCC, US Federal courts and Judges all over the land do not. Wow. But don't be surprised, Keith is a genuwhine HR guy! And God knows, they know EVERYTHING! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

All hale Keith! #All hale Keith!

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 27 2007,08:11)]KB1SF is STILL spouting his nonsensical giberish (sic):

"Clearly, incentive licensing was designed with one primary purpose in mind...to find ways to keep "them" out rather than to warmly welcome "them" .... into our Service. The ARRL and the FCC may have been able to get away with such blatant, government-sponsored regulatory discrimination in the 1950s. However, such discrimination has since become patently illegal today'

Sheer nonsense.
Keith (a genuwine (sic) internet lawyer) repeatedly overlooks the FACT that insentive (sic) licensing systems are in place everywhere and are PATENTLY LEGAL, to wit:

1) Pilots;
2) Nursing;
3) Actuarial science; and
4) Medicine.

But Keith (a genuwine (sic) internet lawyer) knows what the FCC, US Federal courts and Judges all over the land do not. Wow. But don't be surprised, Keith is a genuwhine (sic) HR guy! And God knows, they know EVERYTHING! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

All hale Keith! All hale Keith!
Like I said, this is simply more "sour grapes" whining from the same three or four crusty curmudgeons hereabouts who are STILL royally peeved that the FCC is (finally!) doing away with their "regulated snobbery". Fortunately, such mutterings are also falling on more and more deaf ears.

And, sadly, your spelling hasn't improved much since the last time we conversed either, Jonathan.

"Gibberish" is spelled with two "b"s not one. "Genuine" doesn't contain a "w" NOR an "h", and your spelling of "insensitive" seems to be missing an "i".

Oh...and "hale" is the person whose name anoints the 200 inch telescope up on Mt. Palomar in California. I think the word you want to use is spelled with an "i", not an "e". It also has the letters arranged in a different sequence.

What's more, ALL the other license systems you mention are designed to regulate PROFESSIONS or have to do with insuring PUBLIC SAFETY.

That is, I still fail to see how getting an advanced license in the AMATEUR Radio Service requires the same level of multi-tiered, achievement-type testing for demonstrated competence as that required of a doctor performing brain surgery, a nurse adminstering multiple (and/or potentially lethal) drugs to a patient, or a pilot jockeying upwards of several tons of aircraft over a densely populated metropolitan area.

What's more, NONE of these other licensing systems fall under the treaty requirements of the International Telecommunications Union...treaties to which the US is a signatory. That gives those ITU treaty requirements (or the lack of same) the force of law in the USA.

And, by any measure, incentive licensing as currently administered by the FCC in the Amateur Service has since become patently illegal under a whole host of recent US equal access law, primarily because it has absolutely NO basis whatsoever under the ITU rules. As a self-professed member of the legal profession, Jonathan, how you can continue to steadfastly deny such blatantly clear conflict between US and international law and the FCC regulations for our Service is quite beyond me.

And, while I don't profess to "know everything" as you suggest, I think I'm at least fairly handy with a spell checker!

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[W9WHE]

KB1SF (a genuwhine internet lawyer) writes:

"And, by any measure, incentive licensing as currently administered by the FCC in the Amateur Service has since become patently illegal under a whole host of recent US equal access law, primarily because it has absolutely NO basis whatsoever under the ITU rules"

TOTAL NONSENSE.
This is KB1SF'S PERSONAL, UNSUPPORTED opinion. There is NO DECISION IN ANY APPELLATE COURT, IN ANY US JURISDICTION THAT SUPPORTS KEITH'S PERSONAL OPINION. #I CHALLENGE KEITH TO PRODUCE EVEN ONE SUCH DECISION, THAT SUPPORTS HIS THEORIES. ABSENT SUCH A DECISION, HE SHOULD STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE WITH NONSENSE.

KEITH, STOP REPRESENTING YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS AS FACT, WHEN THEY ARE JUST YOUR OPINIONS. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION AND THE STATE OF THE LAW. REAL LAWYERS KNOW THIS. ITS TIME PEOPLE RECOGNIZED YOUR POSTINGS FOR WHAT THEY ARE. SHEER UNSUPPORTABLE PERSONAL OPINION.

+++++++++++++++++++++


KB1SF (a genuwhine internet lawyer) also writes:

"I still fail to see how getting an advanced license in the AMATEUR Radio Service requires the same level of multi-tiered, achievement-type testing for demonstrated competence as that required of a....."

