|
FCC taking Comments on RM-10787 No Code Elimination
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
Enter in the number RM-10787, fill out the address information and upload or type in your comments on the elimination of morse code testing as a requirement to operate on HF. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ ...it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people's minds. --Samuel Adams |
"Keith" wrote in message nk.net... http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Enter in the number RM-10787, fill out the address information and upload or type in your comments on the elimination of morse code testing as a requirement to operate on HF. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ ..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people's minds. --Samuel Adams Thank you so much Keith, here is what I sent. ************************************** I think the total ellimination of the Morse Code (CW) requirement will prove detrimental to the Amateur Radio Service. I believe it will make it so easy for trash to get into the ARS that it will eventually sound like CB Radio. The testing has already been reduced to multiple guess. The CW test is a ten question joke. In general you should NOT reduce the requirements ANY MORE. I base my comments on over 40 years as a FCC licensed Amateur Radio Operater, I presently hold a pre give away EXTRA class license. Thank You for your time. Daniel L. Jeswald W4NTI |
Yep, Sounds like another one of those maggots that want the bands to
be given to someone else. Thats what happens when the bands are quiet. The FCC gives them to another radio service. So I guess he would have his Extra Class with a few less bands to operate soon instead of letting other legit hams use the band to save it. I will be here in a few years to hear you complain about the loss of your bands. Bye for now! On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:12:40 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote: "Keith" wrote in message ink.net... http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Enter in the number RM-10787, fill out the address information and upload or type in your comments on the elimination of morse code testing as a requirement to operate on HF. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ ..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people's minds. --Samuel Adams Thank you so much Keith, here is what I sent. ************************************** I think the total ellimination of the Morse Code (CW) requirement will prove detrimental to the Amateur Radio Service. I believe it will make it so easy for trash to get into the ARS that it will eventually sound like CB Radio. The testing has already been reduced to multiple guess. The CW test is a ten question joke. In general you should NOT reduce the requirements ANY MORE. I base my comments on over 40 years as a FCC licensed Amateur Radio Operater, I presently hold a pre give away EXTRA class license. Thank You for your time. Daniel L. Jeswald W4NTI |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message news:I%v3b.21989 I believe it will make it so easy for trash to get into the ARS that it will eventually sound like CB Radio. It's already so easy for trash to get in and turn it into CB radio. WA8ULX is the poster BOY for proof of this claim! 73 |
Keith wrote:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Enter in the number RM-10787, fill out the address information and upload or type in your comments on the elimination of morse code testing as a requirement to operate on HF. To see the petition for rule making, go to: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6514683 821 I did that so I could see what I'd be commenting on, and be able to make a sensible comment. |
Hans:
I am curious why you want the two year "no upgrade" period. I would think such a rule would greatly reduce the appeal of ham radio. It certainly would have caused me to spend my time, effort, and money on another hobby. 73 Paul AB0SI "Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:c4a6771678b5a0221f9271fbee325279.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... "Keith" wrote The "Class B" license would have an entry-level test (basic regulations, safety, operating procedures, basic DC and AC electronics). This class would have full frequency and mode privileges, power limited to 50W output. The license would be issued for a period of 10 years, and be non-renewable. Holders of this license would be required to have 2 years experience as a licensee ("time in grade") before being eligible to upgrade to "Class A". |
Code is dieing, let it do so with some dignity.
