CW Requirement Abolished

[Alun Palmer]

Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is here:-

http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html

[Steve Robeson, K4CAP]

Alun Palmer > wrote in message >...
> Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is here:-
>
> http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html

Easy there fellas...The TREATY requirement may be negated, but we
are still under >FCC< regulation...let's give them a day or two to see
how they are going to handle this.

73

Steve, K4YZ

[lk]

"Bill Sohl" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alun Palmer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is here:-
> >
> > http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html
>
> Here's the rewrite of 25.5 and 25.6
>
>
> The IARU web site has release it final report on WRC 2003.
>
> You can read the full report at: http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html
>
> The final version of S25.5 & S25.6 are:
>
> 25.5 §3 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person
> seeking a licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate
> the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code signals.
>
>
> 25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the operational and technical
> qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station.
> Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the
> most recent version of Recommendation ITU-RM.1544.
> ----------
> They say the effective date is July 5, 2003.

And adopted July 4, 2003 Independence Day!

Larry

[lk]

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:
>
> >Alun Palmer > wrote in message
> >...
> >> Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is here:-
> >>
> >> http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html
> >
> > Easy there fellas...The TREATY requirement may be negated, but we
> >are still under >FCC< regulation...let's give them a day or two to see
> >how they are going to handle this.
>
> I think the FCC's hands are tied until the treaty is ratified. Then all it
> should take is what I remember being called an "Executive Order" dumping
> Element 1.
>
> It could be as simple as 'Effective (fill in date here), completion of
Element
> 1 is waived as a license requirement". One sentence.

I think the FCC will, at minimum update, Part 97 for the WRC 2003 changes.
They could do it with a "Memorandum Opinion & Order", or update Part 97
and restructure frequency allocation with a Notice of Proposed Rule Making.

This should be a hot topic at the VEC conference held at the end of July.

I would not expect much action until August. But that just a guess.

Larry KC8EPO

[Phil Kane]

On 04 Jul 2003 13:00:54 GMT, N2EY wrote:

>I think the FCC's hands are tied until the treaty is ratified. Then all it
>should take is what I remember being called an "Executive Order" dumping
>Element 1.

"Executive Order" is what its name implies - and order by the
President. Regulatory agencies don't work on that level. It will
be an Order - probably by the Chief of the Wireless Telecomm Bureau
or even the Division Chief under delegated authority. If we're
lucky it will be without NPRM or NOI because it removes a burden
on the licensee.

>It could be as simple as 'Effective (fill in date here), completion of Element
>1 is waived as a license requirement". One sentence.

One can hope.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

[Donald R. Putnick]

D. Stussy > wrote:
>....OK, so when do the "no code extras" start? :-)

Hi Dieter, be careful. If we're out of CW testing jobs,
Tak and I will have time to hassle you front table guys!
--
Don Putnick

[N2EY]

In article >, "D. Stussy"
> writes:

>> And adopted July 4, 2003 Independence Day!
>
>....OK, so when do the "no code extras" start? :-)
>
You in The Pool, yet? (see thread by that name)

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Bill Sohl]

"D. Stussy" > wrote in message
. org...
> > And adopted July 4, 2003 Independence Day!
>
> ....OK, so when do the "no code extras" start? :-)

Join the "pool" party and add your quesstimate. There's
another thread that is carrying the quesses.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

[Vshah101]

I wrote:

>Its Fri 10pm, July 4, Independence Day- Ham. DOH!!!
>
>HaHaHaHaHa!

Sorry, I take that back. Although there are more fitting times when you did
deserve it, on this occasion it does not necessarily deserve a HaHa.

Too bad. Now it has lost its impact. I already said that (HaHaHaHaHa!), so now
I can't say that again when it truly does apply.

[Robert Casey]

Phil Kane wrote:

>
>
>>It could be as simple as 'Effective (fill in date here), completion of Element
>>1 is waived as a license requirement". One sentence.
>>
>>
>
> One can hope.
>
>
>
I'd think that they would just edit the list of requirements for the
various ham
licenses. The code requirement would just be deleted. It would go from

Tech: element 2
General elements 1, 2 and 3
Extra elements 1, 2, 3 and 4

to

Tech element 2
General elements 2 and 3
Extra elements 2, 3 and 4

Where element 1 is the 5wpm code, 2 is tech written, 3 is general
written, and
4 is the extra written.

[Vshah101]

From: Robert Casey

>I'd think that they would just edit the list of requirements for the
>various ham
>licenses. The code requirement would just be deleted. It would go from
>
>Tech: element 2
>General elements 1, 2 and 3
>Extra elements 1, 2, 3 and 4
>
>to
>
>Tech element 2
>General elements 2 and 3
>Extra elements 2, 3 and 4
>
>Where element 1 is the 5wpm code, 2 is tech written, 3 is general
>written, and
>4 is the extra written.
Eliminate the code testing requirement for the <written> license classes.