Keith, REAL lawyers know that just because you disagree with a law, does not make it "patently illegal". The official test for a law is whether it is Constitutional, not whether internet lawyers like you "can see" the basis. REAL LAWYERS KNOW THIS.

+++++++++++++


KB1SF (a genuwhine internet lawyer) also writes:

".....NONE of these other licensing systems fall under the treaty requirements of the International Telecommunications Union...treaties to which the US is a signatory. #That gives those ITU treaty requirements (or the lack of same) the force of law in the USA"

More nonsense.
In the USA, NO international treaty gives any international body the right to create, much less enforce, any rule, regulation, or law within the US boarders. NOTHING becomes an enforcable rule, regulation or law in the USA until a duly constituted US government body (state or Federal) acts to make it so. REAL LAWYERS KNOW THIS. Conversely, no US law is unconstitutional just because an international treaty says so. For example, the USA's membership in the UN does not give the UN the power to make or enforce ANY law. That's why the UN can't outlaw guns in the USA.

Why do foreginers (Keith is Canadian) try so hard to undermine US sovernty? For some reason, foreginers think they should be given the right to make/enforce US law. NONSENSE.


W9WHE

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 27 2007,12:11)]KB1SF (a genuwhine internet lawyer) writes:

"And, by any measure, incentive licensing as currently administered by the FCC in the Amateur Service has since become patently illegal under a whole host of recent US equal access law, primarily because it has absolutely NO basis whatsoever under the ITU rules"

TOTAL NONSENSE.
This is KB1SF'S PERSONAL, UNSUPPORTED opinion. There is NO DECISION IN ANY APPELLATE COURT, IN ANY US JURISDICTION THAT SUPPORTS KEITH'S PERSONAL OPINION. #I CHALLENGE KEITH TO PRODUCE EVEN ONE SUCH DECISION, THAT SUPPORTS HIS THEORIES. ABSENT SUCH A DECISION, HE SHOULD STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE WITH NONSENSE.

KEITH, STOP REPRESENTING YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS AS FACT, WHEN THEY ARE JUST YOUR OPINIONS. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION AND THE STATE OF THE LAW. REAL LAWYERS KNOW THIS. ITS TIME PEOPLE RECOGNIZED YOUR POSTINGS FOR WHAT THEY ARE. SHEER UNSUPPORTABLE PERSONAL OPINION.

+++++++++++++++++++++

KB1SF (a genuwhine internet lawyer) also writes:

"I still fail to see how getting an advanced license in the AMATEUR Radio Service requires the same level of multi-tiered, achievement-type testing for demonstrated competence as that required of a....."

Keith, REAL lawyers know that just because you disagree with a law, does not make it "patently illegal". The official test for a law is whether it is Constitutional, not whether internet lawyers like you "can see" the basis. REAL LAWYERS KNOW THIS.

+++++++++++++


KB1SF (a genuwhine internet lawyer) also writes:

".....NONE of these other licensing systems fall under the treaty requirements of the International Telecommunications Union...treaties to which the US is a signatory. #That gives those ITU treaty requirements (or the lack of same) the force of law in the USA"

More nonsense.
In the USA, NO international treaty gives any international body the right to create, much less enforce, any rule, regulation, or law within the US boarders. NOTHING becomes an enforcable rule, regulation or law in the USA until a duly constituted US government body (state or Federal) acts to make it so. REAL LAWYERS KNOW THIS. Conversely, no US law is unconstitutional just because an international treaty says so. For example, the USA's membership in the UN does not give the UN the power to make or enforce ANY law. That's why the UN can't outlaw guns in the USA.

Why do foreginers (Keith is Canadian) try so hard to undermine US sovernty? For some reason, foreginers think they should be given the right to make/enforce US law. NONSENSE.


W9WHE
Judging from the fact that you've now elected to turn up the volume on your posts it would now appear I'm getting closer to the truth. #

Jonathan, you of all people should know that there are new laws coming on the books all the time. #And where those new laws affect or impact old regulations and procedures (like incentive licensing) those regulations need to be continually reviewed by their administrators to see if they still comply with the new laws. #

In fact, in concert with our own HQ staff lawyers, we did this routinely for our own regulations when I was in the Air Force. #And we ended up changing a lot of them as a direct result of changed laws.

All I've been saying here is that with all the new equal opportunity legislation enacted in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s (that is, LONG after the FCC first hatched their incentive licensing foolishness in the 1950s) that FACT has now created the need for an (equally long overdue) review of our entire licensing and regulatory structure. #Whether or not that review (or lack of one) leads to anyone actually challenging these issues in a court of law (and holds the FCCs feet to the fire to comply with them all) still remains to be seen.

