RAF submits restructuring petition to the FCC

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 23 2004,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No where in that document do you state that your RAF organization consists *entirely* of 6 members.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Really? How many signatures do you count, duh.
Do you think maybe the FCC was smart enough to figure that out. Apparently you aren't!

You're not pulling my chain. Rant on if you will. Who cares.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 23 2004,01:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 23 2004,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No where in that document do you state that your RAF organization consists *entirely* of 6 members.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Really? How many signatures do you count, duh.
Do you think maybe the FCC was smart enough to figure that out. Apparently you aren't!

You're not pulling my chain. Rant on if you will. Who cares.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So I am a troll but you are not even though you sling insults my way?

The 6 signatures were under the heading "Committee for Amateur Service Restructuring" which implies this is a subset of your membership. Why the hell do you need a "committee" consisting of all 6 members when *all you have is 6 members?* No where in your proposal do you state the truth - that the RAF has only six members.

This is what the document should have stated:

"The Radio Amateur Foundation, an unincorporated
grassroots organization comprised of *six* concerned, licensed radio amateurs without pecuniary interest in the Amateur Radio Service,..."

instead of:

"The Radio Amateur Foundation, an unincorporated
grassroots organization comprised of concerned, licensed radio amateurs without pecuniary interest in the Amateur Radio Service,..."

You will not fool the FCC with your petition or anyone else with a brain. The point is that you try to make yourselves appear more than you are - 6 Hams who want to throw the ARS back into the 1950's.

Again you avoid my questions and change the subject.

N8VB

 

AG4RQ & W7RJR,

Thanks for your work on this petition. I don't agree with it completely (this could only happen if I wrote one myself), but this is a far better offering than the ARRL petition.

I particularly like your comments on the flawed testing system. No school or professional organization which CARES about the competence and ability to apply knowledge of its students or members uses tests where the exact questions and answers are given. Sure am glad my doctor wasn't given exams like this.

29.0-29.2 is used by the AM community and there has been some concern about this. I can slide down frequency and would prefer doing that to having something like the ARRL petition accepted.

Expect my generally supportive comments when you get your RM number.

73, Marty WB2RJR/7 AMI#20, S.P.A.R.

 

I for one just finish reading the RAF petition. I find it the most comprehensive for a "grass roots" organization.

It is fair to all licenses, gives nothing away and expects higher standards in the test. I like it and can't wait to get the RM# and comment favorably. Definately addresses some of my concerns for the ARRL's petition.

Those of you blasting away at the RAF, if I remember right, NCI was also a "grass roots" organization. Did it not start as a small number of operators that wanted to change something they believe in?

Sounds like the RAF is doing the same thing. If I could join that group, I would.

Chris N0TTW

 

Wow

Lots of discussions on this topic.  All too much he-said/she-said.  

Same old arguments -- politics, ARRL, $$$$, code/no-code.  All the same old favorites.

Think I'm beginning to understand why the FCC stopped requiring licensing for 11 Meter in the 70's.

+ FCC saved themselves loads of money in licensing, paperwork, and "review time for proposed changed"
-  Look what happened to 11 Meters

Guess the right thing to do is to
1.  Set asside what has been done in the past because "that's the way it always was."
2.  Asked ourselves what is good for the hobby?  What is good for the Amateur Radio Service?
3.  Recommend and select the best solution that will allow us to recruit new folks, expand our knowledge and maintain communications capability well into the next century!

Time to think out of the box folks -- an remember, just because someone has a different perspective doesn't necessarily mean their wrong (or an idiot) &#33  

Enough venting -- happy Monday

 

Wow,

What a shame to see such useless banter!  To the RAF, whoever they may be and might become, thanks for your well thought out petition.

Thanks also for recognizing the efforts of the VEC teams and that the majority of us do our best to maintain a certain level of integrity.

One thing is certain, no matter who/what you support change is inevitable.  Writting comments that appear as though they came from adolecents with anger managment issues will do nothing other then get you "Black Listed" by the QRZ staff.  I for one would have no problem with that.  You can express your support or disapporval of anything without destroying your own crediability by lowering your mentality to that of a uneducated jackass!

I'm all for free speech, but I believe that we all have a responsibility to be reasonable in just what it is we say and how we say it.

Lastly to our YI/N2*** soldier in Iraq.  Sorry, this post is so long I lost your call in it..

I can appriecate what it is your doing, I support you fully as a citizen of the United State of America. I have never been in combat and don't pretend to understand it for a minute.  I do know this though.  You have posted some very racial comments on a world wide public website.  I for one would not like my children reading your comments and then beating up the local children of Arabic decent because you seem to indicate it to be ok.  This goes to what I talked about earlier, free speech is good but police yourself and consider your audience.

Above all, return home safely.  My families prayers are with you and your fellow troops.

One's thing is for certain, you can't please everyone.  I came into the hobby as a no-code tech in 1991 and endured a lot of verbal tongue lashing for it. A small majority of the hams in the metro Detroit area were and still are very jaded torwards this class of licensee.

I survived, and am an Extra class, my generation of hams if you will was supposed to destroy ham radio. Well, we didn't.  I'm sure ham radio will survive.

Now then, It's time to radiate the ionosphere. I'll be doing my part in SSB, CW and every now and then AM.

73 de John N8QGC

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8VB @ Feb. 23 2004,02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You will not fool the FCC with your petition or anyone else with a brain.  The point is that you try to make yourselves appear more than you are - 6 Hams who want to throw the ARS back into the 1950's.

