QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940099.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 22KB

Date: Sat,  5 Mar 94 04:30:18 PST
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #99
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Sat,  5 Mar 94       Volume 94 : Issue   99

Today's Topics:
                Have a say about ARRL policy (2 msgs)
                        Morse Whiners (2 msgs)
                    rec.dan.pickersgill.monologue

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 94 23:08:19 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
Subject: Have a say about ARRL policy
To: [e-mail]

Bruce Perens ([e-mail]) wrote:

: In response to a "questionable" ARRL decision, I have formed a
: single-topic discussion list on ARRL policy. Copies of the discussion
: will be made available to various ARRL officials, to ignore or read as
: they see fit. This effort is not sponsored or approved by ARRL,
: although I am an ARRL member and a field organization candidate. The
: list is open to all.

: This will be the only announcement of the list that I make to the usenet.
: To subscribe, send mail to [e-mail] with this text:

:     subscribe arrl-policy YOUR-NAME-HERE YOUR-CALLSIGN-HERE

Thanks, Bruce. I have ensured that several key staffers are made aware
of the mailing list. I, for one, have signed up. I also have been known
to pass along a post from time to time, as I see fit, or if I happen
to see it.

You can contact most ARRL HQ staffers by email. I will post a
list in my next post.

I also suggest that all hams with an opinion or suggestion about a
policy matter make their views known to their Division Director.
The Division Directors are listed on page 8 of any recent QST.
You can also usually find your Division Director at most major hamfests
or ARRL Conventions.

73 from ARRL HQ, Ed
--

-----
Ed Hare, KA1CV                  [e-mail]
American Radio Relay League

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 94 19:06:07 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!noao!math.arizona.edu!news.Arizona.EDU!helium![e-mail]
Subject: Have a say about ARRL policy
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Ed Hare (KA1CV) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>You can also usually find your Division Director at most major hamfests

How much do they usually sell for?

:)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 94 22:09:56 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!asuvax!pitstop.mcd.mot.com!mcdphx!schbbs!waters.corp.mot.com.corp.mot.com![e-mail]
Subject: Morse Whiners
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel D.
Todd) wrote:

> William=E.=[e-mail] wrote:
> : >and contrary to the belief of some technician class licensees, the ITU
> : >requirements for morse knowledge for HF access are NOT likely to change.
> IF most of the other nations are ready to drop the morse requirement and
> there is a clause for doing so in the ITU, why has only Japan opted to
> drop code for one of their HF licenses? There is a method for achieving
> their goal and there is a precedent. Is their desire to drop Morse
> published anywhere ITU preceedings perhaps?  If so please post a source,
> more ammo you know!

One of the frustrations of CW DXing is that many third world countries
either do not test for morse or (worse yet) actually forbid its use (!)
because the authorities can't monitor morse transmissions.

I don't believe 9N1MM (Fr. Moran, Nepal) has ever taken a test in Nepal for
example - he is (was) the only one who would know how to give the test!
His license is literally "at the pleasure of the King".  JA1 (King Hussein
of Jordan) is another, I don't know if anyone else in Jordan has to take a
CW test though :-)

Talking to DXers who have gone on remote DXpeditions can be very
enlightening.

Japan is the first country with a large amateur population to introduce a
no-code HF license, not the first country to allow it!
--
Phooey on it all - I'm going sailing for a year or two!!!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 00:34:24 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!wetware!spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
Subject: Morse Whiners
To: [e-mail]

Rev. Michael P. Deignan ([e-mail]) wrote:

: [e-mail] (Ed Hare (KA1CV)) writes:

: > Either side could be correct (although my vote is for the somewhere
: > in between), but it seems to me that the divisions I have seen,
: > the bad feelings, and the ways some have gone about trying to score
: > a few points in the debate are hurting Amateur Radio far more that
: > code, or no code, ever could.

: This is probably true.

: The sharp split in opinion with regards
: to the no-code license is yet one more example of why it shouldn't
: have been done in the first place.