As far as opinions go, I shouldn't have to (again) remind you that "real lawyers" issue (as well as challenge or defend) various "opinions" all the time. #In fact a "legal opinion" is, by definition, just that...an opinion. #What's more, if everyone in the legal profesion readily agreed with everybody else's legal opinions, there would be no need for trial lawyers, now would there?

The bottom line is that it's not MY (or your) opinion that matters here. The arcane way our FCC is STILL administering our Service is LONG overdue for a top-to bottom legal review, particularly in light of all the new US equal access legislation that has been enacted in the interim. #

Or, to put it another way, the legality (or illegality) of our licensing system in light of all the other domestic and international laws that now impact it will ultimately be judged by others to be either legal or illegal under current law, REGARDLESS of what you or I happen to think about it.

Oh..and one more thing, Jonathan. Your OPINION regarding my citizenship status is quite erroneous. #By way of FACT, I'm a US citizen by birth...and firmly plan to remain so. #I simply happen to (legally) reside in Canada at the moment.

Surely, as a "real lawyer" you, of all people, should both understand and appreciate such differences. #

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[KW0U]

More nonsense.
In the USA, NO international treaty gives any international body the right to create, much less enforce, any rule, regulation, or law within the US boarders. NOTHING becomes an enforcable rule, regulation or law in the USA until a duly constituted US government body (state or Federal) acts to make it so. REAL LAWYERS KNOW THIS. Conversely, no US law is unconstitutional just because an international treaty says so. For example, the USA's membership in the UN does not give the UN the power to make or enforce ANY law. That's why the UN can't outlaw guns in the USA.

Why do foreginers (Keith is Canadian) try so hard to undermine US sovernty? For some reason, foreginers think they should be given the right to make/enforce US law. NONSENSE.


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[KW0U]

More nonsense.
In the USA, NO international treaty gives any international body the right to create, much less enforce, any rule, regulation, or law within the US boarders. NOTHING becomes an enforcable rule, regulation or law in the USA until a duly constituted US government body (state or Federal) acts to make it so. REAL LAWYERS KNOW THIS. Conversely, no US law is unconstitutional just because an international treaty says so. For example, the USA's membership in the UN does not give the UN the power to make or enforce ANY law. That's why the UN can't outlaw guns in the USA.

Why do foreginers (Keith is Canadian) try so hard to undermine US sovernty? For some reason, foreginers think they should be given the right to make/enforce US law. NONSENSE.


Oops, I fumbled the reply to the gentleman who posted the above. The following is from Article 6 of the United States Constitution. It clearly gives foreign states that the U.S. signs treaties with the right to regulate certain aspects of our lives. Though I don't know how the UN and gun control suddenly got into the mix.

Incidentally, the World Trade Organization also has tremendous power to regulate American commerce.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 27 2007,12:11)]More nonsense.
In the USA, NO international treaty gives any international body the right to create, much less enforce, any rule, regulation, or law within the US boarders. NOTHING becomes an enforcable rule, regulation or law in the USA until a duly constituted US government body (state or Federal) acts to make it so. REAL LAWYERS KNOW THIS. Conversely, no US law is unconstitutional just because an international treaty says so. For example, the USA's membership in the UN does not give the UN the power to make or enforce ANY law. That's why the UN can't outlaw guns in the USA.

W9WHE
OK, Jonathan,

If what you say is true about the lack of need for the US to abide by international rules and treaties, then why did the "real lawyers" on the FCC staff wait until the Morse testing requirement was made optional in the ITU rules to finally drop it?

In fact, the FCC's Report and Order that did away with that requirement said, in part: “We nevertheless believe that the public interest is not served by requiring facility in Morse code when the trend in amateur communications is to use voice and digital technologies for exchanging messages," the FCC said. "Rather, we believe that because the INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENT (emphasis mine) for telegraphy proficiency has been eliminated, we should treat Morse code telegraphy no differently from other Amateur Service communications techniques."

From the looks of the words they used in their recent Report and Order, it would appear that the FCC is VERY MUCH interested in complying with (and abiding by) "international requirements".

Or, is what the FCC's "real lawyers" have said on the issue "total nonsense" as well?

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ July 25 2007,19:18)]
Hey Steve. You'd think ole Keith would be talking his head off over on the Canadian Bandplan revision thread. But, nobody's home.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Lee, I think the new Canadian band plans are just great, regardless of what they may eventually look like.