Yes that's what they should do. Basic integrity in Amateur Radio testing
requires that. The code should not be in the path way in between the written
tests.

Code has nothing to do with the written material. It's a different kind of
skill. And it's a single skill independent of other skills. Just as various
awards are recognized individually, like Worked All States, one can recognize
code skill separately from the written tests.

[Kim W5TIT]

"D. Stussy" > wrote in message
. org...
> > And adopted July 4, 2003 Independence Day!
>
> ....OK, so when do the "no code extras" start? :-)

And it begins...

Kim W5TIT

[lk]

"Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
...
> "D. Stussy" > wrote in message
> . org...
> > > And adopted July 4, 2003 Independence Day!
> >
> > ....OK, so when do the "no code extras" start? :-)
>
> And it begins...
> Kim W5TIT

Is it the end of the beginning; or the beginning of the end?

Larry

[Phil Kane]

On 05 Jul 2003 02:23:29 GMT, N2EY wrote:

>You ever need somebody to explain the difference between Advance Approach
>Medium and Medium Advance Approach, I'll return the favor....

Doesn't that depend on whether it's under GCOR or NORAC?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
PNW Milepost 754 -- Tillamook District
"No Defects, No Defects"....

[Mike Coslo]

lk wrote:
> "Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"D. Stussy" > wrote in message
. org...
>>
>>>>And adopted July 4, 2003 Independence Day!
>>>
>>>....OK, so when do the "no code extras" start? :-)
>>
>>And it begins...
>>Kim W5TIT
>
>
> Is it the end of the beginning; or the beginning of the end?

It's the beginning of the end of the beginning.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Arnie Macy]

"Kim W5TIT" wrote ...

> And it begins...
>
> Kim W5TIT
>
>

Let them vent, Kim. If it were the other way around, you would feel the
same way. I knew this was coming for a long time, so I've made peace with
it. The truth be told, it's not going to change the way I operate a bit.
As a bit of an aside, the two "Morse" operators at field day were still the
most popular -- we gave the club the most points and had the most on-lookers
(some things will never change) :-))

v/r

Arnie -
KT4ST
FISTS 2940

[Arnie Macy]

"Vshah101" wrote ...

> I wrote:
>
> >Its Fri 10pm, July 4, Independence Day- Ham. DOH!!!
> >
> >HaHaHaHaHa!
>
> Sorry, I take that back. Although there are more fitting times when you
did
> deserve it, on this occasion it does not necessarily deserve a HaHa.
>
> Too bad. Now it has lost its impact. I already said that (HaHaHaHaHa!), so
now
> I can't say that again when it truly does apply.
>

As I see it, your nothing but a big JERK. When the day comes that you need
some help with that antenna, electronics, or building project, remember how
you treated the guys you disagreed with when they tell you to pound sand.

Arnie -
KT4ST

[Mike Coslo]

Arnie Macy wrote:
> "Vshah101" wrote ...
>
>
>>I wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Its Fri 10pm, July 4, Independence Day- Ham. DOH!!!
>>>
>>>HaHaHaHaHa!
>>
>>Sorry, I take that back. Although there are more fitting times when you
>
> did
>
>>deserve it, on this occasion it does not necessarily deserve a HaHa.
>>
>>Too bad. Now it has lost its impact. I already said that (HaHaHaHaHa!), so
>
> now
>
>>I can't say that again when it truly does apply.
>>
>
>
> As I see it, your nothing but a big JERK. When the day comes that you need
> some help with that antenna, electronics, or building project, remember how
> you treated the guys you disagreed with when they tell you to pound sand.

Remember Arnie, we're talking about the same guy who says he'll help
fellow amateurs put an antenna up, but not take it down because he isn't
learning anything doing that.

He doesn't realize that *he* is his own worst enemy.

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Bill Sohl]

"D. Stussy" > wrote in message
. org...
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, N2EY wrote:
> > In article >, "Bill Sohl"
> > > writes:
> >
> > >"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >> Alun Palmer > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> > Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is here:-
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html
> > >>
> > >> Easy there fellas...The TREATY requirement may be negated, but
we
> > >> are still under >FCC< regulation...let's give them a day or two to
see
> > >> how they are going to handle this.
> > >> Steve, K4YZ
> > >
> > >No one said otherwise.
>
> Actually, didn't the FCC say back in 2000 that the ONLY reason they kept a
code
> element in the requirements was the International Treaty requirement,
which has
> now disappeared?

That's how most of us read the R&O.

