View Full Version : Submit your comments to the FCC
KC9ECI
07-21-2005, 04:45 PM
Proceeding number is 05-235
Try to use well thought out and reasoned comments as to why code should be retained. Post your comments here after you've submitted them.
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
KB5WX
07-21-2005, 05:06 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again . Morse code is not a mode but a valuable skill . An upgrade without a code test is a very hollow acheivement . Look for me on the CW segments of the bands . I think I'm gonna trash my MC-60 .
Thanks.
I just submitted feedback that I support this proposal as written, providing they do not eliminate CW as an authorized mode of oepration.
Time to bury this issue, elmer some folks and get good people on the air.
Once they have voice, we can introduce them to the wonderful world of CW!
ai4ep
07-22-2005, 07:22 PM
...or.... once they have CW, they can be introduced to the wonderful world of VOICE on hf.
ai4ep
Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ July 21 2005,09:45)]Try to use well thought out and reasoned comments as to why code should be retained.
Remember, we are talking about the Federal government. Well thought out and reasoned comments have no place there!
Unfortunately the decision has in all liklihood already been made and all we have to do now is wait for GW's signature.
NĜIU
KC9ECI
07-22-2005, 08:12 PM
Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 22 2005,13:49)]Unfortunately the decision has in all liklihood already been made and all we have to do now is wait for GW's signature.
NĜIU
Still, wouldn't you feel better knowing that you at least submitted your .02 cents worth?
Well I submitted my comment.I tried to be practical and to the point.I do not know if it matters but I put my .02 in and strenuously disagreed with the proposal.Yes I am a new general but I do not care.I know alot of operators had to do alot more than that.and I humbly take my hat off to you."AND THATS ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
ai4ep
07-22-2005, 09:11 PM
...if KERRY had gotten elected wouldnt none of this be going on.
hee hee hee
ai4ep
Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ July 22 2005,17:11)]...if KERRY had gotten elected wouldnt none of this be going on.
hee hee hee
You are a very sick man......
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
K9STH
07-22-2005, 10:07 PM
IU:
The FCC is a regulatory agency and their actions do not require any approval from Congress or the President. The court system can intervene but not the other two branches of government.
Glen, K9STH
W3MIV
07-22-2005, 11:31 PM
Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ July 22 2005,17:11)]...if KERRY had gotten elected wouldnt none of this be going on.
hee hee hee
ai4ep
Thank you, Robert, you made my day with that!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
What's the point in commenting?
The tone of the NPRM tells me that it's a done deal and all the FCC is doing is going through the bureaucratic exercises before implementation.
They addressed all the arguments pro and con.
The same thing happened when they gave the 220-222 Mhz band to UPS. We commented. We protested. But the fix was in.
So the horse is not only dead but mummified as well.
Hope to hear you in the lower 50 khz of the bands.
wb6bcn
07-23-2005, 05:37 AM
Be the horse dead or not, I am still posting my 2 cents. This is what I am posting!! (http://nighttrainexpress.net/CW%20or%20not.PDF)
W5HTW
07-23-2005, 02:43 PM
The FCC decision was made long before the Dec. 31, 1999, Restructuring. The FCC stated then that the reason they did not remove the Morse requirement was to remain in compliance with international law. Most of us who read that knew long ago that the FCC would remove the Morse testing requirement once it became possible to do so. The WRC-03 made it possible.
The FCC has in the past asked for comments. However, once an NPRM is released, the FCC is not known for backtracking. The main theme of this NPRM will become law. Period. They have stated within the NPRM they *will not consider* other variable such as a new entry level license, automatic upgrades of Techs to Generals, or Advanced to Extras. restoring a code test to the Extra class of license, or changing the total tier of licensing to one, two or four. It will remain at three.
In other words, the FCC has already stated what it will NOT consider. So comments on those issues, if I understand English correctly, will not be considered.
If they are as adamant as they appear to be, comments on the NPRM regarding either support of it, or resistance against it "will not be considered." A waste of time, and we all know it. At this point, if they got 30,000 comments seeking to retain the Morse testing, I have no doubt at all but that they would go ahead with their plan anyway. It is a part of the bigger picture of FCC control of ham radio that began with the transferring of FCC testing to the VEC. In effect, the FCC "wants out." They want to make ham radio as simple as possible, to give them the least burden on licensing, control and enforcement of it. To be completely honest in my opinion, I would bet, if international law could be managed to permit it, the FCC would advance to removing ham radio testing entirely. And yes, I'm serious. But international law will not (yet) permit that.
They are not done yet! Trust me!