My beef is when some group of nitwit government bureaucrats decides "what (or who) can go where" in our subbands and then writies all those decisions into regulation rather than leaving it up to we Hams to decide.

What's also really nice is that our Canadian friends can essentially start with a "clean sheet of paper" in that process. That's because Industry Canada regulates our frequencies north of the border by bandwidth and NOT by license class and/or emission mode.

That difference, alone, makes for a refreshing breath of fresh air...not to mention giving various Ham-populated frequency coordinating groups a heck of a lot more freedom to accommodate everyone's particular passion.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[W9WHE]

K3WRV writes:
Wake me up when the dumbing down is over.

W6EM responds:
"You'll be asleep for quite a while".


I agree with Lee.
Ham radio is heading for the status of CB, with arrl driving the herd. Unless and until arrl, with its focus on CASH, is fundimentally changed, in a decade or so, I fear that ham radio will not be much different then CB.

[W9WHE]

Keith:

FCC was not "following" some ITU mandate to remove the CW requirement. FCC was not "required" to take any action whatsoever. FCC could have continued the CW rtequirement if it wanted. Either way, FCC was acting under authority the US CONGRESS gave it under the Communications Act of 1934.

Keith, next you will be arguing that because the US is a member under the UN charter (an international treaty) that the UN can, through its charter, outlaw guns in the USA. #HOGWASH.

NEWSFLASH: The USA is a sovern nation!
Within its boarders, the US constitution is the supreme law of the land. And NO treaty, NO so-called international law can over-rule the constitutional government set up by the US constitution. No matter what odball "internationalists" might want.

Do you think that if an international treaty outlawed the right to trial by jury, that it would have ANY effect in the USA? #Of course not. Why? Because the US Constitution (and the government it set up) is the supreme law in the USA, not some "treaty" or membership in some "international" Union.

Funny how guys like Keith are so quick to try to undermine US sovernty.




W9WHE

[W9WHE]

KB1SF (a genuwhine internet lawyer) writes:

"Jonathan, you of all people should know that there are new laws coming on the books all the time".

What laws Keith?
You keep spouting this GIBERISH, BUT NEVER point to any specific law or case. You make this stuff up then duck and weave when you are challenged to provide any legal support for your NONSENSE. GIVE US A FEDERAL STATUTE. GIVE US A FEDERAL CASE. if you are going to talk law, then give us some supporting caselaw. The truth is...YOU CAN'T.

+++++++++++

"In fact, in concert with our own HQ staff lawyers, we did this routinely for our own regulations when I was in the Air Force. #And we ended up changing a lot of them as a direct result of changed laws"

THEN DO IT NOW. GIVE US SUPPORT. POINT TO SOME SUPPORTING FEDERAL CASE LAW. #The truth is, YOU CAN'T.


++++++++++++

In fact a "legal opinion" is, by definition, just that...an opinion"

YUP, but an opinion by a REAL LAWYER (as opposed to a genuwhine internet lawyer) that is reasoned and supported by the law. Where is the Federal statute and Federal case law YOU rely on? GIVE US THE BASIS FOR YOUR OPINIONS. #The truth is, YOU CAN'T.

Keith, since YOU CAN'T support your opinions with solid federal caselaw, STOP misleading people with your unsupportable assertions that insentive licensing is "patently" or "clearly" illegal, when, in fact, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. Stop representing your "personal" opinions as fact.

KEITH, THE TIME HAS COME FOR YOU TO STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE. THERE IS NO APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTORY OR CASELAW SUPPORTING YOUR IDEAS AND I THINK THAT IS NOW CLEAR TO MOST.


W9WHE

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 30 2007,09:41)]KB1SF (a genuwhine internet lawyer) writes:

"Jonathan, you of all people should know that there are new laws coming on the books all the time".

What laws Keith?
You keep spouting this GIBERISH, BUT NEVER point to any specific law or case. You make this stuff up then duck and weave when you are challenged to provide any legal support for your NONSENSE. GIVE US A FEDERAL STATUTE. GIVE US A FEDERAL CASE. if you are going to talk law, then give us some supporting caselaw. The truth is...YOU CAN'T.

W9WHE
Oh, but I beg to differ, Jonathan.

And I believe YOU sir, are the one who is now "ducking and weaving", because your entire argument is based on the (i believe erroneous) assumption that there are no laws that apply to these issues and that I haven't cited them.

In fact, on NUMEROUS occasions in the past, both in these and similar forums, I've given you and others DIRECT legal references for you to review and comment on as to their applicability in such cases.