Again you avoid my questions and change the subject.

N8VB[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We have no intention of trying to fool anyone. There is no requirement to specify in the petition the exact number that support the petition. That would be impossible anyway as it could change hourly. I'll bet that if we asked for signatures today it would contain a lot more than 6.

I doubt that the FCC is impressed or influenced by how many stand behind a petition. Witness that the FCC rarely accepts all requested changes made by the ARRL.
I believe they are more concerned with substance and well should be.

Anything that reduces the FCCs burden will likely be viewed favorably. It won't matter if that idea comes from 6 people or the ARRL.

Now I will avoid your questions because I feel you are trolling.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke9zm @ Feb. 21 2004,13:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Best thing about this proposal is that it "outs" the ARRL for its interest in opening the floodgates to Ham Radio in the interest of selling more Ham Radio equipment and and getting warm bodies to sit on RF specturum that other entities want.

This proposal certainly has the integrity of the hobby at heart and are not "sell outs" like the ARRL.

ke9zm
http://ke9zm.com[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
perfectly said and right on in my view....Chris

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5cpu @ Feb. 20 2004,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm so sick of the bickering, (online/on air) I'm getting out of the hobby altogether!!! Enjoy the ever quickening death of amateur radio. Both code and no-code believers are driving people away from the hobby in droves..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This has come with the 20 year dumbing down of Ham radio--lately led by the sell our arrl....

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7RJR @ Feb. 23 2004,09:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anything that reduces the FCCs burden will likely be viewed favorably. It won't matter if that idea comes from 6 people or the ARRL.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Your petition certainly won't reduce the FCC's burden.

N8VB

 

I have an opinion and I oppose this petition.  The ARRL has the best petition where as the Extra Class still will have the code requirment.  I support the ARRL's petition and will oppose this petition when it is available on the FCC website.  Code is a great way of communicating, but believe that it should not be a requirment to enter the HF frequencies.  

I'll save you the agoney of looking up my ham ticket class, I'm a TECH - NO CODE, been one since 1999.

I know that I'm going to be bashed for this, so let if fly, I don't care!  

 

The Few. The Proud. The Amateur Radio Operators!

Personally, I am happy to see a group other than the ARRL weigh in on this subject. Whether or not I agree or disagree with their proposal. I'm just happy to see a group of Hams that cares enough to submit a proposal. Which of us can measure up to that criteria? I have never submitted a proposal to the FCC. But perhaps I should. Or perhaps a group should form their own comittee and do the same. Having only one option is really no option at all. So, thank you to the submitters of this proposal for submitting it. Whether it flies or not. I appreciate your efforts. Even if I may not agree with all of your conclusions.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4dnb @ Feb. 23 2004,11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have an opinion and I oppose this petition.  The ARRL has the best petition where as the Extra Class still will have the code requirment.  I support the ARRL's petition and will oppose this petition when it is available on the FCC website.  Code is a great way of communicating, but believe that it should not be a requirment to enter the HF frequencies.  

I'll save you the agoney of looking up my ham ticket class, I'm a TECH - NO CODE, been one since 1999.

I know that I'm going to be bashed for this, so let if fly, I don't care!   [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why should anyone bash you? You disagree in an intelligent and civil manner, unlike some other rude, nasty obnoxious individuals who refuse to pose their views in a rational manner. It is refreshing to see someone disagree with our proposal without launching vicious personal attacks and defamation. You, as a Technician are a better ham than the Extra that conducted himself like a barbarian 12 hours ago. 73.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 23 2004,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4dnb @ Feb. 23 2004,11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have an opinion and I oppose this petition.  The ARRL has the best petition where as the Extra Class still will have the code requirment.  I support the ARRL's petition and will oppose this petition when it is available on the FCC website.  Code is a great way of communicating, but believe that it should not be a requirment to enter the HF frequencies.  

I'll save you the agoney of looking up my ham ticket class, I'm a TECH - NO CODE, been one since 1999.

I know that I'm going to be bashed for this, so let if fly, I don't care!   [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why should anyone bash you? You disagree in an intelligent and civil manner, unlike some other rude, nasty obnoxious individuals who refuse to pose their views in a rational manner. It is refreshing to see someone disagree with our proposal without launching vicious personal attacks and defamation. You, as a Technician are a better ham than the Extra that conducted himself like a barbarian 12 hours ago. 73.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Congratulations to KG4DNB! You have earned my respect. You took a stand on an issue. That is the way it should be. No bashing from me, only respect. Thank you.

73

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Feb. 23 2004,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4dnb @ Feb. 23 2004,11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have an opinion and I oppose this petition. The ARRL has the best petition where as the Extra Class still will have the code requirment. I support the ARRL's petition and will oppose this petition when it is available on the FCC website. Code is a great way of communicating, but believe that it should not be a requirment to enter the HF frequencies.

I'll save you the agoney of looking up my ham ticket class, I'm a TECH - NO CODE, been one since 1999.

I know that I'm going to be bashed for this, so let if fly, I don't care! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why should anyone bash you? You disagree in an intelligent and civil manner, unlike some other rude, nasty obnoxious individuals who refuse to pose their views in a rational manner. It is refreshing to see someone disagree with our proposal without launching vicious personal attacks and defamation. You, as a Technician are a better ham than the Extra that conducted himself like a barbarian 12 hours ago. 73.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And what do you think you are doing now? Looks like name calling to me... hypocrite

At least you didn't mention the ARRL in your post this time.
Maybe there is some hope for you after all.

N8VB