> > Look at the thread title, Bill. "CW Requirement Abolished" - not "Treaty
No
> > Longer Requires Code Test" or "S25.5 Revised" or anything like that. The
casual
> > observer would think the code test is gone. Not yet,
> >
> > >Clearly the issue of code testing now becomes
> > >a country by country decision.
> >
> > Only once the new treaty is accepted by the various countries.

There is no global vote of acceptance. It is NOW a country
by country decision. Some countries probably have no formal
ratification at all and simply accept the new treaty as of 7/5/03.

The USA goes through a "ratification" of the treaty which takes
some time...but it will be ratified because to not ratify leaves
the USA totally out of the agreement. If the USA didn't
ratify the new treaty, the old treaty isn't "resurrected", but
rather the USA would simply not be a party to the treaty
at all.

> Simple: Congress ratifies it and the next day, the FCC creates the "no
code
> extra."

Works for me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

[Arnie Macy]

"Mike Coslo" wrote ...

> Remember Arnie, we're talking about the same guy who says he'll help
> fellow amateurs put an antenna up, but not take it down because he isn't
> learning anything doing that.
>
> He doesn't realize that *he* is his own worst enemy.

Doesn't surprise me, Mike. Based on what I've read of his posts.

Arnie -

[N2EY]

In article >, "Phil Kane"
> writes:

>On 05 Jul 2003 02:23:29 GMT, N2EY wrote:
>
>>You ever need somebody to explain the difference between Advance Approach
>>Medium and Medium Advance Approach, I'll return the favor....
>
> Doesn't that depend on whether it's under GCOR or NORAC?

A little. But the basic concepts are unchanged.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Kim W5TIT]

"Dan/W4NTI" > wrote in message
...
> Its not a hobby. Its a SERVICE.
>
> Therin lies the problem.....all you newguys have no idea of what ur
talking
> about.
>
> Dan/W4NTI
>

Amateur Radio is "defined" by the FCC as a service. For many people, ham
radio is a hobby and nothing more. For many others, it is a hobby and a
service and they get involved with those areas of ham radio that are a
service to others. There is no requirement from the FCC that people must
conduct a service in the hobby of amateur radio.

CB is a service also. "Service" is simply a definition; moreover, a
justification for the availability of frequencies to us "commoners." It
distinguishes commercial use vs. hobby/personal use.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

[N2EY]

In article >, "Arnie Macy"
> writes:

>"Kim" wrote ...
>
>> And it begins...

>Let them vent, Kim. If it were the other way around, you would feel the
>same way. I knew this was coming for a long time, so I've made peace with
>it. The truth be told, it's not going to change the way I operate a bit.

Well said, Arnie. I agree 100%.

>As a bit of an aside, the two "Morse" operators at field day were still the
>most popular -- we gave the club the most points and had the most on-lookers
>(some things will never change) :-))

Conditions this year on FD weren't so hot. I have read many reports of FD
operations where the "Morse" QSOs outnumbered the 'phone QSOs, even though
there were more rigs dedicated to voice. Digital modes were a far, far distant
third.

Over the past few years, the total number of FD "Morse" QSOs has been growing
faster than the voice QSO totals. Wouldn't it be ironic if this was the year
"Morse" became No. 1 on FD?

73 de Jim, N2EY

FISTS #4360

WWHD
>
>v/r
>
>Arnie -
>KT4ST
>FISTS 2940
>

[N2EY]

In article >, "D. Stussy"
> writes:

>On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, N2EY wrote:
>> In article >, "Bill Sohl"
>> > writes:
>>
>> >"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >> Alun Palmer > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> > Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is here:-
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html
>> >>
>> >> Easy there fellas...The TREATY requirement may be negated, but we
>> >> are still under >FCC< regulation...let's give them a day or two to see
>> >> how they are going to handle this.
>> >> Steve, K4YZ
>> >
>> >No one said otherwise.
>
>Actually, didn't the FCC say back in 2000 that the ONLY reason they kept a
>code element in the requirements was the International Treaty requirement,
>which has now disappeared?

That's how I read it.
>
>> Look at the thread title, Bill. "CW Requirement Abolished" - not "Treaty No
>> Longer Requires Code Test" or "S25.5 Revised" or anything like that. The
>> casual observer would think the code test is gone. Not yet,
>>
>> >Clearly the issue of code testing now becomes
>> >a country by country decision.
>>
>> Only once the new treaty is accepted by the various countries.
>
>Simple: Congress ratifies it and the next day, the FCC creates the "no code
>extra."
>
Naw, simpler than that. FCC just says "Element 1 waived for all applicants" or
"All applicants get credit for Element 1" or some such. One sentence and done.