However, YOU sir, have seemingly chosen to ignore those references. For, not ONCE have you given any of us the benefit of your own (self-professed) legal experience as to whether any of the equal access legislation I've cited does (or doesn't) apply and why.

So, in the complete absence of such comment, we can only assume that you are somehow UNABLE to disagree with my premise because you probably know full well that there's always an outside chance that the laws I've cited just might be found to apply. Instead, you've elected to continue attacking the messenger (me) rather than the message.

If you will remember, Jonathan, ONE of the federal laws I previously cited was the "Persons with Disabilities Act of 1990". Specifically, Section 202 of that law titled "Discrimination" reads as follows:

"Subject to the provisions of this title, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of A PUBLIC ENTITY (emphasis mine), or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."

And, because it is an arm of the federal government (and supported by your and my federal tax dollars) it would seem to me that the FCC certainly qualifies as a "public entity" under the terms of this Act.

Another federal statue I cited was the "Rehabilitation Act". And, as i read it, among other things, it also specifically prohibits Federal Executive Agencies (such as the FCC) from excluding persons with disabilities from obtaining the benefits of federal programs as a result of their disability.

Specifically, Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act (which relates to nondiscrimination Under Federal Grants and Programs) reads in part as follows:

"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 7(20), shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance OR UNDER ANY PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY ANY EXECUTIVE AGENCY (emphasis mine) or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978".

It seems to me that, just using the provisions of one or the other of these Acts, a good lawyer could make a very strong case that the whole FCC incentive licensing system unfairly "excludes participation in…denies the benefits of…or subjects disabled persons to discrimination under" the FEDERALLY administered licensing system for the Amateur Radio Service in the United States.

That’s because the system withholds full participation in our Service based on applicants passing ever-more-irrelevant written examinations that go WELL BEYOND what the international guidelines suggest should be the minimum qualifications for full participation in the Amateur Service.

That is, the "guidelines" put forth the by the International Telecommunications Union (The ITU), an international treaty organization to which the United States is a signatory, simply state that applicants for a license in the Amateur Service should "demonstrate a theoretical knowledge of the international and domestic radio regulations, methods of radio communication (including radiotelephony, radiotelegraphy, and data and image communications), as well as a theoretical knowledge of transmitters, receivers, antennas and propagation, measurements, radio emission safety, electromagnetic compatibility and the avoidance and resolution of radio frequency interference". Period.

NOWHERE in either Article 25 of the ITU regulations (the Article that establishes the Amateur Service) OR the Guidelines that accompany that Article, does it say ANYTHING about to WHAT LEVEL this information is to be learned or tested. And nowhere…in either document…does the ITU advocate (or even suggest!) a multi-tiered "incentive" or "achievement-based" licensing structure to implement those "demonstrations" so as to grant full operating privileges in our Service to applicants.

The bottom line here is that the US Government needed to build and maintain their incentive licensing foolishness in order to feed that “pool of trained operators” nonsense they long ago decided to pursue as spelled out in Part 97. And that “pool of trained operators” nonsense was designed for no other purpose than to support US national economic policy then in place (a.k.a. their “No budding RF Engineer Left Behind” program) rather than leaving Hams alone to just be “persons pursuing radio with a personal aim” as the international definition of our Service in those regulations stipulate.

However, because incentive licensing went well beyond what’s clearly written in Article 25 of the the international Radio Regulations for our Service, it has absolutely NO underlying basis in international law. And, because it HAS no underlying basis in international law, that, in turn, to me makes incentive licensing blatantly ILLEGAL under US equal opportunity law as well because it (baselessly) denies disabled applicants with the full benefits of access to our Service.

As a lawyer, Jonathan, you should also know that, under US law, discrimination can be legally charged and sustained regardless of whether the discrimination resulted from acts of commission or omission. So, as I see it, reams and reams of case law, while greatly supporting such a case, would not be an absolute necessity for it to be pursued. I believe a case brought against the FCC under these provisions might well serve as a "test case" in the matter.

It’s always interesting to watch the storm of protest that occurs when a strong dose of reality is shined on someone’s little parade

In this case, I'm simply offering the suggestion that the FCC's Amateur Radio examination system as it's currently structured and administered could very well be found to be discriminatory (in the legal sense) against persons with disabilities if such a lawsuit were ever to be filed.