"Trs1" wrote in message ... Yep, Sounds like another one of those maggots that want the bands to be given to someone else. Thats what happens when the bands are quiet. The FCC gives them to another radio service. So I guess he would have his Extra Class with a few less bands to operate soon instead of letting other legit hams use the band to save it. I will be here in a few years to hear you complain about the loss of your bands. Bye for now! On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:12:40 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote: "Keith" wrote in message ink.net... http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Enter in the number RM-10787, fill out the address information and upload or type in your comments on the elimination of morse code testing as a requirement to operate on HF. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ ..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people's minds. --Samuel Adams Thank you so much Keith, here is what I sent. ************************************** I think the total ellimination of the Morse Code (CW) requirement will prove detrimental to the Amateur Radio Service. I believe it will make it so easy for trash to get into the ARS that it will eventually sound like CB Radio. The testing has already been reduced to multiple guess. The CW test is a ten question joke. In general you should NOT reduce the requirements ANY MORE. I base my comments on over 40 years as a FCC licensed Amateur Radio Operater, I presently hold a pre give away EXTRA class license. Thank You for your time. Daniel L. Jeswald W4NTI |
" wrote
Hans: I am curious why you want the two year "no upgrade" period. I would think such a rule would greatly reduce the appeal of ham radio. It certainly would have caused me to spend my time, effort, and money on another hobby. For the same reason that the army doesn't let you "test" directly to First Sargent from Recruit. My proposal gives FULL privileges at very modest (but not QRP) power levels so that a newcomer can learn the ropes right alongside experienced operators, but at power levels which are safer and also less likely to trash the band if they overdrive, mistune, or run defective gear, or make other "newbie" mistakes. This bears notice --- my proposal doesn't "ghetto-ize" the newcomer to a few little slices of the band like the current Novice/Tech+ allocations, so the "lack of appeal" isn't restricted operating privileges, but only a modest power level (and the requirement to upgrade within 10 years). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Keith wrote in message ink.net...
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Enter in the number RM-10787, fill out the address information and upload or type in your comments on the elimination of morse code testing as a requirement to operate on HF. Thanks Keith, Comments submitted. I hope the FCC is in listening mode. :-) -- 73 de Bert WA2SI Egbert C. Craig, Jr. August 29, 2003 WA2SI Re. RM-10787 To whom it may concern: Undoubtedly, there will be many comments filed re. this petition. Therefore, I will be brief and to the point. Although I am not new to radio and earned my GROL long before my amateur radio license, I am a relative newcomer to amateur radio. As such, I feel that I can offer an alternative view to many of the "old timers." I believe that there is still a very important place for minimal Morse code proficiency testing in U.S. amateur radio licensing. I've been told that "proficiency" is the technically correct term, however, I do not feel 5-wpm represents Morse proficiency. I feel that the current 5-wpm Element 1 test is sufficient to require an individual to learn the Morse characters so that s/he may then make an educated decision as to whether or not s/he wishes to pursue CW further. I would like to dispel two myths that I have repeatedly heard/read in the argument for dropping Element 1: · The current Element 1 test acts as a filter to keep out Cbers and other "insufficiently-dedicated" individuals. · The current Element 1 test acts as a deterrent to newcomers to the hobby/service. Along with being an amateur radio "newbie," I am also a Cber and Element 1 did not deter me in any way, shape, or form from upgrading my license class and earning HF privileges. If during the course of reviewing the comments filed re. RM-10787, this demographic is referred to while supporting the removal of Element 1, please do not include me. This "newbie" wholeheartedly supports the retention of Element 1 testing for the General and Extra license class licenses. In closing, I would also like to remind those who believe that Morse code testing serves no "regulatory purpose" in amateur radio that there is an intangible quality at stake here too. It is part of our culture and tradition and therefore should not be removed from the curriculum. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Egbert C. Craig, Jr. WA2SI |
K0HB wrote:
My proposal gives FULL privileges at very modest (but not QRP) power levels so that a newcomer can learn the ropes right alongside experienced operators, but at power levels which are safer and also less likely to trash the band if they overdrive, mistune, or run defective gear, or make other "newbie" mistakes. Sounds good to me. Your proposal was a lot more intelligently written than mine. And just an FYI, I've worked all continents on PSK31 with less than 50w output, so it's not going to seriously handicap an operator. In fact, it'll probably teach them to operate better because they won't have higher power to compensate for inexperience. This bears notice --- my proposal doesn't "ghetto-ize" the newcomer to a few little slices of the band like the current Novice/Tech+ allocations, so the "lack of appeal" isn't restricted operating privileges, but only a modest power level (and the requirement to upgrade within 10 years). I like it, and the beauty of it is that the NCVEC proposal, if adopted, doesn't preclude this kind of modification later. 73 de K0OOK -- Pat in Lewisville K0OOK '97 XLH 883 (Rocinante) BS#140 EKIII rides with me http://www.pat-st-jean.com/~stjeanp All things Pat http://www.pat-st-jean.com/products.html Software for paper money collectors |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:c4a6771678b5a0221f9271fbee325279.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
.. . . . B. Status of current licensees. Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would retain their current operating privileges. Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class licensees could up grade to ?Class A? at any time. Respectfully submitted, H. Hans Brakob, K0HB Overall not bad Hans although I don't agree with the two year apprenticeship, I think one year would be adequate. The one year "statute of limitations" certainly worked for us early 75W Novices and many of us were fully up to speed in much less than a year. w3(c)rv |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"Brian" wrote Paul, since the only apparent privelege difference in the two proposed license classes is 50W, and you could operate any amateur frequency in any mode, why would that deter you from the ARS? Brian "gets it" !!!! 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get. Paul gave an opinion that I didn't understand, so I asked a question. Perhaps Paul requires "Extra right out of the box" and cannot be bothered with "lesser" licenses. Until he replies, we'll never know. |
Keith wrote in message ink.net...