Ed
KC9ECI
07-23-2005, 03:05 PM
Well then, what's the point in posting a NPRM? I've submitted my .02 cents, now I'm going to take the time to write to my elected representatives and express my disappointment in the FCC.
KD6NIG
07-23-2005, 04:51 PM
Your Confirmation Number is: '2005723488888 '
I have spoken, so to say. Retain the code for the Extra Class licence.
Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ July 23 2005,11:05)]... now I'm going to take the time to write to my elected representatives and express my disappointment in the FCC.
Terrorist bombings in Egypt and the U.K., national health care, war in Iraq.....
And you're going to bug your representative about a code requirement? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
You've GOT to be kidding me. Get a grip!
KC9ECI
07-23-2005, 07:06 PM
I figure they've got time to screw around with daylight savings time, they have time to listen to me gripe. If they didn't want to deal with such things, they shouldn't have run for office.
Part of the democratic process is having a voice and using it. If I don't agree with a policy, it's not only my right, but my duty to speak out against it. I did my time on the military to ensure that we all have the liberty to do this, what a waste it would be for me to not take advantage of it.
N8CPA
07-23-2005, 07:18 PM
I think what brasspounders need to do, starting NOW, is to draft petitions to preserve CW exclusive frequency ranges. The bottom 100KHz of the classic, the 160M, and WARC bands should be sufficient. A wave of petitions worked for the other side, they'll work for us. Perhaps petitions from a coallition of ARRL, FISTS, SPAR, etc would bear greater weight.
Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ July 23 2005,15:06)]I figure they've got time to screw around with daylight savings time, they have time to listen to me gripe. #If they didn't want to deal with such things, they shouldn't have run for office. #
Part of the democratic process is having a voice and using it. #If I don't agree with a policy, it's not only my right, but my duty to speak out against it. #I did my time on the military to ensure that we all have the liberty to do this, what a waste it would be for me to not take advantage of it.
I'm amazed.... simply amazed... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
I give up. Some of you folks are completely out of control. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
KC9ECI
07-23-2005, 07:34 PM
Because we don't agree with your world view?
wb6bcn
07-23-2005, 10:13 PM
! have read all 42 0f the currently posted comments.
The score is
CW stay = 15
CW go = 26
Double go vote 1
Strange thing is of those that posted a call, and opted for code to go, the majority are TECHS.
Some of the comments don't even address the topic. Just things like
"good riddance" "its about time" and other similar items.
Tom: I didn't see your comment. Guess it will be there when mine is posted on Monday.
KC9ECI
07-23-2005, 11:18 PM
Quote[/b] ]The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From …
Thomas R. Peterson
…and Thank You for Your Comments
Your Confirmation Number is: '2005723809489 '
I resubmitted.
wb6bcn
07-24-2005, 03:13 AM
Quote[/b] ]The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From
Doug Flory
and Thank You for Your Comments
Your Confirmation Number is: '2005723271545 '
Date Received: Jul 25 2005
And here is my conformation, it should be posted Monday. We need a lot of people to react on this one, and give substantial reasons.
At leat I have voiced my opinion.
KC9ECI
07-24-2005, 03:31 AM
Reading over the comments posted, Know Code stands a snowballs chance in the Devil's stewpot.
KD7WHQ
07-24-2005, 05:19 AM
Well, I'm a Tech.
But while I didn't post in this thread, I didn't vote "go" in any of the ones I did.
It will carry on, believe it..
Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ July 23 2005,15:34)]Because we don't agree with your world view?
No, because you seem to think that a code requirement is more important than dealing with other issues that have more far-reaching effects on this planet.
I didn't think I had to point that out. That's what amazes me.
Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ July 23 2005,23:31)]Reading over the comments posted, Know Code stands a snowballs chance in the Devil's stewpot.
This should come as no surprise.
All of the Know Code posts so far aren't saying anything new.
Not to mention the fact that they aren't saying it very well. Some of them sound like they never graduated high school.
N8CPA
07-24-2005, 04:32 PM
No one on either side, #has had anything new to say on the subject since before '91. #The ITU change itself is a smoke screen, since the order leaves it up to domestic licensing authorities to mandate qualifications. Nothing compels our compliance with their decisions. #Besides, Japan has had its own independent rules for over 40 years. #Even the FCC R&O (FCC 99-143?) that eliminated 13 & 20 WPM refused requests to sunset Morse even if the ITU regs did. #The Commission said they would revisit the matter at a future date.