Now, granted, my theory relies on a number of assumptions about the inner workings of the FCC. And, certainly, some, (or all) of what I’m suggesting may never come to pass, particularly if the FCC takes the necessary steps to clean up their act before a scenario similar to what I’ve suggested in my recent posts ever decided to raise its ugly head. They already got rid of a HUGE potentially discriminatory issue when they (finally) ditched Morse testing. But what's left of their 1950s-era incentive licensing system appears to still be chock full of potentially embarrassing legal discriminatory "minefields" under current equal access law

You should also know that I'm basing my theory here on some consulting work I’ve done with a number of both government and corporate agencies (and their legal staffs) surrounding their hiring and testing procedures, particularly as they relate to tests administered to persons with disabilities. I’m also basing my theory on actions (or intended actions) the FCC has already taken to streamline our licensing system recently…like dropping Morse testing...actions that have all become a matter of public record.

I think it’s also safe to say, however, that ANY test for ANY US government-issued license administered to ANYONE in today’s legal environment in the United States runs the risk of a discrimination lawsuit unless those tests very clearly and very precisely measure only those knowledges, skills and/or abilities absolutely necessary for the applicant to successfully perform to a specific, required level of minimum competency for tasks that are both directly related and clearly relevant to the licensed activity. This means applicants should only be tested on "need to know" information, vice "nice to know" information. What’s more, its up to the licensing authority (in this case the FCC) to clearly justify and document such relevancy.

And, while I don’t necessarily agree with that approach, I’m enough of a realist to know that times have changed. Clearly, the FCC can no longer legally justify maintaining an open-ended, multi-tiered and achievement-based written testing scheme that parcels out operating privileges and bandwidth in our Service based on applicants passing ever more irrelevant tests over "nice to know" information of questionable DIRECT applicability to the way we Hams actually operate on the air today.

It will certainly be interesting for us to again meet here in about 4 or 5 years time and see what the FCC has done (or not done) to address these issues. I have no doubt, however, that they are now beginning to loom ever larger on their bureaucratic radar screens.

So, Jonathan, rather than hurling another personal attack at me, may I suggest you tell us all WHERE and HOW my theory is "gibberish" and "nonsense".

That is, please tell us precisely HOW and WHY you believe the provisions of one or the other (or both) of these pieces of federal equal access legislation I've cited are "gibberish" and "nonsense" and do not apply to the FCC as regards the way they are licensing and regulating our Service.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 30 2007,08:02)]Keith:

FCC was not "following" some ITU mandate to remove the CW requirement. FCC was not "required" to take any action whatsoever. FCC could have continued the CW rtequirement if it wanted. Either way, FCC was acting under authority the US CONGRESS gave it under the Communications Act of 1934.

Keith, next you will be arguing that because the US is a member under the UN charter (an international treaty) that the UN can, through its charter, outlaw guns in the USA. HOGWASH.

NEWSFLASH: The USA is a sovern nation!
Within its boarders, the US constitution is the supreme law of the land. And NO treaty, NO so-called international law can over-rule the constitutional government set up by the US constitution. No matter what odball "internationalists" might want.

Do you think that if an international treaty outlawed the right to trial by jury, that it would have ANY effect in the USA? Of course not. Why? Because the US Constitution (and the government it set up) is the supreme law in the USA, not some "treaty" or membership in some "international" Union.

Funny how guys like Keith are so quick to try to undermine US sovernty.

W9WHE
Nobody is arguing that the USA isn't a sovereign nation, Jonathan.

However, if you insist on continuing to attack my patriotism, I should think you'd at least want to make sure you're using the correct words (and to also correctly spell them…as in "US sovereignty") while doing so.

What you also seem to be conveniently forgetting (or ignoring) in your super-patriotic rants is the fact that the USA has elected to abide by certain international treaties that (also by US Law) carry the force of law in our land. As I and others here have repeatedly noted, the International Radio Regulations (as administered by the International Telecommunications Union) comprise one such treaty requirement (among many) that our elected representatives in the US government have freely chosen to abide by.

And, in the case of dropping the Morse testing requirement for the Amateur Service, the FCC apparently also chose to take into consideration the fact that the hard and fast INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENT (their words) for Morse testing as spelled out in article 25 of the ITU Radio Regulations was effectively removed in 2003.

That is, the FCC clearly recognized that the "requirement" for Morse testing that ITU imposed under its rules was, at one time, something that needed to be obeyed and incorporated into our own Part 97 rules. This was why the FCC was unable to completely remove the Morse testing requirement from those rules until the ITU removed it in 2003.

It would also appear, therefore, that once that "international requirement" was removed, the FCC lawyers could find no further legal basis under either United States OR international law for them to continue administering Morse tests.

