RAF submits restructuring petition to the FCC

From N4ZFU:>>Last time I checked, the ARRL is the spokesperson for the ham community, based on total membership.<<

That is the whole point!  The ARRL does not Speak for ALL AMATEURS Nor do they Listen to all of it's members.In fact..they rushed their proposal off to the FCC (before) ARRL members could demand amendments.

The RAF is a grassroots organization...EVERY member had time to comment on it's proposal before it went to the FCC!

If the ARRL would have taken the time to poll each and every member we would not see 17 proposals sent to the FCC. Many of the authors of these 17 proposals are also members of the ARRL. Not all ARRL members are content..they were left out of the picture. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! With 17 proposals before the FCC it is safe to say that many of the ARRL members are discontented...BTW...Grassroot organizations start as (small groups).....Understood?

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2IQF @ Feb. 22 2004,18:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> the  ARRL  is  recognized  by  FCC  and  world  as the  official  and  legitimate  voice  of  our  community[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Really? Can you show us where the FCC has made such a statement? Can you also show us where the ARRL is the 'official' and 'legitimate' voice of amateur radio?
I had no idea the ARRL 'owned' amateur radio. Where have I been all these years?

73

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The RAF is a grassroots organization...EVERY member had time to comment on it's proposal before it went to the FCC![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes All 6 of them !


73
back to the rig and my net

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DualGateMosfet @ Feb. 22 2004,18:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k6bbc @ Feb. 22 2004,17:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I read their document.  There is an assertion to not allow their new Tech Class entry level license 40 or 80 meter privileges as it will not be in the best interest of Amateur Radio.  The reason given: “The 40 meter phone segment is “bursting at the seams” with activity on a 24 hour a day basis…”  The is a absolute lie.  All of the bands are now under populated.  These people are just a prime example of the elitist, cult like, snobs that is unfortunately are part of our hobby.  And to place in a document an out and out lie to the FCC to win their point is unconscionable.  I am going to write a response to this misguided, ego driven document of destruction.  I suggest others do as well.  Let the FCC know the other side.  The ARRL has it as right as they can.  I suggest the others find a new hobby.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, you are the one following the cultic ARRL. All this talk about "elitism" sounds just like NCI. Are you a card-carrying member of NCI? The bands are now under-populated? The cycle is waning. Solar flares even affect propagation on the low bands.  Under-populated? Yeah. In your head. What kind of hallucinagen are you using. I'd like to take a trip also.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I may be hallucinating, but at least I have a call. And just for the record smart guy, I don't belong to any ham clubs, orginizations, etc.

 

Dear W7RJR
I am not talking about statements made by ARRL representatives past or present! I am talking about matter of facts! While you or me like it or not, if we are members or not - in the eyes of "outer world" and "civilians" ARRL is in fact the well founded and serious organization with strong voice and legitimate power to represent at least its members, which count for one third of us! I can not see on the horizon any other equally legitimate entity! Also, when I read both documents in question - I simply do not see such a big and substantial differences to be recognized as real reasons to divide our community in the eyes of the world! As I quoted old proverb: United we stand!
As I read some comments however I get impression that some fellows simply use the forum to have a fun, without understanding the importance and gravity of all facets of the problem to be solved!
And I do not have the CODE in mind!
Code is just somehow used as a cover!
Thank you for taking time to participate!

73's KC2IQF

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2IQF @ Feb. 22 2004,20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I  am  talking  about  matter  of  facts!  [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Fine. What are the facts? I don't see anything other than your opinion?

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG6GMT @ Feb. 22 2004,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The RAF is a grassroots organization...EVERY member had time to comment on it's proposal before it went to the FCC![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes All 6 of them !


73
back to the rig and my net[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We had a 100% poll of our 6 members BEFORE it was submitted to the FCC. At least we did something right.

73

 

From KG6GMT:>>Yes All 6 of them !<<

Yes...100% of them! What percentage of the ARRL members were polled? You have to keep things in prospective. You still do not understand the concept of a Grassroots organization. They tend to be ((small)) in number at first inception. If even 2 men had a great idea you would oppose it on grounds that the organization was not large enough!

The RAF never claimed to represent all amateurs but we had the right to file a proposal in our own names. The Might or Size of an organization does not always make right...Get a grip on reality and do some research on the proud history of Grassroots organizations in the United States.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb6ssn @ Feb. 22 2004,15:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8ZTY @ Feb. 22 2004,06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8BRI @ Feb. 22 2004,06:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...it does seem to be a realistic and fair proposal...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Any organization that does not welcome new members in large numbers will die and the only way to welcome new members in large numbers is to change with the times.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Perhaps you should speak with the folks at the USMC about this. I think they may disagree! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just like the USMC isn't for everybody, neither is ham radio. We shouldn't try to make ham radio for everybody. To do so would make it CB. BTW, neither ham radio or the USMC are dying.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
mark ag4rq you are right I dont think Ham radio is dyeing eather , my guess is you and I will die Before ham radio dose, But if the fcc monitoring station is still up on state Road 84 north of you in Hollywood, Fla ill Bet they can tell you if it is or not, you have a good day . Bill Kd4mxe

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd4mxe @ Feb. 22 2004,21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb6ssn @ Feb. 22 2004,15:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8ZTY @ Feb. 22 2004,06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8BRI @ Feb. 22 2004,06:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...it does seem to be a realistic and fair proposal...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


Any organization that does not welcome new members in large numbers will die and the only way to welcome new members in large numbers is to change with the times.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Perhaps you should speak with the folks at the USMC about this. I think they may disagree! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just like the USMC isn't for everybody, neither is ham radio. We shouldn't try to make ham radio for everybody. To do so would make it CB. BTW, neither ham radio or the USMC are dying.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The USMC has changed significantly over the years. They no longer use muskets, Krags, 03 Springfields, M1 Garands, or M 14s. They are no longer allowed to haze their recruits. They now accept women in large numbers. O my!

