|
Maybe you should look at in the perspective of the
FCC trying to drag the ARRL into the present, and force it to look toward the
future.
As far as anarchy goes, look at HR1491 (Authorized
W.E.P. [ War and Emergency Powers Act]), Congressional Research Report 93-549
(Most recent look at W.E.P.) and tell me what part of State of Emergency you
have the most problem comprehending.
With the current framework of Presidential powers,
and with states declaring a "State of Emergency" in advance of hurricane
landfall, the Amateur Radio community has done quite well to adhere to rules
that don't necessarily apply. That doesn't mean that we should not adhere
to rules. Conversely, it merely points out that the logic of you analogy
has already been rendered flawed; just by the long running example Ham Radio has
set of obeying rules that, in the letter of the law, aren't in
force. HR-1491 was signed March 9th 1933. 1933 is not a typo.
CRS 93-549 starts off with a line to the effect that Every second of recorded
time since March 9th of 1933 has found the United States in some sort of
declared State of Emergency or another. This is a ploy used by Presidents
to utilize extra-constitutional powers as a tool to get their job done. I
don't like it, but I don't pretend it doesn't exist.
If you don't think the FCC hasn't already
seen/analyzed this political nightmare, as it applies to regulating an
"Emergency: radio service, you may want to consider becoming an ARRL senior
advisor.
Bringing up the "Anarchy" concept of what will
happen if the code being dropped is taken as an example in every day life is
about as forward looking as asking the State Police to administer a proficiency
test in shoeing a horse before qualifying for a Driver's License.
If CW had any merit at all as a measure of ability
to understand the technology of communications and properly utilize that
technology in time of emergency, then we would all be still riding horses.
It is sad that the United States (under the
progressively backwards direction of the ARRL) will forever be known in history
as the last to drop the code.
You might want to consider getting over
it,
David Little
KD4NUE
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:35
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth and
Olivia
May I ask just how removing the telegraphy
licensing barrier will go a long way to reducing the burden on the FCC?
They don't write the test, they don't give the test and they don't score the
test. I am starting to feel that people simply don't like "rules to live
by" and it has nothing to do with limited resources. In that case, lets
get idiotic and just do away with things like speed limits - we can always get
out of the way of the guy flying at 90mph down our two lane road. Speed
limits are for not only the safety of the driver, but of others on the road;
passengers, pedestrians etc. Radio rules are not only for the one user,
but for everyone else on the bands as well. Reduce the rules, and you
have the pigs ruling the roost, to mix metaphors.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 5:10
AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth
and Olivia
Mark:
Very perceptive of you... in the long run, the
FCC has a lot of better things to do than spend their
limited resources continuing the excessive regulation of the Ham
Bands... Removing the Telegraphy licensing barrier and reducing excessive
Ham Regulation will go a long way to reducing the burden on the FCC and many
of their pronouncements over the past few years show that is the way they
are leaning..... So maybe the FCC might take one giant step
and bring Ham Radio into a 21st Century Regulatory Regime in
one broad stroke...
__________________________________________________________
Howard
S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
Website: www.ky6la.com
"No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished"
"Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires,
911"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 2:11
PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Bandwidth
and Olivia
At 03:03 PM 11/27/2005, you wrote:
>Even if the
ARRL adopts the more restrictive ARRL model ... I predict that
>in
the longer run we will ultimately get to the Canadian
Model....
If I was forced to make a wager, that is where my
money would go. We will
have to see how the telegraphy testing
rule pans out. That will tell us
what type of regulatory
environment the suites the FCC. They have refused
to mode
segregate 160 meters, they refused to set a maximum bandwidth for
telephony, and they want to drop telegraphy proficiency testing.
I think a
trend is starting to show. I would expect some sort of
omnibus
re-alignment of part 97.
73,
Mark
N5RFX
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release
Date: 11/27/2005
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