You put a date in The Pool yet?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Alun Palmer]

(N2EY) wrote in
:

> In article >, "Bill Sohl"
> > writes:
>
>>"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" > wrote in message
om...
>>> Alun Palmer > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>> > Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is here:-
>>> >
>>> > http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html
>>>
>>> Easy there fellas...The TREATY requirement may be negated, but
>>> we
>>> are still under >FCC< regulation...let's give them a day or two to
>>> see how they are going to handle this.
>>> Steve, K4YZ
>>
>>No one said otherwise.
>
> Look at the thread title, Bill. "CW Requirement Abolished" - not
> "Treaty No Longer Requires Code Test" or "S25.5 Revised" or anything
> like that. The casual observer would think the code test is gone. Not
> yet,
>
>>Clearly the issue of code testing now becomes a country by country
>>decision.
>
> Only once the new treaty is accepted by the various countries.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>
>

OK. I could have worded it better. What I meant was the international
requirement to have code tests is gone. Actually, though, in several EU
countries the test will go within the next few weeks. The FCC will take a
little longer, though.

[Radio Amateur KC2HMZ]

On 7 Jul 2003 14:21:15 GMT, Alun Palmer > wrote:


>We'll just have to think of something else to talk about. Besides, it's
>not over yet. The FCC will likely have multiple petitions to look at. For
>example, what happens to Techs? Should they all get Tech+ privileges?

In the short term, that's what I personally expect we will see. In the
long term, however, I think we will eventually have only two license
classes instead of the current three (one for VHF/UHF only privileges,
and one for full HF privileges in addition to that).

1. FCC remains under a congressional mandate to simplify regulations.
The easiest system for FCC to administer would be exactly what I have
outlined - either you have HF privileges or you don't.

2. Reading between the lines on the FCC's R&O WRT the last
restructuring of amateur license classes leads me to believe that the
commission would have preferred to do this in the first place but its
hands were tied by the international requirement that WRC just
removed. Absent that requirement now, FCC will be free to do what I
think it would have preferred to do four years ago.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

[Alun Palmer]

(Brian) wrote in
om:

> "Bill Sohl" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Alun Palmer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is here:-
>> >
>> > http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html
>>
>> Here's the rewrite of 25.5 and 25.6
>>
>>
>> The IARU web site has release it final report on WRC 2003.
>>
>> You can read the full report at: http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html
>>
>> The final version of S25.5 & S25.6 are:
>>
>> 25.5 §3 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person
>> seeking a licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate
>> the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code signals.
>>
>>
>> 25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the operational and technical
>> qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station.
>> Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the
>> most recent version of Recommendation ITU-RM.1544.
>> ----------
>> They say the effective date is July 5, 2003.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bill K2UNK
>
> I wonder if we can shut down this newsgroup now? Brian
>

We'll just have to think of something else to talk about. Besides, it's
not over yet. The FCC will likely have multiple petitions to look at. For
example, what happens to Techs? Should they all get Tech+ privileges?

[Mike Coslo]

Brian wrote:
> "Bill Sohl" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Alun Palmer" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Yes it's true. The final report of WRC 2003 is here:-
>>>
>>>http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html
>>
>>Here's the rewrite of 25.5 and 25.6
>>
>>
>>The IARU web site has release it final report on WRC 2003.
>>
>>You can read the full report at: http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html
>>
>>The final version of S25.5 & S25.6 are:
>>
>>25.5 §3 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person
>>seeking a licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate
>>the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code signals.
>>
>>
>>25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the operational and technical
>>qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station.
>>Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the
>>most recent version of Recommendation ITU-RM.1544.
>>----------
>>They say the effective date is July 5, 2003.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Bill K2UNK
>
>
> I wonder if we can shut down this newsgroup now? Brian

Heh, Heh! Good question, Brian! I'm sure we can find something to fight
about though..... 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

[G. Doughty]

Well, I am a no-code tech and am actually not looking forward to the end of the
CW requirement. I am studying code now and will continue to do so. I take my
upgrade test in Sept. and can't wait to get my code ticket.

G. Doughty
KI4BBL
remove nojunk to email

[lbudney@pobox.com]

(G. Doughty) writes:
>
> Well, I am a no-code tech and am actually not looking forward to the
> end of the CW requirement. I am studying code now and will continue
> to do so...

Same story here (don't have a tech, though). Now I'm racing the clock
to take the test while it exists; it would be a bummer if they rammed
the elimination of the code test through before I was ready. :-)

Regards,
Len.

[Dan/W4NTI]

"Brian" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dan/W4NTI" > wrote in message
>...
> > Its not a hobby. Its a SERVICE.
> >
> > Therin lies the problem.....all you newguys have no idea of what ur
talking
> > about.
> >
> > Dan/W4NTI
>
> Is it a uniformed service or an uninformed service? Brian

At this stage of the game. And based on what I read here on USENET, and
what I hear on the bands I would have to say uninformed by a landside.