Well, at that time, one prevailing opinion was that Amateur Radio
was aging, with the average age of hams increasing as us old timers
got older and died off with no newcomers taking our places. Some
of the change in sentiment from the stauch "No no-code" of the early
80s to the split or uncertain opinion of late 80s stemmed from our
(the big OUR, not just ARRL) concerns about the real risk of
a decline in numbers and a resultant probable loss of spectrum.
If the ARRL had taken NO action to reverse that trend, we would
have rightly been taken to task. In some ways, we were going to
be damned no matter WHAT we had done. I think that no-code would
have been made into a reality no matter WHAT the ARRL position.
If so, we would have been seen as the mortal enemy of new hams.
As it was, as our Board took its sweet time to try to learn the
wishes of our members, we were NOT the leaders, but jumped on
the bandwagon after much of the intial work had been done by
others. There are still Technician operators who fault us for
it.

: The extreme division is clearly one reason why the license should have
: never been implemented the way it was. Instead, a compromise between
: the two schools should have been sought out, and implemented in that
: manner.

Well, if our way had prevailed, the license would have been implemented
differently. If memory serves, we had proposed that the no-code license
have operating priveleges only from 220 MHz and up with a 250-watt
limitation. This was clearly a compromise that the ARRL sought out,
trying to accomodate the wishes of a broad spectrum of members.
How it was ultimately implemented was decided by the FCC. I assume
that they chose the current version because it was the one that
had the least administrative burden for them. Even the less-restricted
version is a compromise; the current Technician class priveleges
do not contain most of the frequencies near and dear to operators
who have passed a code test.

The description of of our filing is found in the November 89 QST
"Happenings" column. I will gladly supply a photocopy to anyone who missed it; send me email with
your postal address and a request.

Just after the no-code change passed, many of the new Technicians
were quite upset with us for not having proposed the more comprehensive
priveleges that ultimately were enacted. I think we did what we
had to do in both directions, and based our decision to limit
priveleges on the perceived wishes of our members, as any membership
organization would be expected to do. Now, three years later, many
of these Technicians have become ARRL members. We will grant them
the same respect, membership services and consideration we grant to
any member.

I have seen it stated that we made our choices only to boost membership.
Well, in reality, we made our choices in part to boost the numbers
of licensed operators, especially in the VHF and up spectrum that is
still under attack. I only watched most of this from the sidelines,
making my views known to the Division Director as a member. I, for one,
never expected that the new Techicians would be an easy mark for
League membership. The trend is changing, but they sure didn't turn
to us in droves. :-). Had we done nothing to reverse the inevitable
decline in Amateur Radio numbers, we would have been called to task.
Another example of damned either way?

Don't get me wrong, my good friend from RI; I deplore some of the
conduct I have heard and heard described. However, as I said in
another post, this conduct is not a result of a lack of code skills.
It is more a result of more serious problems rampant in this modern
world. The conduct would not go away if they all learned the code.
If it does, I sure have a solution at hand for prison overcrowding :-).

I have stated that the new Technicians need to join us with dignity
and respect for the traditions we have established. We also need to accept
that new people also bring new ways. I have seen too little respect on
both sides of this issue and have said repeatedly that this is
hurting and dividing us badly.

Sure glad I am working late this week; I would never have time
for all this during paid hours. :-).

73 from ARRL HQ, Ed

--

-----
Ed Hare, KA1CV                  [e-mail]
American Radio Relay League

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 94 18:56:32 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!mvb.saic.com!news.cerf.net!usc!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com![e-mail]
Subject: rec.dan.pickersgill.monologue
To: [e-mail]

Dan Pickersgill <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Clearly wrong? How so. I did it, and thousands before me did it. Are you
>> saying that just because it requires effort, it shouldn't be an element?
>> Sounds like an appeal to laziness to me.

It is clearly wrong to require Morse knowledge for the use of other modes
because that knowledge does NOT contribute to more effective use of those
modes.  THAT is my argument against the Morse test -- not that "I can't do it!,"
not that "it isn't fair!," but that it simply is not RELEVANT knowledge (since
it is needed for only ONE of many possible modes) and therefore should not be
required.

