|
Wonder how licensing will change...
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 |
Clint wrote:
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? This is the biggest reason that I believe it will take quite a while to remove the Morse test. There will probably be a lot of changes that need to be discussed and made, if the licensing structure is to make any sense. My earlier prediction was 4 years in a "guess the drop time" contest we started earlier in the year. I would guess that we will have either two or three classes, as we do now: The technician license will probably be very similar to what it is now. I don't know that any significant changes will be made. The HF licenses are a much murkier area. If there were to be only two license classes, my wish would be that the testing regimen would be more or less what the Extra is now. But there may be some resistance to that, and it is understandable. There is no reason not to have an entry level HF license similar to the General. I tend toward two license classes, but don't have any strong feelings against three. Testing...... The multiple guess format is probably here to stay. I don't think it is as bad as some say. Reading the answers in a textbook or reading them in multiple choice format is all the same to me. It took me a week of fairly steady study to get ready for the exam. The way they get you to learn is to have a lot of questions, and only test on a few. And as a fairly new Extra, I can say that those answers don't always show up in the same abcd order as they do in the question pools. So you really do have to know an answer. 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 KB3EIA - |
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 What ever the License change will be, the written will become even easier. |
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 imagine it will accompany other changes in the license structure... Only if somebody asks for them. The FCC considered all sorts of proposals 4 years ago and we got what we have now. what do you think will also change in the licensing system when the drop the morse code test? |
|
I figure 3 classes... probably a entry level "no HF" license, and
then 2 licenses that reflect different levels of expressed knowledge, that is, seperate amounts of frequency priviledges. I'd prefer more, but for some reason I feel it will settle to 3.... What WAS a no code tech license will be the equivalent to the new entry level license, what is now the general class will be the middle license, and extra being the "top" license. Personally, I think they should just "drop" the code part of the test and not effect the number of license, keep them the same, or increase them back to what it was before. My $.02 |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message
... What ever the License change will be, the written will become even easier. I don't agree with that. Clint -- -- Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one -- |
"Clint" wrote
what do you think will also change in the licensing system when the drop the morse code test? Go to http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb and click on the link "FCC Comments" in the left column. That describes the most sensible "post-CW-test" structure. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net... Why should the FCC simply grandfather the Tech (no code) to Tech plus (code and Novice test) ?? The Tech (no code) has no HF test questions. (as I understand it). Thus there is no reason a Tech (no code) would, or should be qualified to operate HF. It's a "gimme," Dan. In other words, some may be hoping that by "giving" no-code Technicians an "unearned" slice of HF, it can be called an agreeable compromise to retain Element 1 for the Extra. (Perhaps even the General.) I personally don't think it'll work, but the FCC might go for it. Who knows? -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
It's actually pretty clear, Dan. The big objective here is to lower
the requirements until anyone can qualify at will without needing to complain about how hard it is. That is exactly the way it is working. And heres the Kicker, the next set of Knuckle Draggers are going to complain the written is to HARD. Then we will lower it again. What is amazing is the New Hams think they have done something, by passing a Dumb Down Test. They also think its perfectly OK, and will use any excuse to try and say that they are EQUALS. But anybody with any sense at all will know that it is not TRUE. Its amazing the extent they go thru to try and Justify Dumbing Down, and refuse to admit its Dumbing Down. |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... "Clint" wrote what do you think will also change in the licensing system when the drop the morse code test? Go to http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb and click on the link "FCC Comments" in the left column. That describes the most sensible "post-CW-test" structure. 73, de Hans, K0HB I like that proposal. But its way to simple to be accepted. Maybe the govt could spice it up by slicing up the bands...oh sorry. They already tried that. hi. Dan/W4NTI |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... It's actually pretty clear, Dan. The big objective here is to lower the requirements until anyone can qualify at will without needing to complain about how hard it is. That is exactly the way it is working. And heres the Kicker, the next set of Knuckle Draggers are going to complain the written is to HARD. Then we will lower it again. What is amazing is the New Hams think they have done something, by passing a Dumb Down Test. They also think its perfectly OK, and will use any excuse to try and say that they are EQUALS. But anybody with any sense at all will know that it is not TRUE. Its amazing the extent they go thru to try and Justify Dumbing Down, and refuse to admit its Dumbing Down. Whatcha think Bruce? Are all the 'knuckledraggers' Democrats in training? Dan/W4NTI |
Whatcha think Bruce? Are all the 'knuckledraggers' Democrats in training?