Dan/W4NTI

[N2EY]

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ > wrote in message >...
> On 7 Jul 2003 14:21:15 GMT, Alun Palmer > wrote:
>
> >We'll just have to think of something else to talk about. Besides, it's
> >not over yet. The FCC will likely have multiple petitions to look at. For
> >example, what happens to Techs? Should they all get Tech+ privileges?

Seems completely obvious to me that they should.
>
> In the short term, that's what I personally expect we will see. In the
> long term, however, I think we will eventually have only two license
> classes instead of the current three (one for VHF/UHF only privileges,
> and one for full HF privileges in addition to that).

I disagree!

The only reason to separate HF and VHF/UHF is/was because of the code
test. HF licenses had to have code tests because of the old treaty.
Once the new one is ratified, that reason goes away.

Seems to me that in a nocodetest future it would make much more sense
to let all hams have access to at least partial privileges on most ham
bands, rather than continuing the artificial HF vs. VHF-UHF
separation.

How about this: Three classes of license - call them Third, Second and
First for discussion's sake.

Thirds have a simple written test and get to use a few modes (CW,
SSB/FM phone, some data) on parts of all bands. Power limit is below
that requiring RF survey. Callsigns are six characters, and Thirds
can't be repeater control ops or VEs.

Seconds have more modes, more space on the bands, and more power.
Callsigns are five or six characters. Seconds can be repeater control
ops and VEs. One year experience as a Third required.

Firsts have all privs, callsigns with four, five or six characters,
etc. One year experience as a Second required.

You get the general idea.
>
> 1. FCC remains under a congressional mandate to simplify regulations.
> The easiest system for FCC to administer would be exactly what I have
> outlined - either you have HF privileges or you don't.

But is that what's best for the ARS? I don't think so.
>
> 2. Reading between the lines on the FCC's R&O WRT the last
> restructuring of amateur license classes leads me to believe that the
> commission would have preferred to do this in the first place but its
> hands were tied by the international requirement that WRC just
> removed. Absent that requirement now, FCC will be free to do what I
> think it would have preferred to do four years ago.
>
I think what FCC wanted several years back was pretty close to what
they actually did - 3 classes of license, minimal or zero code
testing. No medical waivers. Less written testing, too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[Brian]

(N2EY) wrote in message >...
> Radio Amateur KC2HMZ > wrote in message >...
> > On 7 Jul 2003 14:21:15 GMT, Alun Palmer > wrote:
> >
> > >We'll just have to think of something else to talk about. Besides, it's
> > >not over yet. The FCC will likely have multiple petitions to look at. For
> > >example, what happens to Techs? Should they all get Tech+ privileges?
>
> Seems completely obvious to me that they should.

Ditto Novices

> > In the short term, that's what I personally expect we will see. In the
> > long term, however, I think we will eventually have only two license
> > classes instead of the current three (one for VHF/UHF only privileges,
> > and one for full HF privileges in addition to that).
>
> I disagree!

I also disagree, same reason.

> The only reason to separate HF and VHF/UHF is/was because of the code
> test. HF licenses had to have code tests because of the old treaty.
> Once the new one is ratified, that reason goes away.
>
> Seems to me that in a nocodetest future it would make much more sense
> to let all hams have access to at least partial privileges on most ham
> bands, rather than continuing the artificial HF vs. VHF-UHF
> separation.

Why limit band privs? Just limit power based upon safety reasons.

> How about this: Three classes of license - call them Third, Second and
> First for discussion's sake.

How about two?

> Thirds have a simple written test and get to use a few modes (CW,
> SSB/FM phone, some data) on parts of all bands.

On all parts of all bands.

Power limit is below
> that requiring RF survey. Callsigns are six characters, and Thirds
> can't be repeater control ops or VEs.

Fair enuf. But call it "limited."

> Seconds have more modes, more space on the bands, and more power.
> Callsigns are five or six characters. Seconds can be repeater control
> ops and VEs. One year experience as a Third required.

Superfluous license class.

> Firsts have all privs, callsigns with four, five or six characters,
> etc. One year experience as a Second required.

Two years as "limited" required.

> You get the general idea.

Yup.

> > 1. FCC remains under a congressional mandate to simplify regulations.
> > The easiest system for FCC to administer would be exactly what I have
> > outlined - either you have HF privileges or you don't.
>
> But is that what's best for the ARS? I don't think so.

Two licenses are simple enough. All band/mode privs for both, with
the distinctions being power, ability to operate automated or remote
transmitters, and VE positions.

Personally, I'd like to see the FCC write TOWER priveleges into the
license as well.