And now that they have, I don't think it would do any good to comment on the NPRM. #So the know vs no comment count is meaningless. #Comments are not votes and will not change the R&O. Most CW ops know that, and are being as economic in investment of words as they are in effort and use of spectrum. #Whether electrons or ink, waste is waste. #And comment on 05-235 is a waste!
And if you want to see icons of illteracy, take a trip through history and visit some of the pro-change comments in the petition bombs of '03. #They'd be lucky to get diplomas from Sesame Street. #If the current crop of know code comments prove anything, they prove that even illiterates can master 5/13/20WPM elements, with dedication to the goal of licensing. A few of them might not have even attended school at all, or had their educations interrupted by military service, or family emergencies. Consider, that some of them even got their licenses before FCC examiners, as opposed to highly corruptible VEs. #
So, if such illiterates can pass such "difficult" tests, why can't the formally educated, multi-degreed techno-wizzes of today? #My own interpretation is that it's a matter of personal character, a drive for true achievement through effort vs coddling of self-esteem. #Some folks have the drive to overcome their shortcomings, others get educated to petiton governments to bail them out of their self-imposed fences. #And Amateur Radio is now seen as part of that government package. #
Pity! #
# http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 24 2005,12:32)]So, if such illiterates can pass such "difficult" tests, why can't the formally educated, multi-degreed techno-wizzes of today? My own interpretation is that it's a matter of personal character, a drive for true achievement through effort vs coddling of self-esteem.
Right.
Some have talent for music; some do not.
Some have a talent for electronics; some do not.
Some have a talent for mechanical engineering; some do not.
Could it possibly be that some have a talent for CW and some do not? Nah, couldn't be that.
I don't care if code testing goes away or not. It's not going impact me one way or another. We already have lazy, non-motivated, illiterate morons in this hobby anyway. On both sides. They've been with us almost from the very day the ARS was born.
My personal opinion is that we should have a system like the UK and Australia, where you have to attend classes in electronics and radio before you sit for an amateur test. That would weed out my definition of "undesirables". How's that for motivation?
Why should the only measure of motivation be CW? I prefer it to be theory. I've got about as much chance of that happening as you do about getting the FCC to reverse itself on removing the code test.
The difference between me and the "CW or Die!" crowd is that I understand I'm not going to get my way. They simply haven't come to grips with the fact that they're not going to get their way either.
KC9ECI
07-24-2005, 07:39 PM
Quote[/b] (n3jja @ July 24 2005,09:55)]Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ July 23 2005,15:34)]Because we don't agree with your world view?
No, because you seem to think that a code requirement is more important than dealing with other issues that have more far-reaching #effects on this planet.
I didn't think I had to point that out. That's what amazes me.
I don't come to QRZ to discuss global social issues, I come here to discuss amateur radio. I didn't think I had to point that out either.
KC9ECI
07-24-2005, 07:42 PM
Quote[/b] (n3jja @ July 24 2005,09:59)]Not to mention the fact that they aren't saying it very well. Some of them sound like they never graduated high school.
I never graduated from High School either.
I agree with the comment on having to attend a class in electronics and theory before getting an amateur license. I also think that there should be a minimum time spent at the Tech level now before someone is allowed to upgrade to General, and I'd like to see at the very least, the code test retained for Extra Class privs. If it's worth having, it's worth working for.
Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ July 24 2005,15:42)]I also think that there should be a minimum time spent at the Tech level now before someone is allowed to upgrade to General
Time in grade used to be the norm. I'd certainly like to see that come back. Not going to happen either.
Quote[/b] ]and I'd like to see at the very least, the code test retained for Extra Class privs.
"My dear friends..... I am Mr. Rouke, your host. Welcome to Fantasy Island!" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
KC9ECI
07-25-2005, 02:07 AM
It's my dream, I'll make it as big as I like.
KA4DPO
07-25-2005, 01:40 PM
I posted this on another thread in response to a comment about overcrowding on the HF phone bands from the anticipated flood of no-code extras.
More important is the fact that many of the new operators will lack discipline. With the FCC considering dropping the CW requirement and testing being dumbed down to the point of mediocrity, amateur radio may not last much longer. That is, it will become very much like Citizens Band radio.
Having said that I plan to send comments to the FCC requesting that they re-consider the proposal to drop the code element from testing, I urge all of you to do the same. Additionally, I will send a counter proposal that would require knowlege of radio systems and some circuit anlysis should the code be dropped. There needs to be an incentive to EARN a ham license, not just get one, to maintain a disciplined amateur service.
CB type operators who don't understand how their radio works, basic antenna theory, propagation, and basic radio system engineering would be of little use in true emergency situations. That is afterall why our service exists.
