"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ...


N2EY wrote:
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;

Why not? That's all that most of the anticodetest petitions are asking
for.
Both the NCI and NCVEC petitions simply ask for the dropping of Element
1 and
nothing else.

I don't think it can work by "just" dropping the test. Too many loos
ends. Tech plus, novices, that kind of thing.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Actually it would work quite easily. Everyone keeps their current
privileges except that all varieties of Techs are combined to one class of
Tech with the privileges of the Tech with HF.

However, as you know I think they ought to keep the code test.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

yea, but it's outta here.

Clint

--

More reasons it sucks to be a liberal:

A new study just released shows absolutely NO
decreasing trends in gun related violence after
increasing gun control laws & measures.

--
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


N2EY wrote:
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;

Why not? That's all that most of the anticodetest petitions are asking
for.
Both the NCI and NCVEC petitions simply ask for the dropping of
Element
1 and
nothing else.

I don't think it can work by "just" dropping the test. Too many loos
ends. Tech plus, novices, that kind of thing.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Actually it would work quite easily. Everyone keeps their current
privileges except that all varieties of Techs are combined to one class of
Tech with the privileges of the Tech with HF.

However, as you know I think they ought to keep the code test.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ...


N2EY wrote:

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;

Why not? That's all that most of the anticodetest petitions are asking

for.

Both the NCI and NCVEC petitions simply ask for the dropping of Element

1 and

nothing else.

I don't think it can work by "just" dropping the test. Too many loos
ends. Tech plus, novices, that kind of thing.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually it would work quite easily. Everyone keeps their current
privileges except that all varieties of Techs are combined to one class of
Tech with the privileges of the Tech with HF.

It might be interesting to see if any tech's try out Morse code under
those contitions. Bootstrapping themselves to competence?

However, as you know I think they ought to keep the code test.

Me too, but it's nice to have a discussion that doesn't involve Morse code.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint wrote:





Actually it would work quite easily. Everyone keeps their current
privileges except that all varieties of Techs are combined to one class of
Tech with the privileges of the Tech with HF.



The FCC might require no code techs to do a "paper" upgrade to tech
plus, like they
made pre'87 tech plussers do a paper upgrade to get a general license.
I was one of
these, and decided that I should also upgrade my license to "extra". So
we may see
more new generals happening if the FCC does it this way.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:





Actually it would work quite easily. Everyone keeps their current
privileges except that all varieties of Techs are combined to one class
of
Tech with the privileges of the Tech with HF.



The FCC might require no code techs to do a "paper" upgrade to tech
plus, like they
made pre'87 tech plussers do a paper upgrade to get a general license.
I was one of
these, and decided that I should also upgrade my license to "extra". So
we may see
more new generals happening if the FCC does it this way.


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.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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.

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

"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 , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"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 ...

Maybe. But look at what the UK did. Does the "Morse appreciation" thing used
with the Foundation license really constitute a "test"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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

Maybe. But look at what the UK did. Does the "Morse appreciation" thing
used
with the Foundation license really constitute a "test"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

It's actually called a "Morse Assessment" ... no speed and a "crib sheet" is
allowed IIRC ... the UK RA took a more liberal interpretation ... there
never
was any speed spec'd in the Radio Regs. The FCC took the CYA approach
and used 5 wpm because that was the CEPT limit and we'd been granting
Novices/Techs (some) HF access with 5 wpm for years with no complaints
from the ITU or the international community.

Carl - wk3c

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).