> > 2. Reading between the lines on the FCC's R&O WRT the last
> > restructuring of amateur license classes leads me to believe that the
> > commission would have preferred to do this in the first place but its
> > hands were tied by the international requirement that WRC just
> > removed. Absent that requirement now, FCC will be free to do what I
> > think it would have preferred to do four years ago.
> >
> I think what FCC wanted several years back was pretty close to what
> they actually did - 3 classes of license, minimal or zero code
> testing. No medical waivers. Less written testing, too.

They chose 6 classes of licenses. They neglected to deal with the
dangling Novice, Tech Plus, and Advanced issues.

> 73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Brian

[Alun Palmer]

(Brian) wrote in
om:

> (N2EY) wrote in message
> >...
>> Radio Amateur KC2HMZ > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > On 7 Jul 2003 14:21:15 GMT, Alun Palmer > wrote:
>> >
>> > >We'll just have to think of something else to talk about. Besides,
>> > >it's not over yet. The FCC will likely have multiple petitions to
>> > >look at. For example, what happens to Techs? Should they all get
>> > >Tech+ privileges?
>>
>> Seems completely obvious to me that they should.
>
> Ditto Novices
>
>> > In the short term, that's what I personally expect we will see. In
>> > the long term, however, I think we will eventually have only two
>> > license classes instead of the current three (one for VHF/UHF only
>> > privileges, and one for full HF privileges in addition to that).
>>
>> I disagree!
>
> I also disagree, same reason.
>
>> The only reason to separate HF and VHF/UHF is/was because of the code
>> test. HF licenses had to have code tests because of the old treaty.
>> Once the new one is ratified, that reason goes away.
>>
>> Seems to me that in a nocodetest future it would make much more sense
>> to let all hams have access to at least partial privileges on most ham
>> bands, rather than continuing the artificial HF vs. VHF-UHF
>> separation.
>
> Why limit band privs? Just limit power based upon safety reasons.
>
>> How about this: Three classes of license - call them Third, Second and
>> First for discussion's sake.
>
> How about two?
>
>> Thirds have a simple written test and get to use a few modes (CW,
>> SSB/FM phone, some data) on parts of all bands.
>
> On all parts of all bands.
>
> Power limit is below
>> that requiring RF survey. Callsigns are six characters, and Thirds
>> can't be repeater control ops or VEs.
>
> Fair enuf. But call it "limited."
>
>> Seconds have more modes, more space on the bands, and more power.
>> Callsigns are five or six characters. Seconds can be repeater control
>> ops and VEs. One year experience as a Third required.
>
> Superfluous license class.
>
>> Firsts have all privs, callsigns with four, five or six characters,
>> etc. One year experience as a Second required.
>
> Two years as "limited" required.
>
>> You get the general idea.
>
> Yup.
>
>> > 1. FCC remains under a congressional mandate to simplify
>> > regulations. The easiest system for FCC to administer would be
>> > exactly what I have outlined - either you have HF privileges or you
>> > don't.
>>
>> But is that what's best for the ARS? I don't think so.
>
> Two licenses are simple enough. All band/mode privs for both, with
> the distinctions being power, ability to operate automated or remote
> transmitters, and VE positions.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see the FCC write TOWER priveleges into the
> license as well.
>
>> > 2. Reading between the lines on the FCC's R&O WRT the last
>> > restructuring of amateur license classes leads me to believe that
>> > the commission would have preferred to do this in the first place
>> > but its hands were tied by the international requirement that WRC
>> > just removed. Absent that requirement now, FCC will be free to do
>> > what I think it would have preferred to do four years ago.
>> >
>> I think what FCC wanted several years back was pretty close to what
>> they actually did - 3 classes of license, minimal or zero code
>> testing. No medical waivers. Less written testing, too.
>
> They chose 6 classes of licenses. They neglected to deal with the
> dangling Novice, Tech Plus, and Advanced issues.
>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
> 73, Brian
>

I'd like to see what the CEPT do at the end of this month in their
meeting. At present they have two classes : Class 1 (full privileges,
requires full theory test and 5wpm, recently reduced from 12wpm) and Class
2 (144 MHz +, reduced theory requirement, no code).

It is not clear why Class 2 operators must stay above 144 MHz, as WARC '79
changed the lower limit for no-coders to 30 MHz, but I guess it is because
of countries who had not implemented that at the time the areement was
originally written.

They could merge Class 1 and Class 2, but as there is supposed to be a
difference in theory level, they may not. If they do merge them, as some
rumours are suggesting, then Class 2s (such as both types of US
Technician) would have full privileges including full HF access in every
CEPT treaty country they visit.

Clearly, though, the CEPT are going to abolish the code requirement for
Class 1, whether or not they merge it with Class 2 or reduce the lower
frequency for Class 2, and this will come about a month after when the ITU
introduced the new s25 rules.