So, if you feel as I do, that the proposed rule making will damage the amateur service please save the griping on these pages. I doubt that anyone from the FCC reads the QRZ forums. Instead, provide your comments to the FCC to retain Morse Code for testing for the amateur service.
Don't just talk, do it.....
W3MIV
07-25-2005, 02:30 PM
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 25 2005,09:40)]So, if you feel as I do, that the proposed rule making will damage the amateur service please save the griping on these pages. #I doubt that anyone from the FCC reads the QRZ forums. #Instead, provide your comments to the FCC to retain Morse Code for testing for the amateur service.
Ah, hope. That fair blossom springs eternal in the breasts of men. And hams...
I agree that the whining and griping on QRZ is wholly counterproductive, though also entirely human and understandable, given the reactionary nature of most of our fellows and the talismanic stature of CW to many. However, if you carefully read the NPRM&O as it is written by the FCC, you will find little to be optimistic about. This has been wired in since 1999, and they have been planning to make this move ever since the WRC-03 sounded the tocsin in fall of that fateful year.
Trying to change this will be like trying to hold back the tide, but I admire your determination to make a difference. Indeed, I would love to see you succeed, but I won't wager anything on it.
KA4DPO
07-25-2005, 02:35 PM
True, it's probably a done deal but I have to voice my concern anyway. I would like to see some changes that require a certain amount of work commensurate with the privelidge to keep the rabble out of the ranks. There are always one or two miscreants that eventually get caught but this may be the trigger on the flood gate. Time will tell.
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 25 2005,10:30)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 25 2005,09:40)]So, if you feel as I do, that the proposed rule making will damage the amateur service please save the griping on these pages. #I doubt that anyone from the FCC reads the QRZ forums. #Instead, provide your comments to the FCC to retain Morse Code for testing for the amateur service.
Ah, hope. That fair blossom springs eternal in the breasts of men. And hams...
Albert, you crack me up! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]However, if you carefully read the NPRM&O as it is written by the FCC, you will find little to be optimistic about. This has been wired in since 1999, and they have been planning to make this move ever since the WRC-03 sounded the tocsin in fall of that fateful year.
And anyone here who doesn't understand that, has been in complete denial.
Quote[/b] ]Trying to change this will be like trying to hold back the tide, but I admire your determination to make a difference.
I admire it as well. I think it's totally misguided, but I admire it.
KA3RFE
07-25-2005, 04:43 PM
I was on a site recently composed of a majority of CBers and pirate radio operators. They don't like people who keep pointing out that their activities are illegal. There was a thread about testing and I mentioned that I thought the study material shouldn't have the test answers in it. Give them the questions, make them read the material to find the anwers. You shoulda heard the angry resposnes from the illegal operators.
They cussed. They did namecalling. They said I was acting like I was "better than" other people. I put a post there that if anyone wanted to see hams in trouble with the FCC, the ARRL website had some. The reaction? Big snore.
There's a section there about FCC activity. They don't want to hear about CBers who've gotten enforcement actions. One guy reported that a bunch of hunters were caught using marine radios on land. the person who posted it said he did so to warn people about abuse. The rest of the people acted like they usually act in CB enforcement reactions.
A complete waste of my time and energy and a person who used to think that hams should leave CB alone no longer cares. I won't put CBers down, but I'm not going to defend them any longer. They make the bed, they sleep in it.
73
W3MIV
07-25-2005, 05:23 PM
I filed my comment on Friday, and they finally got around to putting it in the list.
I am solely concerned about the potential ID problem as the language of Morse becomes "Latinized." I believe we must seek changes to 97.119 if the code is to be banished, else how will many newbies know what in hell is going on?
It is a conundrum.
KA4DPO
07-25-2005, 05:44 PM
Quote[/b] (n3jja @ July 25 2005,07:56)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 25 2005,10:30)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 25 2005,09:40)]So, if you feel as I do, that the proposed rule making will damage the amateur service please save the griping on these pages. #I doubt that anyone from the FCC reads the QRZ forums. #Instead, provide your comments to the FCC to retain Morse Code for testing for the amateur service.
Ah, hope. That fair blossom springs eternal in the breasts of men. And hams...
Albert, you crack me up! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]However, if you carefully read the NPRM&O as it is written by the FCC, you will find little to be optimistic about. This has been wired in since 1999, and they have been planning to make this move ever since the WRC-03 sounded the tocsin in fall of that fateful year.
And anyone here who doesn't understand that, has been in complete denial.
