Letters Supporting the Wormser, Adsit, and Dinelli
Petition for Partial Reconsideration
Filed with the FCC

 

TO: Magalie Roman Salas 31 January 2000
Secretary Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

FROM: Michael C. Migliaccio, N3HLM
1145 South 61st Street
Philadelphia, PA 19143-2919
<CONTACT-EMAIL> mikemig@bellatlantic.net

REFERENCE: Wormser, Adsit & Dinelli
                        Petition for Reconsideration
                        WT Docket 98-143
                        Report & Order FCC 99-412

I totally support the Wormser, Adsit & Dinelli, Petition for Reconsideration, WT Docket 98-143. I agree and support the action filed by Alan (N5LF), Fred (NY2V), and Mike (N9BOR) for the following reasons:

1. The Report and Order decreases the emphasis on the technical questions on the written tests, and thus fails to maintain the Amateur Radio Service as a fundamentally technical service.

2. The Report and Order fails to address comments regarding the practice of applicants repeating failed test elements at one sitting by just paying a second fee to the Volunteer Examiner. This practice degrades our ability to test an applicant's knowledge and is a burden for Volunteer Examiners.

3. The Report and Order unnecessarily reduces the speed of the Amateur Extra Class telegraphy examination as a way to avoid code waivers. The new 5 wpm telegraphy speed for the General Class is adequate as a reasonable accommodation, thus making code waivers unnecessary.

4. The Report and Order removes the designation "Plus" from the Technician Plus license as it appears in the FCC database. Unlike licensees of the Technician Plus Class, the "no code" Technicians do not meet the international treaty requirements for operations below 30 MHz. Merging the two classes hampers the FCC's ability to enforce the treaty.

5. It is clear that a number of interests including W5YI and its parties, the American Radio Relay League, radio equipment manufacturers and suppliers and the like, have a vested financial interest in generating revenue via the generation of more licensed operators. Thus to create more such operators, they are willing to allow the licensing standards to be dumbed down irregardless of its damaging effects on the quality of amateur radio operator.

6. Continued efforts to lower standards, as was done with the no-code license ten years ago will not improve the amateur radio community but work to destroy it in years to come. Lowering standards in society in general is common, while it has increased membership in various groups, it has only served to lower the quality of the overall organization. Dumbing down the amateur radio licensing, will only serve to dumb down amateur radio as a whole.

I totally support the Wormser, Adsit & Dinelli, Petition for Reconsideration, WT Docket 98-143.

/signed/

Michael C. Migliaccio 
N3HLM


I am commenting on WT Docket 98-143 (Amateur Radio Restructuring) and to the Wormser, Adsit, and Dinelli Petition (Report & Order FCC 99-412).

I believe it is critical and essential to raise the standards in the technical questions used in testing applicants to the Amateur Radio service. Technology is ever moving forward. We need to have a base of knowledgeable license holders who understand this technology and the use of such. I support this petition completely.

Ever since I was a young child, I have been inspired by the great Amateur radio operators who introduced me to new technology and concepts used in the telecommunications. I joined the military with a desire to serve my country using my passion and skill in radio and communications, in part because of the technical challenge that the Amateur community exemplified. The current trend to make the licensing requirements less technically challenging will undermine the foundation that the fathers of Amateur radio have laid.

Amateur radio in the United States of America represents, in part, the people, government, and culture of our country. We should lead the world in technology and skill. This petition, in my opinion, upholds the standard that would instill and motivate applicants to aspire to a high level of competence and to become effective ambassadors of the United States, to the world through the telecommunications we enjoy.

Again: I support this petition and strongly urge you to move in the direction and spirit of this petition.

Thank you.

Tomas Hood, NW7US


                                                                     P.O. Box 314
                                                                     Burlington, WI 53105
                                                                     January 25, 2000

 


Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554                             Re:   WT Docket 98-143
                                                                       Report & Order FCC 99-412
                                                                       Wormser, Adsit & Dinelli Petition                                                         

Dear Ms. Salas:

     I am writing to express my  support of the Wormser, Adsit & Dinelli Petition filed with the FCC on January 17, 2000.

     It is indeed unfortunate whenever standards are lowered for any reason. We have an education system in this country that is producing kids who cannot read. As an amateur radio operator of some 35 years I have watched the level of understanding and enthusiasm  diminish among new entrants into amateur radio each time the FCC has relaxed the testing requirements. I believe this restructuring of the amateur license will be counterproductive, yielding  poor operators who lack knowledge, resourcefulness available in emergency conditions, attitude and drive. The word on the streets these days seems to be "make it easy for me so I will not have to work too hard."  The result is always...always that the goal (in this case, an amateur radio license and the privileges it imparts) becomes of little value.

