"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Why should the FCC simply grandfather the Tech (no code) to Tech plus
(code
and Novice test) ??

Because the only test difference between a Tech and a post-March-21-1987
Tech
Plus is Element 1

The Tech (no code) has no HF test questions. (as I understand it).

Actually that's not true, The old Novice Q&A was incorporated into the
Tech
pool.

Thus
there is no reason a Tech (no code) would, or should be qualified to
operate
HF.

Tell it to the FCC. A Tech who passes Element 1 gets the same HF privs as
a
Novice or Tech Plus.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks for the update Jim. I haven't bothered with clubs or being a VE for
a while now.

Sounds like the question pool folks are, so to speak, planning ahead.. hi.

Dan/W4NTI

But it would be almost exactly what ARRL asked for 5 years ago, when they
proposed that Techs get HF CW privs.

The "Tech-with-HF" semi-class is a classic designed-by-a-committee confuser. If
a Tech passes 5 wpm code, but doesn't upgrade, he/she gets HF Novice privs for
as long as he/she holds onto the Element 1 CSCE. But said CSCE can't be used
for Element 1 credit after 365 days.

OTOH, an expired Novice or Tech-with-code license document of any vintage is
good for Element 1 credit. Pre-March-21-1987 expired Tech licenses are also
good for Element 3 credit.

So someone who passed the 5 wpm code test in front of a single volunteer
examiner 50+ years ago and got a Novice or Tech license as a result gets credit
for Element 1, but someone who took the test 366 days ago gets no credit ofr
their CSCE.

And an expired-beyond-grace-period General, Advanced or Extra license gets no
credit at all.

Anyone think having the amateur license test/class regs make sense is a
priority to FCC?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Likely some non-ham brearucrat had to write these rules. Said person
probably
didn't understand that someone who had a general or extra license had to
pass
a higher speed code test, which in turn qualifies them to do 5WPM. He
probably
though copying 5WPM was completely different than 13 or 20 (in a sense it is
a bit different but not enough to disqualify someone for 5).

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

Even a paper upgrade would be unnecessary since the category of Tech Plus
does not exist anymore. These days Techs who pass the code must keep a
copy
of their code CSCE to prove it in case they are ever questioned.
Currently
when Tech Plus licensees renew, their license simply says Tech and they
should keep a copy of their expired Tech Plus to show they passed the
code.
All that the FCC would need to do is issue a ruling that all Techs have
the
same privileges as the old Tech Plus or Tech with code. The result is
that
they would no longer need to keep a copy of their code CSCE or old Tech
Plus
license.

Yep, they could do that easily.

But it would be almost exactly what ARRL asked for 5 years ago, when they
proposed that Techs get HF CW privs.

But the FCC couldn't grant that because of the (now gone) ITU requirement
that
one pass a Morse test BEFORE getting on HF ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

LOL! Nobody Loses + No Giveaways = No Change!

'zactly.

Don't count it out.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Dick Carroll wrote:

Then there is the very strong possibility, given the wording of FCC
documents and statements of staff,--

**wording which NCI members choose to interpret as stating intent to
totally do away with code testing, but which doesn't say that at all**

--that they may NOT drop element one at all, and instead grant
low band HF access to one or more of the current lower grades of license
which now have none. That's a totally justifiable position, the no-code
mantra aside.


Further, the fact has recently surfaced that the UK did exactly this
instead of completely dropping code testing, as was so widely
and loudly stated by NCI members.

It's just not mandatory anymore.

UK issues issue code-tested licenses, and the word is that a majority
of UK hams prefer to take those tests, and qualify as code-licensed hams
with a callsign issued that indicates that fact.

If they want to - but they don't have to.

Perhaps there's a possibility there - have code tests, but have them be
non-mandatory. Perhaps 1x2 calls could be reserved....

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

N2EY wrote:

The "Tech-with-HF" semi-class is a classic designed-by-a-committee
confuser.


Old engineer pal of mine used to say "An elephant is a horse designed by
a committee."


Heard that one many times - also:

"An elephant is a mouse designed to meet military specifications"

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[snip]

One of the big problems is the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall"
paradigm.

The NCI and NCVEC Petitions are "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall"
propositions ... since a tech now gets HF privs if he/she passes a 5 wpm
code test, the elimination of the test would not be a "windfall" if all
techs got the same privs as the old "TechPlus" ...

Everything else stays the same.

Yup. And so we wind up with a continuation of the VHF/UHF heavy, HF/MF light
entry level setup that is an artifact of the old S25.5.