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Enter in the number RM-10787, fill out the address information and upload or type in your comments on the elimination of morse code testing as a requirement to operate on HF. Keith, I've been unable to find the FCC RM-10787 on their site. Could you post it here? Thanks, Brian/N0iMD |
Amateur radio is a technical hobby,
When did that happen? Not as of recent Im sure. |
"Vshah101" wrote
This is just wrong. Seems right to me, so that's what I recommended to the FCC. But of course you are certainly free to make a different recommendation to the FCC, but they don't read rrap. If your recommendation is more persuasive than mine then yours will be adopted and mine will go in the bit bucket. So tell the FCC, don't whine to me. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
"Brian" wrote
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org... Brian "gets it" !!!! 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get. Damn, Brian, I pay you a compliment and you still get in my case. What's with that? With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
"Hans Kohb" wrote in message news:106783d18499657e7c4c6906b22e7bf5.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"Brian" wrote "Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org... Brian "gets it" !!!! 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get. Damn, Brian, I pay you a compliment and you still get in my case. What's with that? With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB Hans, I didn't mean it that way. I reread my post and see it was a bit short. Sorry. |
"Brian" wrote in message
m... "Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org... "Brian" wrote Paul, since the only apparent privelege difference in the two proposed license classes is 50W, and you could operate any amateur frequency in any mode, why would that deter you from the ARS? Brian "gets it" !!!! 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get. Paul gave an opinion that I didn't understand, so I asked a question. Perhaps Paul requires "Extra right out of the box" and cannot be bothered with "lesser" licenses. Until he replies, we'll never know. I missed your first message asking "why would that deter you from the ARS?" Sorry. Being new to all this (licensed in October of 2001), it is easy for me to remember my thoughts and feelings prior to being licensed. Here is why it would have deterred me: 1) Seeing "real" hams being able to run 1500 watts while only being able to run 50 watts. I would have KNOWN (it doesn't have to be true, I still would have KNOWN it) that I never would have been able to make a contact. 2) Being treated as a second class citizen -- the Rookie League is not a fun place to be 3) Basic congenital problem with Time-In-Grade approach. (Please note, I would not have had a problem with serious theory/operating practice tests as opposed to the actual Elements 2,3, and 4. I won't have passed them all, I am sure, but I would not have had a problem with approach.). Of the above, number 3 would have been the most important to me, I think. Now that I am licensed, I seldom put out more than 75 watts. Yes, I have an amplifier, but I checked my log and see that I haven't had it on since early June (honest). So, experience has showed me how silly 1) above is -- that does not, however, change how I felt in my pre-licensed days. I am sure that I am an odd duck -- I never even heard a QSO until after I was licensed (the purest Extra Lite in captivity). I can understand and accept people thinking that anyone as ignorant as me should not have been granted full privileges. At no time did I say that I DESERVED such privileges -- only that the suggested two class system would have deterred me from entering this great hobby -- perhaps rightly so. As a purely practical matter, if an approach similar to yours came into existence, I would suggest a 100 watt limit rather than 50 watts. Given that the vast majority of modern transceivers run 100 watts output, enforcing a 50 watt maximum would be problematical at best. 73 Paul AB0SI |
" wrote in message . net...