And, finding no other legal authority to continue such tests either domestically or internationally, it would seem that the FCC felt they'd be leaving themselves wide open to litigation by maintaining those tests indefinitely. So, they dropped the Morse testing "requirement" last December.

To me, the FCC's use of the word "requirement" in their Report and Order that dropped Morse testing speaks volumes as to where their lawyers ultimately believe their continued basic authority to administer radio regulations domestically now lies. Clearly they believe that (at least as it related to the Morse testing issue) such authority flows from what's contained in the ITU Radio Regulations.

Unfortunately, the FCC has yet to indicate whether such authority also still applies to (or limits) their ability to perpetuate their 1950s-era, incentive licensing overkill. I firmly believe that the ITU rules DO limit the FCC's authority. The FCC, however, apparently still believes otherwise (or aren't about to admit that it does).

Oh...and one more thing, Jonathan...we're not talking about gun laws here...we're talking about the International RADIO Regulations.

Sadly, your continued use of wild, super patriotic assertions and your obsessive use of non sequitur comparisons indicates a clear misunderstanding of the requirements and limitations that international law overlays on US law. What's more, your continued display of a blatantly obvious lack of basic spelling and grammatical skills (as in your decimation of the words "oddball", "sovereign" "borders" and "sovereignty") also speaks volumes about your continued credibility to intelligently discuss such complex international regulatory issues.


Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[W9WHE]

KEITH DEMONSTRATES HOW DANGERIOUS IT IS TO GET YOUR LEGAL ADVICE FROM NON-LAWYERS. IF A REAL LAWYER ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENTS IN COURT, HE WOULD RISK SANCTIONS UNDER FEDERAL RULE 11

Keith, I have explained, over and over again, why your theories are NOT supportable. YOU HAVE FAILED, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, to cite even a single federal case striking an insentive license system based upon the ADA or Rehabillitation Acts. Why? Because there are none. Because insentive licensing is perfectly legal. Yet, you persist in spouting your internet lawyer gobelty-gook. You persist in your FALSE assertions that insentive licensing is "patently" and "clearly" illegal.


I have shown multiple examples of insentive licensing systems that are PERFECTLY LEGAL (Pilots, nursing, emergency medical personnell) but you REFUSE to accept them. I have explained how FCC's insentive licensing system complies with the ADA and the Rehabillitation Acts by accomidating legitimate disabillities. I have explained the flaws in your reasoning. I have tried, repeatedly, to show you how utterly WRONG you are. It would be different if you had even a single case to rely on. But you don't.

A REAL LAWYER understands how CRITICAL reasoning by analogy is. That is what real lawyers do. That is what persuades Judges. If you had a legal education, you would understand. But you don't.

You dislike insentive licensing. Fine. But your personal "opinions" are legally unsound. A FIRST YEAR law student would recognize what you either can't or won't. IF A REAL LAWYER ADVANCED YOUR ARGUMENTS IN COURT, THEY WOULD RISK SANCTIONS UNDER FEDERAL RULE 11.

You refuse to accept reality. That's your choice. But when you MISLEAD people with your unsound, unsupportable, and simply WRONG legal conclusions, you demonstrate WHY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT GET THEIR LEGAL ADVICE FROM AN INTERNET BBS.

Getting legal opinions from internet lawyers is dangerious. They lack the training, education and expirence (let alone the license) to give legal advice. And when internet lawyers present patently false "legal" conclusions as "fact", there is a real danger that someone might rely on such conclusions, to their detriment, and suffer harm. Keith aptly demonstrates why lawyers, doctors and engineers need a license before they are allowed to practice!

Keith, no amount of legal reasoning, explanation or illustration will change your mind. Fine. You are entitled to your personal opinions. In the USA, we protect the individual's personal opinion, no matter how racist, how disgusting, or how wrong they may be. BUT STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE WITH YOUR FALSE ASSERTION THAT INSENTIVE LICENSING IS "PATENTLY" OR "CLEARLY" ILLEGAL, WHEN IT SIMPLY IS NOT.

KEITH DEMONSTRATES HOW DANGERIOUS IT IS TO GET YOUR LEGAL ADVICE FROM NON-LAWYERS. IF A REAL LAWYER ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENTS IN COURT, HE WOULD RISK SANCTIONS UNDER FEDERAL RULE 11.