"I did it, and thousands before me did it" isn't a valid reason for keeping the
element; it says nothing about the need or desirability of such testing.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 94 20:47:14 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2kvk56$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Morse Whiners

A great x ray technician! ([e-mail]) wrote:

: In article <[e-mail]>,
: Ed Hare (KA1CV) <[e-mail]> wrote:
: >There are some who feel that the elimination of Morse code from
: >the requirements of the Technician class license have hurt Amateur
: >Radio. There are some who feel that any further elimination or
: >reduction in the Morse Code requirements would hurt Amateur Radio.

: Brilliant deducing, Ed. I'm glad to hear that the League recognizes this.

:  --Robert [WA3J]

I do indeed recognize that there are some who feel this way. I suspect
that you and I have come to different conclusions about the significance
of the rest. I will email you a copy of my entire post; perhaps the
rest of my post got truncated at your site.

73, Ed
--

-----
Ed Hare, KA1CV                  [e-mail]
American Radio Relay League

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 94 00:09:13 GMT
From: nprdc!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!demon!g8sjp.demon.co.uk![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>.uk
Reply-To : [e-mail]
Subject : Re: Morse Whiners

In article <[e-mail]>
           [e-mail] "Daniel D. Todd" writes:

> Christ!
> I hate when this happens.  I am not the person who said that the rest of
> the world wants to get rid of the Morse requirement and that the US is

[snip]

> Iain Philipps ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : In article <[e-mail]>
> :            [e-mail] "Daniel D. Todd" writes:
>
> : > : >and contrary to the belief of some technician class licensees, the ITU
> : > : >requirements for morse knowledge for HF access are NOT likely to change.

Christ!
I hate when this happens. You *are* the person who quoted (and then re-quoted,
as demonstrated above) the text. Check it out. You'll see.

If I offended you I'm truly sorry. Simmer down before somebody else spots
what an irrational, arrogant pig you are.

--
Iain Philipps

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 22:51:28 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!chip.ucdavis.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2l5e94$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: CW

Rajiv Dewan ([e-mail]) wrote:

: First a general comment:  With topics such as these, is not appropriate to
: limit the distribution to US?  I have taken the liberty of altering
: the distribution of my follow up from `world' to `usa'.
I'm not sure I think the only people who have subscribed to r.r.a.p are
those interested in Us amateur policy as that is what we discuss here. I
left the distribution to USA since people probably don't want to see a
follow up to a post they didn't get? :-)


: In article <[e-mail]>,
: Daniel D. Todd <[e-mail]> wrote:

: >HF operation is out of the question! I think not.  before you mention ITU
: >realize that the code is essentially optional. As exemplified by Japan.

: My guess is that the FCC will also ask the existing ham community before
: making the change.  I for one will vote for `No CW - No Hf - Period'.

Since the FCC is not obliged to the ham community but rather the public
the ham community will not have the only voice in how they are
regulated.  If asked I would probably agree with  No Morse - No HF  if
the proposal were to be simply to drop all CW requirements. If the
proposal is written to include a low power HF no-code license I might
support it.  In short I won't be quite so dogmatic about code, either way.

: >I think that to be a VE one should be required to pass all the exam
: >elements they are to be administering.  That, or we should accept that
: >they are nothing more than proctors.

: I have been a VE.  VEs are *volunteers* who spend our time providing others
: with opportunities to get a license or upgrade.  I have made the exams,
: especially the CW ones, graded them and, yes, proctored them. When candidates
: pass we congratulate them and provide them with contacts that they can
: call on to help setup a station.  When they do not make it, we help them
: in preparing for the next attempt and try and keep them from dropping out.
: I would say that VEs do a lot more than just proctor exams.
That is my point exactly, which is why I think only those who have passed
ALL exam elements (incl. 1a -1c) should be qualified to be a VE.  We seem
to be in violent agreement.

: And indeed.  In *my* value system, HF CW is first, second, ...
And in mine it isn't.
: >
: Some one else wrote:
: >: Is that whining?