This will have enourmous impact. All of a sudden, no-coders from all sorts
of countries will be able to operate HF in other countries, if maybe not
immediately in their own. Don't forget, in many countries no-coders have
to take the full theory, so those will become Class 1 even if Techs are
still Class 2!

So many countries belong to the CEPT agreement that it will place a huge
amount of pressure on individual countries to abolish code testing more
quickly. In the interim, lots of no-coders would be able to operate HF
only by going mobile and driving across a border!

[Brian]

Mike Coslo > wrote in message >...
> Brian wrote:
>
> > Why limit band privs? Just limit power based upon safety reasons.
>
> Many CB'ers run illegal power amps without taking a test at all.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -

Why is it when a person shoots a rabbit out of season he is called a
poacher rather than a hunter, but when a CBer uses illegal power, he
is still called a CBer?

bb

[Carl R. Stevenson]

"Alun Palmer" > wrote in message
...
> I'd like to see what the CEPT do at the end of this month in their
> meeting. At present they have two classes : Class 1 (full privileges,
> requires full theory test and 5wpm, recently reduced from 12wpm) and Class
> 2 (144 MHz +, reduced theory requirement, no code).

I believe that the only difference between CEPT Class 1 and Class 2
is the Morse requirement for Class 1 ... the written tests come from
the "HAREC" standard ... and I *believe* that they are the same.

> So many countries belong to the CEPT agreement that it will place a huge
> amount of pressure on individual countries to abolish code testing more
> quickly. In the interim, lots of no-coders would be able to operate HF
> only by going mobile and driving across a border!

Yes, ain't it *sweet*? :-)

I expect the dominoes to fall quite rapidly.

73,
--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
<http://www.nocode.org>

[Mike Coslo]

Brian wrote:
> Mike Coslo > wrote in message >...
>
>>Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why limit band privs? Just limit power based upon safety reasons.
>>
>> Many CB'ers run illegal power amps without taking a test at all.
>>
>> - Mike KB3EIA -
>
>
> Why is it when a person shoots a rabbit out of season he is called a
> poacher rather than a hunter, but when a CBer uses illegal power, he
> is still called a CBer?

I guess he's acting as expected?

- Mike KB3EIA -

[Alun Palmer]

"Phil Kane" > wrote in
.net:

> On 10 Jul 2003 05:33:32 -0700, Brian wrote:
>
>>> It is not clear why Class 2 operators must stay above 144 MHz, as
>>> WARC '79 changed the lower limit for no-coders to 30 MHz, but I guess
>>> it is because of countries who had not implemented that at the time
>>> the areement was originally written.
>>
>>They may not want amateurs transmitting on a VHF-Low TV channel.
>
> ISTR that most European countries dumped VHF-low channels many
> years ago and that the UK dumped both VHF-Lo and Hi when they
> went to the 625 line PAL colour system from the 405 line b/w system.
>
> Perhaps someone "over there" can correct or update that info.
>
> Alun ??
>
> --
> 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
>
>
>

It's true about the UK. I don't know about the other countries.

[Brian Kelly]

"Carl R. Stevenson" > wrote in message >...
> "Alun Palmer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'd like to see what the CEPT do at the end of this month in their
> > meeting. At present they have two classes : Class 1 (full privileges,
> > requires full theory test and 5wpm, recently reduced from 12wpm) and Class
> > 2 (144 MHz +, reduced theory requirement, no code).
>
> I believe that the only difference between CEPT Class 1 and Class 2
> is the Morse requirement for Class 1 ... the written tests come from
> the "HAREC" standard ... and I *believe* that they are the same.
>
> > So many countries belong to the CEPT agreement that it will place a huge
> > amount of pressure on individual countries to abolish code testing more
> > quickly. In the interim, lots of no-coders would be able to operate HF
> > only by going mobile and driving across a border!
>
> Yes, ain't it *sweet*? :-)
>
> I expect the dominoes to fall quite rapidly.
>
> 73,
> --
> Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
> Grid Square FN20fm
> http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
> ------------------------------------------------------
> NCI-1052
> Executive Director, No Code International
> Fellow, The Radio Club of America
> Senior Member, IEEE
> Member, IEEE Standards Association
> Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
> Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
> Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
> Member, QCWA (31424)
> Member, ARRL
> Member, TAPR
> Member, The SETI League


World class joiner . . and ya still couldn't pass a lousy 13wpm code
test if yer life depended on it.