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 31 2007,08:53)]KEITH DEMONSTRATES HOW DANGERIOUS IT IS TO GET YOUR LEGAL ADVICE FROM NON-LAWYERS. IF A REAL LAWYER ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENTS IN COURT, HE WOULD RISK SANCTIONS UNDER FEDERAL RULE 11

Keith, I have explained, over and over again, why your theories are NOT supportable. YOU HAVE FAILED, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, to cite even a single federal case striking an insentive license system based upon the ADA or Rehabillitation Acts. Why? Because there are none. Because insentive licensing is perfectly legal. Yet, you persist in spouting your internet lawyer gobelty-gook. You persist in your FALSE assertions that insentive licensing is "patently" and "clearly" illegal.


I have shown multiple examples of insentive (sic) licensing systems that are PERFECTLY LEGAL (Pilots, nursing, emergency medical personnell (sic)) but you REFUSE to accept them. I have explained how FCC's insentive (sic) licensing system complies with the ADA and the Rehabillitation (sic) Acts by accomidating (sic) legitimate disabillities (sic). I have explained the flaws in your reasoning. I have tried, repeatedly, to show you how utterly WRONG you are. It would be different if you had even a single case to rely on. But you don't.

A REAL LAWYER understands how CRITICAL reasoning by analogy is. That is what real lawyers do. That is what persuades Judges. If you had a legal education, you would understand. But you don't.

You dislike insentive (sic) licensing. Fine. But your personal "opinions" are legally unsound. A FIRST YEAR law student would recognize what you either can't or won't. IF A REAL LAWYER ADVANCED YOUR ARGUMENTS IN COURT, THEY WOULD RISK SANCTIONS UNDER FEDERAL RULE 11.

You refuse to accept reality. That's your choice. But when you MISLEAD people with your unsound, unsupportable, and simply WRONG legal conclusions, you demonstrate WHY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT GET THEIR LEGAL ADVICE FROM AN INTERNET BBS.

Getting legal opinions from internet lawyers is dangerious (sic). They lack the training, education and expirence (sic) (let alone the license) to give legal advice. And when internet lawyers present patently false "legal" conclusions as "fact", there is a real danger that someone might rely on such conclusions, to their detriment, and suffer harm. Keith aptly demonstrates why lawyers, doctors and engineers need a license before they are allowed to practice!

Keith, no amount of legal reasoning, explanation or illustration will change your mind. Fine. You are entitled to your personal opinions. In the USA, we protect the individual's personal opinion, no matter how racist, how disgusting, or how wrong they may be. BUT STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE WITH YOUR FALSE ASSERTION THAT INSENTIVE (sic) LICENSING IS "PATENTLY" OR "CLEARLY" ILLEGAL, WHEN IT SIMPLY IS NOT.

KEITH DEMONSTRATES HOW DANGERIOUS (sic) IT IS TO GET YOUR LEGAL ADVICE FROM NON-LAWYERS. IF A REAL LAWYER ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENTS IN COURT, HE WOULD RISK SANCTIONS UNDER FEDERAL RULE 11.
Jonathan, I've freely admitted on numerous occasions that I'm not a "real lawyer". And, I have also freely admitted...on numerous occasions...that I may be "out to lunch" on all of this.

It is YOU who seem to want to read more into my posts than what is actually there.

And, as I have also said, it will be most interesting to revisit these issues 4 our 5 years down the road and see what additional changes, if any, transpire in our licensing structure to remove the systemic discrimination clearly contained therein as a result of (or in spite of) these discussions.

However, if nothing ever comes of it (either in our out of federal court), fine. I already have full operating privileges on both sides of the US/Canadian border. So, personally, I could absolutely care less where it all ends up.

However, by perpetuating your super patriotic rants and arrogant pseudo "lawyering" via the Internet (which is what you also seem to be accusing me of doing) all you are really accomplishing is digging yourself into a deeper and deeper credibility hole. That's because, by my latest count you've once again misspelled at least 15 words in your most recent reply.

It's often been said that it is far better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or keyboard) and remove all doubt. Like it or not, people judge us by how well we speak and write as well as by the words we use while doing so. What's more, how well we SPELL those words becomes an integral part of our individual "credibility quotient"...particularly in those things we post in the online world.

The bottom line here is that, while I may not have a degree (nor a license) to practice law, at least I've learned how to use my computer's spell checker.

I rest my case.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[W9WHE]

Why is it that whenever liberals realize they have lost an intellectual discussion, they feel compelled launch PERSONAL attacks?

Well Keith, I REFUSE to sink to that level.
While I will attack your false conclusions, I'm just NOT going to attack you personally. I find such tactics distasteful and so I'm just NOT going to sink to that level with you.

Good day.
W9WHE