     Hundreds of thousands of amateur radio operators have spent untold hours over the years preparing for successfully-achieved amateur radio licenses. Sadly, the FCC's "lowering of the bar" trivializes  the achievements of thousands of severely handicapped licensees who have overcome their disabilities to pass 13 and 20 word per minute code tests and comprehensive examinations..

     The ARRL, NCVEC (W5YI) and equipment manufacturers have painted an erroneous picture of the situation. In each case they have a financial gain to be made. As a result, I fear, such groups' agenda is NOT for the continuance of a strong amateur radio service but instead for making it available to as many people,  at any price, in order to keep money rolling in. These groups pay a lot of lip service to the marvels of satellites and computers and I certainly am not denegrating the place alongside other technologies that these inventions have. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that, should all of the "gee whiz" stuff

Vern A. Weiss comment, 01/25/2000
Page Two

be rendered unusable by some unforeseen communications infrastructure collapse, that  we want fewer options! Amateur radio operators have long been this country's last defense in such a case. Their assertions to the Commission that Morse code is not used any more in emergencies is a lie. Personally I continued to use it during recent emergencies and, yes, it does make it through when all other modes fail.  So why are we wanting to make the holder of an amateur radio license less of a communicator? To use the metaphor that we need to reduce the code speed to attract more people is  like saying we should lower the requirements for airline pilots to attract more people into aviation. Does having larger numbers of less qualified people in any field serve anyone?

     If indeed compromise is necessary, the Wormser, Adsit & Dinelli petition proposes a reasonable one. As their petition points out, those who seemed to influence this FCC decision the most are, themselves, largely responsible for the deterioration in skill level. Their assumption  that Technician Class licensees are incapable of equipment repair and depend on manufactured radios is unfortunately correct.. And this is good? What technological advantage does the NCVEC, ARRL and Kenwood expect will come from a "plug and play" license? As the petition points out, it would seem that the majority of 2200 commenters were snubbed. Meanwhile, marketing brochures from these groups show amateur radio as little more than families using walkie-talkies and repeaters to talk to each other. If this is the case, then what is the FCC's Family Radio Service (FRS)?

     The FCC relied too heavily in its R&O on the NCVEC which sees dependence on ready-made equipment as a positive thing. The original intent of the Technician class license was experiementation and invention in the VHF/UHF spectrum. But largely due to the efforts of the NCVEC and their ilk, it has deteriorated into a citizens band license contributing little other than an FM version of CB. Further, the FCC should  rely on anything from the NCVEC with caution, especially in terms of question pools or other administrative suggestions,  given the cases of  testing fraud that have been reported.

     The R&O damages the integrity of the amateur radio license by allowing unrestricted retesting. As the petition points out, applicants could conceivably eventually pass all elements, one at a time,  under the R&O/NCVEC plan. Such a testing procedure is unacceptable in any legitimate and respected testing arena.


Vern A. Weiss comment, 01/25/2000
Page Three

 

     As the Wormser, Adsit & Dinneli petition points out, the 20 word per minute code requirement is yielding the fastest growing numbers of all amateur radio licenses. It would appear there is no barrier but, instead, individuals lacking initiative. The NCVEC and Kenwood comments demeaned the usefulness of Morse code. Yet, the R&O seemed to ignore very good comments about use of the Morse code in emergencies. Morse code is not only a good filtering mechanism that teaches discipline and reason but knowledge of same has saved the day in many situations both in and out of amateur radio operations. My wife, who is not an amateur radio operator,  was left behind in the car while I went into a post office to mail a letter. While inside, amid the cacophony of other honking horns and street noise I picked out one horn that sounded as if it was sending  "S O S." I initially thought it curious, then I realized that my wife could recognize two things in Morse code, my ham call letters and the distress signal "S O S." I ran to the door of the post office to see a man attempting to break into my  car evidently to get to my wife. My appearance chased him off  but this true story is a matter of police record. My point being, we as licensed amateur radio operators should retain our abilities and high standards as we may be called upon to use them in unpredictable and even dire situations.
 
     Allowing an individual to claim an exemption to take a code test by taking an oath is asking for fraud. One need only observe the unauthorized use of handicapped parking spots at a mall to understand how this proposal would be abused given today's climate when it comes to honesty and integrity.