Note there is NOTHING in the NCI (or NCVEC) petition about any form
of restriction of Morse use, any expansion of the phone bands at the expense
of Morse (or other digital mode) use, etc.

In the case of NCI, that's "outside the charter". And NCI has promised to cease
to exist when code testing goes. Which means that if/when Element 1 disappears,
NCI's USA chapter will simply go away as an organization trying to change FCC
rules..

In the case of NCVEC, there may be more petitions and proposals. They have
already hinted at same.

All bets are off if it can be shown or even argued that the new Tech Q&A pool
is responsible for the recent dropoff in new Techs. (See AH0A site for exact
numbers.)


I think these proposals fully meet the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall"
paradigm.

Some would say that getting full privileges with no code test was a windfall,
but I'm not gonna go there....

Main point is that between those two constrainsts, very little change in the
writtens or basic structure is possible.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[snip]

One of the big problems is the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall"
paradigm.

The NCI and NCVEC Petitions are "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall"
propositions ... since a tech now gets HF privs if he/she passes a 5 wpm
code test, the elimination of the test would not be a "windfall" if all
techs got the same privs as the old "TechPlus" ...

Everything else stays the same.

Yup. And so we wind up with a continuation of the VHF/UHF heavy, HF/MF
light
entry level setup that is an artifact of the old S25.5.

I doubt that ... I expect that a very large percentage of techs will rapidly
upgrade to at least general, if not extra, once the code test is gone.

The idea of "eliminate the code test and give techs "techplus" privs is
logical, takes nothing away from anyone, and gives nobody a "freebie."

Note there is NOTHING in the NCI (or NCVEC) petition about any form
of restriction of Morse use, any expansion of the phone bands at the
expense
of Morse (or other digital mode) use, etc.

In the case of NCI, that's "outside the charter". And NCI has promised to
cease
to exist when code testing goes. Which means that if/when Element 1
disappears,
NCI's USA chapter will simply go away as an organization trying to change
FCC
rules.

NCI will exist until Morse testing is gone worldwide, but you're right,
we'll have
nothing to do in the US once the FCC eliminates Morse testing for all
classes of
license.

In the case of NCVEC, there may be more petitions and proposals. They have
already hinted at same.

I'm not part of that group, so I can't speak for them ... if they file a
petition
seeking to water down the writtens or expand the phone bands, I'll oppose
it vigorously (personally).

I think these proposals fully meet the "nobody loses/nobody gets a
windfall"
paradigm.

Some would say that getting full privileges with no code test was a
windfall,
but I'm not gonna go there....

The governments of the world don't seem to hold that view, so you'd be
up against the "heavy hitters."

Main point is that between those two constrainsts, very little change in
the
writtens or basic structure is possible.

And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate.
Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is
"top." I don't see anything wrong with that ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

When they drop the morse code test requirement, it's
fairly clear to me they just won't "drop" it all by
itself with a stroke of an administrative pen; I imagine it
will accompany other changes in the license structure...
what do you think will also change in the licensing
system when the drop the morse code test?

Clint
KB5ZHT

In other words, will they (the FCC) dumb the licensing process down
further, to the point where it reaches your level? Perhaps. If not,
sorry about your luck!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


I would like to see the tests a little more in depth (note I don't say
harder) with more operation questions. Perhaps even a post-test booklet
with good operating procedures. I really needed this after passing my
general. I had some small HF experience from contesting with the club,
but contesting etiquette and everyday etiquette are two very different
things.

My biggest hope is that we take the time to make a good system, and not

come up with some Byzantine mess.

Mike:

I think that the most likely scenario is that they will do as you suggest,
and distill it down to two license classes, General and Extra. All current
Techs would be "grandfathered" to the General class, and the Extra will
remain the same, sans Element 1(a). This would be the easiest change
to accomplish from an administrative standpoint, and they wouldn't have
to even bother renaming the remaining license classes, which would only
risk causing resentment among current Extras. There could be, at most,
a requirement for current Techs to pass another written element, but the
grandfathering would be an easier fix.

I'd also look for them to pre-empt future petitions to increase voice
spectrum by the conversion of the current Novice/tech sub-bands to
include that mode. I do not expect the overall licensing requirements
to be made "harder" in any way, since that would only raise objections
from the knuckle-draggers and the subsequent petitions which that
would produce.

The FCC's goal, obviously, is to get as much of the administrative
burden of the ARS licensing system off their backs as possible, so I
look for them to do just that.

73 de Larry, K3LT