Jessie:
Your point is well taken. If you have not already done so, I would
encourage you to repeat it in a filing to the FCC.
73,
Steve
AA4AK
At 02:12 PM 9/2/2005 -0700, Jessie Oberreuter wrote:
I'm a little behind on QRP-L, and I'm trying to avoid contributing
noise on the topic, but this one slipped through and caught my attention.
I'm not sure how compelling this might be to the FCC, but it means a
lot to me: I think of Extra Class licensees as elmers and mentors. As
such, I expect an Extra Class holder to be at least knowledgeable about,
if not proficient in, a much wider range of radio activities than the
other classes. Indeed, I expect an Extra to have explored activities and
modes that he or she may not even be personally interested in simply
because without doing that leg work, one can't be an effective mentor for
other hams with different interests. For example, I have virtually no
interest in operating PSK31, but I took the time to build a warbler and
play with the mode simply so I could offer the option to a friend who
likes radio, but has a hard time hearing in the presents of typical band
noise. Similarly, I have no interest in ATV, but spent time pursuing it
just so I could help a friend who /was/ interested get a start. Thus,
when I run into an Extra Class op on the air who can't exchange a name
and RST at 5wpm, I feel let down: how can you claim to be a contributor
to the art and community without making even the most basic investment in
the second most popular operating mode?
The incentive to become an Extra should not be the bandwidth -- it
should be the recognition that you are a person who cares enough about
the hobby to become a well versed contributor.
Thanks for the bandwidth, de kb7psg.
Some ideas:
1) Don't compromise on what you really want. FCC has a history of
going a step farther, so a comment for Extra only code tests looks
to them like a comment for none at all. If you think Element 1
should stay, say so!
2) Point out the wide use of Morse Code on HF by hams, and
particularly its use by hams who are technically inclined,
homebrewers, etc.
3) Despite the popularity of the mode, hams using Morse Code are
rarely the subject of FCC enforcement actions.
4) Take the time to read the NPRM a couple of times, and
specifically comment on FCC statements that you disagree with. For
example, FCC called the FISTS recommendations of written-test
changes "vague", yet they specifically spelled out exact steps to
be taken to improve the written tests.
5) The reductions and eliminations in Morse Code testing since 1990
have not resulted in longterm changes in the growth of US amateur
radio. Nor have they resulted in an increase in technical
development, etc.
6) Suggest that FCC could do something similar to Canada (they
still have code testing, but the grade is considered part of the
overall testing, not a go/nogo standalone element).
7) Suggest that if the code test is eliminated, the bottom 15% of
each HF band should be set aside for Morse Code only.
8) Write your comments in the standards form used by many
commenters. (search ECFS for my comments to previous proposals -
last name "Miccolis")
9) Include a brief description of your amateur and
professional>> experience, education, etc. Whil it may feel like
bragging, the FCC
does look at who is commenting as well as what they say.
10) Take your time, spellcheck, proofread, etc. It really matters.
Just IMHO
73 de Jim, N2EY
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
