"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

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

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
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

(Brian) wrote in
om:

(N2EY) wrote in message
. com...
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!

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

"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

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 -

"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.

"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

"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