Quote[/b] ]Trying to change this will be like trying to hold back the tide, but I admire your determination to make a difference.
I admire it as well. I think it's totally misguided, but I admire it.
I'm afraid I don't follow. Perhaps you could explain how providing my position to the FCC on a NPRM via due process is misguided?
Sorry but I don't see any logic in your statement at all.
Quote[/b] (K9STH @ July 22 2005,18:07)]IU:
The FCC is a regulatory agency and their actions do not require any approval from Congress or the President. The court system can intervene but not the other two branches of government.
Glen, K9STH
Yep. Still all you got to say is BPL and you know that doesn't fly in the real world.
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 25 2005,13:44)]Quote[/b] (n3jja @ July 25 2005,07:56)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 25 2005,10:30)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 25 2005,09:40)]So, if you feel as I do, that the proposed rule making will damage the amateur service please save the griping on these pages. I doubt that anyone from the FCC reads the QRZ forums. Instead, provide your comments to the FCC to retain Morse Code for testing for the amateur service.
Ah, hope. That fair blossom springs eternal in the breasts of men. And hams...
Albert, you crack me up! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]However, if you carefully read the NPRM&O as it is written by the FCC, you will find little to be optimistic about. This has been wired in since 1999, and they have been planning to make this move ever since the WRC-03 sounded the tocsin in fall of that fateful year.
And anyone here who doesn't understand that, has been in complete denial.
Quote[/b] ]Trying to change this will be like trying to hold back the tide, but I admire your determination to make a difference.
I admire it as well. I think it's totally misguided, but I admire it.
I'm afraid I don't follow. Perhaps you could explain how providing my position to the FCC on a NPRM via due process is misguided?
Sorry but I don't see any logic in your statement at all.
The problem is that the NCI types are smelling the finish line (and I do mean smelling the trash heap there), and do not want anybody to even try to make waves. It's the same attitude NCI has telling Techs - DONT DEBATE THIS, JUST DO IT. Just like a certain person who constantly tells Hams not to make comments on BPL. A sort of "Do what I tell you" attitude. They're hoping we'll roll over and die - in spite of the FCCs long standing attitude of completely ignoring comments.
In any event -
<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:blue'><span style='font-family:arial'>Never Say Die</span></span></span>
(With Apologies to Wayne Green http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 25 2005,13:44)]Sorry but I don't see any logic in your statement at all.
Somehow, I'm not surprised. You don't want to see it.
To discuss this with you any further would be an exercise in futility. It has proven as much so far.
To quote W3SY, "OUT!!"
KA4DPO
07-25-2005, 07:21 PM
Quote[/b] (n3jja @ July 25 2005,12:18)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 25 2005,13:44)]Sorry but I don't see any logic in your statement at all.
Somehow, I'm not surprised. You don't want to see it.
To discuss this with you any further would be an exercise in futility. It has proven as much so far.
To quote W3SY, "OUT!!"
Then you are obviously outwitted and unable to answer the question. #I had no idea I could be so intimidating.
wb6bcn
07-25-2005, 07:34 PM
At the current time there are 120 comments filed. #Here is the score:
Keep the code: #54
Drop the code: #66
Be advised the water is a little muddy as there are duplications on both sides of the fence.
Hey! The code portion of the bands has livened up from the States! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 25 2005,12:21)]Quote[/b] (n3jja @ July 25 2005,12:18)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 25 2005,13:44)]Sorry but I don't see any logic in your statement at all.
Somehow, I'm not surprised. You don't want to see it.
To discuss this with you any further would be an exercise in futility. It has proven as much so far.
To quote W3SY, "OUT!!"
Then you are obviously outwitted and unable to answer the question. I had no idea I could be so intimidating.
Maybe his brain is addled from the incessant beating of that dead donkey as depicted by his avatar! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quote[/b] (wb6bcn @ July 25 2005,15:34)]At the current time there are 120 comments filed.
When you get to 6,200 sell. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Added mine. I may not make friends, but I suggested that things are just fine the way they are now. (Selfishly, I'd hate to think I'm wasting my time trying to get the code down...)
ke5cwn
07-26-2005, 12:43 AM
its sad, very sad..
cw is the reason i became a ham
now when i git to my golden years, there will not be anybody to qsl cw
thats very sad
Quote[/b] (ke5cwn @ July 25 2005,17:43)]its sad, very sad..
cw is the reason i became a ham
now when i git to my golden years, there will not be anybody to qsl cw
thats very sad
My daughter's 13, so if she doesn't get discouraged by all of the microphony on the bands, you can QSO with her.