"Brian" wrote in message m... "Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org... "Brian" wrote Paul, since the only apparent privelege difference in the two proposed license classes is 50W, and you could operate any amateur frequency in any mode, why would that deter you from the ARS? Brian "gets it" !!!! 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get. Paul gave an opinion that I didn't understand, so I asked a question. Perhaps Paul requires "Extra right out of the box" and cannot be bothered with "lesser" licenses. Until he replies, we'll never know. I missed your first message asking "why would that deter you from the ARS?" Sorry. Being new to all this (licensed in October of 2001), it is easy for me to remember my thoughts and feelings prior to being licensed. Here is why it would have deterred me: 1) Seeing "real" hams being able to run 1500 watts while only being able to run 50 watts. I would have KNOWN (it doesn't have to be true, I still would have KNOWN it) that I never would have been able to make a contact. I cannot understand that. All the amateur literature is chock full of examples of QRP operations where worldwide contacts take place using mere milliwatts. FWIW, I've never run more than 100 watts from my home station on HF. 2) Being treated as a second class citizen -- the Rookie League is not a fun place to be Tell me about it, but I think the times have changed. Lotsa OF's here are whimsical about their rookie days. But you didn't start as an Extra, did you? In 1987 when I became a ham, we were called Novices. We were shuttled to bands of little or no CW activity (ghettos) to somehow learn from each other. There was little or no activity at the tail end of the Novice Era. Technician was the consolation prize for passing the General exam but flunking the 13 wpm code. Today, Technician is the starting point, and I don't consider the label Technician to be the equivalent of "Rookie League." Novice, however, always smacked of "Rookie." With Hans proposal, the new hams are mainstreamed and can easily learn from some highly seasoned operators. 3) Basic congenital problem with Time-In-Grade approach. (Please note, I would not have had a problem with serious theory/operating practice tests as opposed to the actual Elements 2,3, and 4. I won't have passed them all, I am sure, but I would not have had a problem with approach.). If you're a bright guy and the "serious theory/operating" tests, you would have passed -providing- the QP continues to be published. If not, then you'd find the Extra ranks occupied by mostly electronic technicians and engineers. Of the above, number 3 would have been the most important to me, I think. Now that I am licensed, I seldom put out more than 75 watts. Yes, I have an amplifier, but I checked my log and see that I haven't had it on since early June (honest). I believe you. So, experience has showed me how silly 1) above is -- that does not, however, change how I felt in my pre-licensed days. True. And this is the argument that I use with the current Morse Code exam being administered. It is not Morse Code, it is Farnsworth at 13-15 WPM, not the Morse at the specified 5wpm. The OF's here say that the testee can request the old Morse exam and not take it Farnsworth styled. I say they don't even know the difference, so how could they? I am sure that I am an odd duck -- I never even heard a QSO until after I was licensed (the purest Extra Lite in captivity). Don't fool yourself. There were lots of "Code-Tape Extras" in days gone by. I can understand and accept people thinking that anyone as ignorant as me should not have been granted full privileges. At no time did I say that I DESERVED such privileges -- only that the suggested two class system would have deterred me from entering this great hobby -- perhaps rightly so. As a purely practical matter, if an approach similar to yours came into existence, I would suggest a 100 watt limit rather than 50 watts. Given that the vast majority of modern transceivers run 100 watts output, enforcing a 50 watt maximum would be problematical at best. There are technical reasons that Hans suggested the 50W maximum. Safety. And you'll recall from the exams that you took, that beyond 50W on Ten meters, you'd have to accomplish the calculations for RF safety. 100W would require the safety calculations to be tested as well. That is a clear cut-off/point of distinction to me. To be honest, on HF, the Japanese market is full of 10W transceivers made specifically for their 10W license, and I would not object to 10W being the standard on HF and 50W on VHF+ for the limited license. Given a 50W limit and 100W transceivers being a virtual standard, I can see more than a little room for abuse. But in the great scheme of things, that's a 3db abuse and probably hardly enforceable. 73 Paul AB0SI Paul, you have a good discussion and the most important point was your pre-license days impressions of the service. The ARRL would be wise to pay attention to the image that interested newcomers have to our service/hobby. And the naming of the license class is but one argument that has been discussed here previously. 73, Brian |
