"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[snipped stuff where we seem to be in agreement]
I also dislike the entry level class name proposed by the NCVEC
proposal -
"communicator" - I prefer retaining the traditional "novice" name, which
is
recognized around the world (and has been used in other countries as
well).

How about "Basic"?

I still prefer "Novice" ... anyone who's more than a beginner technically
will
probably go straight through to General, or even Extra, in one sitting.
Anyone
who's truly a technical "newbie" and needs to learn more should not be
offended
by the class name Novice.

It's been around a long time, still fits, and is recognized worldwide - some
other
countries even have a beginner class called Novice.

What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than
have a
lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that they be
*replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that they have
obtained
a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by it. This is proposed so
that
the "Communicator" test and its pool can be made smaller.

Is that a good idea?

It's clearly a "learn as you go" proposition any way you look at it ...
NOBODY knows
everything there is to know from day one.

Since the rules can be looked up (just as one can use a "crib sheet" to
remember sub-band
edges) it seems to me that its not an unreasonable proposition. I'd rather
have someone
know a bit more about radio and operating and have to refer to the rules as
they learn to
make sure they did things "by the book" than to shortcut the *basic* theory
and operating
practices.

However, having said that, I personally much prefer the ARRL proposal to the
NCVEC one
for the following reasons:

1) less conversion of CW/data space to SSB
2) I don't like the "commercial gear only" part of the NCVEC petition
because it unnecessarily
discourages homebrew and tinkering - something that novices have *always*
been allowed (and
encouraged by 97.1) to do.
3) I don't like the "low voltage" only part of the NCVEC petition, because
it precludes the new
ham from getting a good hamfest deal on an older rig like FT-101,
TS-520/820, etc. for no good
reason (nothing stops them from building power supplies that use 110VAC or
220VAC on the
*primaries*, so what's the sense in this proposal.
and,
4) I don't like the NCVEC to "put the mark of Cain" on the newbies with a
special, never-used
callsign block that makes them stand out as targets for those who are
disgruntled with ANY change.

73,
Carl - wk3c