Dan/W4NTI Either in training, or Full Fledged Members. |
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 - |
"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 |
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 |
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: (N2EY) wrote in : 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 imagine it will accompany other changes in the license structure... Only if somebody asks for them. The FCC considered all sorts of proposals 4 years ago and we got what we have now. what do you think will also change in the licensing system when the drop the morse code test? I think you're right, Jim. My guess is that Element 1 will be dropped and all Techs will be given Tech+ priviledges. I don't expect anything else to happen. It's been almost 3 months. I'm convinced FCC had the authority to dump Element 1 soon after WRC 2003 ended. Of course it's not a high priority for them. That's not to say that some reform of the licence classes isn't overdue, but the FCC position is that until there is some sort of consensus they won't do anything about it. See my post to KB3EIA. I doubt we'll ever get consensus due to the "nobody loses/no giveaways" mindset. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Clint wrote: 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? This is the biggest reason that I believe it will take quite a while to remove the Morse test. There will probably be a lot of changes that need to be discussed and made, if the licensing structure is to make any sense. Having the amateur license classes make sense has never been much of a priority to the FCC - at least not for 50 years or so. I still remember getting my first License Manual in 1966 or 67, and discovering that there were six classes of ham license. Interesting system, I thought, lots of steps to climb the ladder to the top. Then I found that four of the six license classes granted all operating privileges. Three of them could only be gotten by mail, and two could only be gotten via FCC examiners .And one of the classes was closed to new entries but those who had 'em could keep on renewing 'em. Huh? Even more mystifying was finding out that things had been that way for more than a dozen years. My earlier prediction was 4 years in a "guess the drop time" contest we started earlier in the year. You may be right. I see three possibilities: 1) FCC just dumps Element 1 and not much else 2) FCC does the whole restructuring thing all over again 3) FCC does nothing at all. (For a few years, anyway). Before you dismiss that last one, note how long some petitions have been hanging fire with the FCC. Like the Novice refarming petitions..... I would guess that we will have either two or three classes, as we do now: The technician license will probably be very similar to what it is now. I don't know that any significant changes will be made. The HF licenses are a much murkier area. That would be unfortunate. The whole idea of VHF/UHF as the entry is an artifact of S25.5. Hundreds of thousands of us started out on HF. All it takes is a little know-how. If there were to be only two license classes, my wish would be that the testing regimen would be more or less what the Extra is now. But there may be some resistance to that, and it is understandable. There is no reason not to have an entry level HF license similar to the General. But note how the number of Techs has dropped off. W5YI has already made statements about the Tech being too difficult for an entry-level license - and that was with the old pool! I tend toward two license classes, but don't have any strong feelings against three. Testing...... The multiple guess format is probably here to stay. Unfortunately true. FCC is certainly going to insist that any test method have one and only one correct answer, and be totally independent of examiner interpretation. I don't think it is as bad as some say. Reading the answers in a textbook or reading them in multiple choice format is all the same to me. It took me a week of fairly steady study to get ready for the exam. The way they get you to learn is to have a lot of questions, and only test on a few. One of the biggest differences between the old and new Tech pools is that the new one is bigger - almost twice the size. And as a fairly new Extra, I can say that those answers don't always show up in the same abcd order as they do in the question pools. So you really do have to know an answer. You only have to know the *right* answer... 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. I'd like to see the test subdivided by subject area so that you could not pass with, say, less than a certain number of safety questions wrong. My biggest hope is that we take the time to make a good system, and not come up with some Byzantine mess. Agreed, but don't count on it. Look at the last restructuring - took almost 2 years, and the end result was a complete hodgepodge. One of the big problems is the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall" paradigm. Even though incentive licensing was reintroduced 35 years ago, the bad feelings that were created by a system that took away existing hams' operating privileges continue. They even continue among some hams who were not even licensed at the time! So demoting anybody will be opposed strongly. OTOH, automatic upgrades (like the 1998 ARRL idea to give Generals to existing Novices and Tech Pluses) will be opposed just as strongly by folks who don't want to see any "giveaways". That kinda limits any cleanup efforts. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 - |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote:
The Tech (no code) has no HF test questions. (as I understand it). Thus there is no reason a Tech (no code) would, or should be qualified to operate HF. Didn't you take the Technician license exam, Dan? If so, you should be able to remember that it does indeed have questions about HF (bands, sub-bands, propagation, operating considerations, code use, and so on). After all, Tech Plus license holders, with limited HF privileges, take the exact same written exam. Some Novice material (also limited HF privileges) was added to the Tech license exam. Remember any of this? Now, what were your reasons again for no-code Techs not being qualified to operate HF? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Why should the FCC simply grandfather the Tech (no code) to Tech plus (code and Novice test) ?? The Tech (no code) has no HF test questions. (as I understand it). Thus there is no reason a Tech (no code) would, or should be qualified to operate HF. As things are now, a no code tech can take the 5WPM element 1 test, and gain access to HF as a novice. Besides, what's *that* different about HF vs VHF (aside from propagation)? One viewpoint would say that all a ham really needs to know a rules and regs, electrical and RF safety issues, some knowledge to judge if a rig is in band and on a desired legal frequency and is not emitting excessive harmonics, and how to handle RFI problems. This because the FCC allows all hams to build, repair and adjust our transmitters. Even novices. I haven't heard of any FCC enforcement actions because of deficient equipment lately. Today it's mostly bozos acting up. |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote: The Tech (no code) has no HF test questions. (as I understand it). Thus there is no reason a Tech (no code) would, or should be qualified to operate HF. Didn't you take the Technician license exam, Dan? If so, you should be able to remember that it does indeed have questions about HF (bands, sub-bands, propagation, operating considerations, code use, and so on). After all, Tech Plus license holders, with limited HF privileges, take the exact same written exam. Some Novice material (also limited HF privileges) was added to the Tech license exam. Remember any of this? Now, what were your reasons again for no-code Techs not being qualified to operate HF? My pre '87 tech license was the General written test. Which obviously had to ask about HF. Aside from propagation, there really is nothing different about HF vs. VHF or UHF. Oh, okay, you don't get to build a 20 element rotatable beam for 80m. Unless you can borrow an aircraft carrier..... |
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. |
Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
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. 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. I think you are wrong .... in the UK, if you pass the amateur exam now you will be issued an "M0" call which in itself does not say you have or have not passed the code test. My call is an old VHF-only and I prefer to keep it, whether I am called "lazy" for not obtaining the code test or not. It's my call since 1994 and I like it! If you wish you can take a code test here and get a pass certificate which you can present in countries that still have the code requirement. To obtain the Foundation Licence (M3 calls) you attend a "Morse appreciation" session - it is not a test. 73 Klaus G7RTI |
"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 |
"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. 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. I think these proposals fully meet the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall" paradigm. 73, Carl - wk3c |
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 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com