: Yes.
What about my post is whining?

cheers,
Dan
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Daniel D. Todd      Packet: KC6UUD@KE6LW.#nocal.ca.usa              *
*                   Internet: [e-mail]                      *
*                 Snail Mail: 1750 Hanover #102                       *
*                             Davis CA 95616                          *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  All opinions expressed herein are completely ficticious any        *
*  resemblence to actual opinions of persons living or dead is        *
*  completely coincidental.                                           *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*


------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 1994 21:38:16 -0600
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!uuneo.NeoSoft.com!sugar.NeoSoft.COM![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2l210g$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: CW

In article <[e-mail]>,
David Willmore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>question, anyway.  I'd like to be an Extra for reasons outside of spectrum.
>I can't be a VE without knowing morse.  Why?  I could care less about the HF
>spectrum.  I want to be a VE so that I can help other hams into the hobby.
>
>Is that whining?

In order to be a Volunteer Examiner, you must have first passed the elements
you will be administering, which includes Morse code. I should know.
I am an Accredited Volunteer Examiner under the ARRL, W5YI, and DeVry VECs
(although the latter doesn't exist anymore).

By the way, this is the reason why those who have claimed "handicap waivers"
cannot be VEs.

 --Robert [WA3J]

--
"Meeting him, shaking his hand--it was overwhelming. It was better than sex.
 Of course, I haven't had sex before, but I'm sure this was better."

 --A Codeless Technician, after meeting Dan Pickersgill for the first time.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 23:13:32 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2kr55h$[e-mail]>, <2kr8hd$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Morse Whiners

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Waters) writes:
>In article <2kr8hd$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Blum  N9VLS)
>wrote:
>
>
>> This thread is possibly the worst PR that can be propogated thru the
>> internet for the ham radio community.....   I hope everyone realizes this.

Bill - I don't believe there are very many non-hams who would understand
the threads that appear on this group. What non-ham would take the time
to read a policy newsgroup?

>
>Yes indeed it is, but there are a few who really want to keep amateur radio
>as an exclusive club for the elite.

What elite, Mike? When I was a young pup back in the early 60's leaning
the code I never saw  amateur radio as an exclusive club. ANYONE can
get a license - we don't keep anyone out - they keep themselves out.

73,
Jeff NH6IL

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 02:48:35 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!chip.ucdavis.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2l4vgo$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Morse Whiners

Jeffrey Herman ([e-mail]) wrote:

: I periodically show my old WA6 callsign because `someone' on here,
: looking at my NH6 call, said I have no right to be giving any input
: into the code debate; seems an `N' call labels one a newbie, even
: though I've been licensed 18 years.
Jeff, I know you are a big boy who can stand up for himself. There is no
need to post your previous call, especially since it may well be someone
elses call within the year.  If some one labels you a newbie tell 'em to
go screw themselves.  You are who you are don't worry about what others
think as long as you are honest with yourself.  As far as not having the
right to have input on the code no-code debate who gave sbs.com the
authority to pass out rights?


: Is the following `bragging'?
[sig deleted]
No most of us couldn't care less about your formaer calls, we all have
the ability to to count QSO's and it's nice to let us know what your
hobbies are.

cheers,
Dan
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Daniel D. Todd      Packet: KC6UUD@KE6LW.#nocal.ca.usa              *
*                   Internet: [e-mail]                      *
*                 Snail Mail: 1750 Hanover #102                       *
*                             Davis CA 95616                          *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  All opinions expressed herein are completely ficticious any        *
*  resemblence to actual opinions of persons living or dead is        *
*  completely coincidental.                                           *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 02:28:53 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <CSLE87-020394103111@145.39.1.10>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: On-line Repeater Directory

Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) wrote:
: That's right on, good mind reading. While I think the ARRL position is
: shaky at best here, I don't want to see tanks rumbling down Main St.
: in Newington either. The BATF and FBI death squads are already bad

I dunno.  Might be entertaining.

: enough, let's not have the Copyright Office or the FCC start donning
: ninja suits and slaughtering Americans too.
--
Jon Bloom KE3Z   [e-mail]

------------------------------

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #99
******************************