"Brian" wrote in message om... " wrote in message . net... 1) Seeing "real" hams being able to run 1500 watts while only being able to run 50 watts. I would have KNOWN (it doesn't have to be true, I still would have KNOWN it) that I never would have been able to make a contact. I cannot understand that. All the amateur literature is chock full of examples of QRP operations where worldwide contacts take place using mere milliwatts. Please pardon the large deletetions, but the message was geting l-o-n-g. grin I always assume anyone "pushing" an activilty is doing so through rose-colored glasses. The ARRL obviously wants new hams. The ARRL telling me I could "work the world" with a few watts was taken with a kilo or three of salt. Interstingly enough (well, to me, at least), the inforamtion on QRP I read only reinforced this. It seemed that QRP was the Gold Standard -- so telling me that one could do all sorts of great things at low power was equivilent as tellig me that Tiger Woods can hit straight drives 350 yards. That's nice -- but what does it have to do with me? If my thoughts about this were at all typical, we have to do a better job of educating and convincing maybe-wanna-bes. I admit that I have no idea if my concerns here weere typical or not. I came from a totally non-technical background. The idea that I could talk around the world on less power than used by the bulb in my reading lamp was impossible to accept. 2) Being treated as a second class citizen -- the Rookie League is not a fun place to be Tell me about it, but I think the times have changed. Lotsa OF's here are whimsical about their rookie days. Ya, well, folks talk fondly of their boot camp days, too. grin. But you didn't start as an Extra, did you? Yes, I did. If I was offered the opportunity for full previldges, it seemed silly not to take advantage of the opportunity. The attraction of ham radio was working the world, so entering as a Technician simply didn't appeal to me. I studied code as well as General and Extra material (The Tech exam didn't require any study -- one can pass that with simple common sense. A fair number of the questions seem the equivilent to "Someone is using your favoirte frequency. You should: A) Crank up the power and blast the bozo B) Report him to Homeland Security C) Find a free frequency D) Vote Republican"). In 1987 when I became a ham, we were called Novices. We were shuttled to bands of little or no CW activity (ghettos) to somehow learn from each other. There was little or no activity at the tail end of the Novice Era. Technician was the consolation prize for passing the General exam but flunking the 13 wpm code. Today, Technician is the starting point, and I don't consider the label Technician to be the equivalent of "Rookie League." Novice, however, always smacked of "Rookie." See above for my comments. With Hans proposal, the new hams are mainstreamed and can easily learn from some highly seasoned operators. Most hams I have met on the air have been remarkably considerate and friendly. The bozo to human ratio is lower (MUCH lower) here than in my other hobby of tournament bridge. Unfortunately, the ratio is not nearly as good in some of the ham newsgroups (this group included, I am afraid). I started reading all the rec.radio.amateur newsgroups as soon as I become interested in ham radio. Without exaggeration, I came very close to discarding the idea of getting my license because of some of the attitudes I saw here. I think this might be a more serious problem in hurting recruiting than is realized. Ditto the forums on QRZ, EHAM, et al. 3) Basic congenital problem with Time-In-Grade approach. (Please note, I would not have had a problem with serious theory/operating practice tests as opposed to the actual Elements 2,3, and 4. I won't have passed them all, I am sure, but I would not have had a problem with approach.). If you're a bright guy and the "serious theory/operating" tests, you would have passed -providing- the QP continues to be published. If not, then you'd find the Extra ranks occupied by mostly electronic technicians and engineers. Unless the deregulation mania passes, Question Pools are going to continue. If the idea is focussed on learning, I can not think of a worse approach. My goal, I admit, was passing the Elements -- the QP made it clear to me that the ONLY purpose of the Elements was to pass them and forget them. I do disagree with you, Brian, that one would need to be an EE to pass a meaningful Extra exam. Of the above, number 3 would have been the most important to me, I think. Now that I am licensed, I seldom put out more than 75 watts. Yes, I have an amplifier, but I checked my log and see that I haven't had it on since early June (honest). I believe you. So, experience has showed me how silly 1) above is -- that does not, however, change how I felt in my pre-licensed days. True. And this is the argument that I use with the current Morse Code exam being administered. It is not Morse Code, it is Farnsworth at 13-15 WPM, not the Morse at the specified 5wpm. The OF's here say that the testee can request the old Morse exam and not take it Farnsworth styled. I say they don't even know the difference, so how could they? Intersting. I didn't know that was an option. I am sure that I am an odd duck -- I never