Philip

PS
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
PK

 

If I may be so bold as to quote a Marine friend of mine, "Then ain't women! Them's wookies!" LOL! Seriously, while the tools of the trade have changed over the years, their mission and focus has not. They still stand for and stand behind the same principles they did over 200 years ago. Not worth arguing over. But an interesting discussion. Thank you.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA8FJA @ Feb. 22 2004,13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 22 2004,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 22 2004,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ah6gi @ Feb. 22 2004,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, then why not call yourselves, "Six Geezers, a mike and a key." or something more appropriate?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately, your choice of words and stereotypical characterization of the authors is typical of that which polarizes and divides amateur radio.

73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What is polarizing and dividing ham radio is the ARRL. Others have submitted proposals to the FCC asking for the retention of code testing, yet they haven't been met with the anger and hatred that RAF has. The reason for that is when those other proposals were made, the ARRL hadn't yet spoken. Now that the ARRL has spoken, all the blind followers fall in line to fight any opposition. The League says jump, and they all ask "how high?" Wake up. The money-motivated political organization in Newington does not care what's best for ham radio, only what's best for their own coffers.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You, as one of the 5 RAF cronies, are full of BS also.

You guys are trying to pass yourselves off as more than six like-minded people - like you are some kind of orginization who speaks for Ham radio operators. Then you have the audacity to insult the ARRL and people who support it proposal.

The FCC has already signaled their intention to remove the morse code testing requirement. The ARRL proposal would at least preserve it for Extra Class and would be a reasonable compromise. I think the morse requirement should be dropped like a hot potato, but I will support the ARRL proposal before your backwards proposal. Your proposal seeks to set Ham radio back 50 years.

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You just proved my point. No matter what the League says, you follow blindly with complete obedience. In this way, the League is like a cult.

I am accused of being backwards and seeking to set ham radio back 50 years because I don't want to see the standards watered down? It just shows where the League is at. The League desires to dumb down ham radio and sacrifice quality for quantity. Their motive is to increase membership. In other words, a sell-out for the sake of the money it will bring in in the form of increased membership. Why don't we ask what color something is for a test question? How about identifying shapes for another test question?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The only point that has been proven is your obsession with the "evil empire" ARRL. Would you get over your ARRL envy already? You are starting to sound pitiful.

I do not support the ARRL's petition either, but if I had to choose between yours and the ARRL's petition I would not chose yours. I am not a member of the ARRL for various reasons of my own.

The FCC has already signaled its intention to eliminate Morse code as a testing requirement. The best that you can hope for is that they will accept the ARRL's proposal and retain it for Extra Class. It does not make any difference what you or I want, the FCC will more than likely eliminate the code requirement.

Another question for you:

Why does 5 Hams need a Director if you guys are only " "speaking as 6 ordinary amateur radio operators who share a common idea” as W7RJR states?

N8VB

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w8vom @ Feb. 22 2004,15:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KA8FJA Writes>>Just your own "special interests" which makes you a Special Interest Organization which is no different than an organization that would represent the interests of Ham Radio manufacturers.<<

I can think of a lot of "special interest groups" ARRL-FISTS-NCI and yes..the RAF. What is wrong with special interest groups? One of the Major differences is that the RAF has no "Pecuniary Interests". This cannot be said of all special interest organizations.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
W8VOM:

I could really care less whether Morse code testing is retained or not. I will not gain or lose any privileges because of it.

I do not support your bogus organization (RAF) because it tries to present itself as something it is not. The name of your organization is offensive in itself. You do not speak for all Amateurs - only for 6 people. You do not speak for me.

You guy’s need to get your story straight. One of your “member’s”, W7RJR, stated that the RAF is “speaking as 6 ordinary amateur radio operators who share a common idea”. You now say that you are a real organization like the ARRL, FISTS, etc..

At least with FISTS or NCI you know what those organizations represent. The name Radio Amateurs Foundation implies that you speak for all Amateurs.

Again, I ask you: Why do five people need a Director?

The FCC has already signaled its intention to eliminate Morse code as a testing requirement. The best that you can hope for is that they will accept the ARRL's proposal and retain it for Extra Class. It does not make any difference what you or I want, the FCC will more than likely eliminate the code requirement. Stop deluding yourselves and trying to fool others.

N8VB

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb6ssn @ Feb. 22 2004,15:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA8FJA @ Feb. 22 2004,13:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w8vom @ Feb. 22 2004,08:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Radio Amateur Foundation, an unincorporated grass roots organization comprised of devoted radio amateurs with no pecuniary interest in the service[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just your own "special interests" which makes you a Special Interest Organization which is no different than an organization that would represent the interests of Ham Radio manufacturers.

The proposal should be called "The Pipe Dream of 6 Geezers". Probably a good name for your bogus organization too...

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Do you contend that the ARRL is not a Special Interest Group?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I do not belong to the ARRL. If you think that I think that the ARRL does not represent its "interests" then you are wrong.

At least with the ARRL, FISTS, and NCI it is pretty clear who and what they represent. The bogus name RAF is an attempt to sound like they represent more than the 6 Amateurs they are made up of.

Why do 5 Hams need a Director?

N8VB

 

I have created a discussion on actions taken against BPL and Results join us, Share what you are doing to stop BPL !

This it the direct link:
http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin....14;st=0

If that does not work:
OR go to http://www.qrz.com/ ,select the Forum section and search BPL in the "Talk and Opinions" section.

This is an area for conversations on actions we can and have taken against BPL! Ideas that we can do, ideas of things we are willing to commit to do, and actions we have done!

KI4CFS Martin Brossman