> ------------------------------------------------------
> Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
> Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
> <http://www.nocode.org>

w3rv

[Dee D. Flint]

"Dick Carroll" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Unless I missed something, the Tech written includes NO information
> on HF or HF operations, and FCC earlier stated that no HF privileges'
> would be accorded to licensees who had not passed a written containing
> material pertinent to their privileges.
>
> Obviously today's FCC may have changed all that.
>

Since Techs may currently earn HF privileges by passing a morse test, there
are indeed HF questions on the Tech written. Get a copy of the current "Now
You're Talking" and read it and the question pool. The old Tech+ operators
and the current Tech with code certification get some voice on 10 meters and
some CW on 10 meters, 15 meters, 40 meters, and 80 meters.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

[Brian]

"Dee D. Flint" > wrote in message >...
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (N2EY) wrote in message
> >...
> > > Radio Amateur KC2HMZ > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > On 7 Jul 2003 14:21:15 GMT, Alun Palmer > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >We'll just have to think of something else to talk about. Besides,
> it's
> > > > >not over yet. The FCC will likely have multiple petitions to look at.
> For
> > > > >example, what happens to Techs? Should they all get Tech+ privileges?
> > >
> > > Seems completely obvious to me that they should.
> >
> > Ditto Novices
>
> If the US dispenses with the code test, Techs should get the same as the
> Tech+ as that would be the simplest and most appropriate change.
>
> Novices should stay exactly as they are now. They haven't passed the Tech
> written and should NOT get a free upgrade to Tech. It simply isn't
> appropriate. Novices have some HF privileges already anyway.

They have demonstrated the required knowledge (and skill) to operate
on both HF and VHF.

> > [snip]
> > > Seems to me that in a nocodetest future it would make much more sense
> > > to let all hams have access to at least partial privileges on most ham
> > > bands, rather than continuing the artificial HF vs. VHF-UHF
> > > separation.
>
> If they merge the Techs into the priveleges of Tech+, all license classes
> will have some HF privileges.
>
> The simplest overall approach is to simply leave the rest of the classes
> alone except for dropping the code requirement. This requires the least
> amount of rule changes and paperwork changes.
>
> Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Why take the path of least resistant?

Why not align the license classes and priveleges into something that
makes sense?

[Dee D. Flint]

"Brian" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dee D. Flint" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Brian" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (N2EY) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Radio Amateur KC2HMZ > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > On 7 Jul 2003 14:21:15 GMT, Alun Palmer >
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >We'll just have to think of something else to talk about.
Besides,
> > it's
> > > > > >not over yet. The FCC will likely have multiple petitions to look
at.
> > For
> > > > > >example, what happens to Techs? Should they all get Tech+
privileges?
> > > >
> > > > Seems completely obvious to me that they should.
> > >
> > > Ditto Novices
> >
> > If the US dispenses with the code test, Techs should get the same as the
> > Tech+ as that would be the simplest and most appropriate change.
> >
> > Novices should stay exactly as they are now. They haven't passed the
Tech
> > written and should NOT get a free upgrade to Tech. It simply isn't
> > appropriate. Novices have some HF privileges already anyway.
>
> They have demonstrated the required knowledge (and skill) to operate
> on both HF and VHF.
>
> > > [snip]
> > > > Seems to me that in a nocodetest future it would make much more
sense
> > > > to let all hams have access to at least partial privileges on most
ham
> > > > bands, rather than continuing the artificial HF vs. VHF-UHF
> > > > separation.
> >
> > If they merge the Techs into the priveleges of Tech+, all license
classes
> > will have some HF privileges.
> >
> > The simplest overall approach is to simply leave the rest of the classes
> > alone except for dropping the code requirement. This requires the least
> > amount of rule changes and paperwork changes.
> >
> > Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>
> Why take the path of least resistant?
>
> Why not align the license classes and priveleges into something that
> makes sense?

Because this path does make sense. There is no benefit in doing a total
overhaul of the licensing structure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

[Phil Kane]

On 14 Jul 2003 10:45:34 -0700, Brian wrote:

>> The simplest overall approach is to simply leave the rest of the classes
>> alone except for dropping the code requirement. This requires the least
>> amount of rule changes and paperwork changes.

>Why take the path of least resistant?

Because that's what today's amateur radio service rulemakers at the
FCC are brainwashed to do.....

>Why not align the license classes and priveleges into something that
>makes sense?

I refuse to answer invoking the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

[Brian]

"Phil Kane" > wrote in message >...
> On 14 Jul 2003 10:45:34 -0700, Brian wrote:
>
> >> The simplest overall approach is to simply leave the rest of the classes
> >> alone except for dropping the code requirement. This requires the least
> >> amount of rule changes and paperwork changes.
>
> >Why take the path of least resistant?
>
> Because that's what today's amateur radio service rulemakers at the
> FCC are brainwashed to do.....
>
> >Why not align the license classes and priveleges into something that
> >makes sense?
>
> I refuse to answer invoking the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

Chuckle