even heard a QSO until after I was licensed (the purest Extra Lite in captivity). Don't fool yourself. There were lots of "Code-Tape Extras" in days gone by. I can understand and accept people thinking that anyone as ignorant as me should not have been granted full privileges. At no time did I say that I DESERVED such privileges -- only that the suggested two class system would have deterred me from entering this great hobby -- perhaps rightly so. As a purely practical matter, if an approach similar to yours came into existence, I would suggest a 100 watt limit rather than 50 watts. Given that the vast majority of modern transceivers run 100 watts output, enforcing a 50 watt maximum would be problematical at best. There are technical reasons that Hans suggested the 50W maximum. Safety. And you'll recall from the exams that you took, that beyond 50W on Ten meters, you'd have to accomplish the calculations for RF safety. 100W would require the safety calculations to be tested as well. That is a clear cut-off/point of distinction to me. Ten meters? Oh ya, I remember 10 meters from the good old days of last summer when it was open. grin Silly jokes aside, I understand and appreciate the safety consideration. An excllent point. To be honest, on HF, the Japanese market is full of 10W transceivers made specifically for their 10W license, and I would not object to 10W being the standard on HF and 50W on VHF+ for the limited license. Also intersting. Perhaps the same would happen here if Hans' proposal became operative. If so, it would certainly make sense. Given a 50W limit and 100W transceivers being a virtual standard, I can see more than a little room for abuse. But in the great scheme of things, that's a 3db abuse and probably hardly enforceable. 73 Paul AB0SI Paul, you have a good discussion and the most important point was your pre-license days impressions of the service. The ARRL would be wise to pay attention to the image that interested newcomers have to our service/hobby. And the naming of the license class is but one argument that has been discussed here previously. 73, Brian Thanks for the interesting exchange. 73, Paul |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
"Hans K0HB" wrote: in message news:c4a6771678b5a0221f9271fbee325279.128005@myga te.mailgate.org... .. . . . B. Status of current licensees. Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would retain their current operating privileges. Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class licensees could up grade to ?Class A? at any time. Respectfully submitted, H. Hans Brakob, K0HB A very well thought out and crafted petition, Hans. It makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure that the Commission will go for an indefinite-term license, even though the Comm Act appears to permit the Commission to set terms of licenses by rule for all classes of stations except broadcast stations which is set by statute. Phil, how often does the holder of a GROL have to renew? How long is the renewal term? Thanks, Brian |
"Brian" wrote in message
om... Phil, how often does the holder of a GROL have to renew? How long is the renewal term? Thanks, Brian Hi Brian, I believe I can answer that for you. The GROL is a lifetime license. Once earned, there is no renewal. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message .net...
"Brian" wrote in message om... Phil, how often does the holder of a GROL have to renew? How long is the renewal term? Thanks, Brian Hi Brian, I believe I can answer that for you. The GROL is a lifetime license. Once earned, there is no renewal. Bert, you are correct. |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: I'm not sure that the Commission will go for an indefinite-term license, even though the Comm Act appears to permit the Commission to set terms of licenses by rule for all classes of stations except broadcast stations which is set by statute. Here's a thought: if an operator license has indefinite term, how do SK's ever get reported? In Japan, operator licenses never expire, even if the operator does. So the JA operator license numbers you see are really the number of licenses ever issued, not the number now active or even alive. They can be canceled, I think, but that takes a lot of paperwork proving that the licensee is, in point of fact, actually and quite completely dead. JA station licenses. OTOH, do expire and cost money to renew. Thus the great disparity between operator and station license numbers. Also, when a JA ham upgrades, the old license remains on the records. Imagine if we did that here in the USA. The license totals would be enormous, and constantly growing! Some of us would show up in the tabulations as many as 5 or 6 times. hmmmm.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Pat St. Jean" wrote
Sounds good to me. Your proposal was a lot more intelligently written than mine. Thanks! Hopefully the thrust of it is 'catchy' enough that FCC gives it some considerations. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
Guess that means you need to get on your RUNNING shoes!
With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB No I have no reason to run. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com