     For so many years, industry and business has benefitted from the rich pool of human resources created by amateur radio operators. This pool was resourceful not because the government went to them and offered a hand out, but because it drew in people who possessed initiative and saw challenges as opportunities. Requiring licensees to stretch themselves to reach achievements has manifested itself in all manner of  inventive endeavor. As a result,  look at the myriad of technological breakthroughs we enjoy today at the hands of those who over the years learned code and improved proficiency. They were not content to memorize to pass multiple choice tests, but instead, studied with the goal of  understanding the theory on which they were  to be tested.

     I respectfully request the Commission adopt the Wormser, Adsit & Dinelli petition for partial reconsideration.


                                                                          Vern A. Weiss
    

<PROCEEDING>WT Docket 98-143 FCC 99-412.
<DATE>15 Jan 2000
<NAME>John R. Cmiel
<ADDRESS1>34020 N. Hickory Ave
<ADDRESS2>
<CITY>Grayslake
<STATE>IL
<ZIP>60030-1014
<LAW-FIRM>
<ATTORNEY>
<DOCUMENT-TYPE>PR
<PHONE-NUMBER>(xxx)xxx-xxxx
<DESCRIPTION> Email Comment
<CONTACT-EMAIL>w9em@arrl.net
<TEXT>Good Morning:

I am writing to you today to express my support to the Wormser, Adsit, and Dinelli Petition, FCC 99-412. I'm not sure I have all of the legal descriptions and document numbers correct. To tell the truth, it's a little overwhelming to a non-attorney. But, I'm sure that you will understand my intent. I know you are very busy so I will try to be a brief as possible.

I have been a licensed Amateur radio operator for almost twenty-five years. I currently hold an Extra Class license. I'm a member of the ARRL, an active VE, on the board of my local RACES and ESDA associations and a very active member in a number of national clubs and organizations.

I believe I represent a typical, enthusiastic, active amateur radio operator. I regularly participate in emergency drills and have contributed my equipment and radio skills to the community in several emergency situations. I spend approximately 100+ hours a month in volunteer services related to amateur radio.

It was with great interest that I read the restructure proposal from the FCC, and shock when I completed it. I believe I have a good understanding of the need in the amateur radio community and I believe the action taken by the FCC under the recent restructuring could be improved significantly by implementing the recommendations in the Wormser, Adsit, and Dinelli Petition.

My experience and past history has proven that the reduction of technical skills of amateur radio operators has had a detrimental effect in the amateur radio community. I believe that change is normal and required to keep organizations realigned and moving toward the future. I think the current FCC restructure proposal, as defined, lacks this foresight in a number of areas and should be modified before it causes irreparable damage to the amateur radio service. The recommendations in the Wormser, Adsit, and Dinelli Petition go a long way to improve the FCC position and secure the future of amateur radio.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact me if you would like additional details or specific comments.

Best regards,

 

John R. Cmiel
W9EM


Dear Sirs,

I am writing in support of the Wormser, Adsit, & Dinelli petition that the Commission reconsider and modify, in part, the Report and Order, FCC 99-412, released December 30, 1999.

I have read the petition and find it well reasoned and fully support the request. I want to underline the feeling of many in the Amateur community on the inadvisability of doing away with the 20 wpm code test for the Amateur Extra exam.

It was only because of the 20 wpm requirement and incentive licensing that I upgraded my code speed in the mid 70's and that has led to many years of public service and enjoyable cw contacts (something which is very nearly impossible to say about a contact at 5 words per minute.) It has also allowed me to learn a great deal more about electronics and HF operation by building and operating low power QRP radios. I now operate nearly 100% CW using 5 watts or less and that has meant peace with my neighbors as RF interference is virtually eliminated. With this setup I have communicated with amateurs in every state and on every continent -- in over 200 countries.

Not mentioned in the petition is the need for the United states to maintain a pool of CW operators on which it can draw in times of war. Just this week the new Russian leader declared a new 'first-strike' nuclear policy, and several other nations clearly hostile to ours now have or are working hard to obtain nuclear capabilities of their own.

The EMT effect of a nuclear blast could quickly render sophisticated communications systems useless. The usefulness of Morse Code lies not in competing with modern digital equipment, but in providing a reliable, low cost communications alternative using simple easy-to-maintain equipment.

Retaining the 20 WPM morse requirement for the extra class exam would Provide the incentive for amateurs to upgrade their skills in support of The purposes outlined above and those so well stated by Wormser, Adsit, & Dinelli. 

73 T.E. 'Doc' Drake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FISTS # 5365 QRPARCI # 3532 ARRL Life member
hamming since 1959 and it just keeps getting better


[N9BOR Restructring]   [N9BOR Home]

Copyright © N9BOR 1998 - 2004.   All rights reserved.