RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   Yet another petition submitted (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27319-yet-another-petition-submitted.html)

Alun February 21st 04 08:20 PM

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

The FAR is an organisation that raises money for college scholarships
to be paid to licenced hams.


This isn't them. It has six members. Look on eham.net under the
discussion about the ARRL being representative.

That said, do you know what's in their petition. I am curious.


It's 59 pages but it boils down to this, in no particular order:

- Three license classes: Tech, General, Extra. Basically the same test
requirements as today (including 5 wpm code for General and Extra)

- No change to General or Extra privs

- Novices get upgraded to Tech, Advanceds get upgraded to Extra, both
for free (no test).

- Techs and Tech Pluses merge, get all same privileges as listed below

- Techs retain all VHF/UHF

- Techs get 100W PEP on HF on parts of 160, 80, 40, 15 and 10. CW/data
on all those bands, 'phone on 160, 10 and 15.

Basically, they dropped the code test for Tech Plus privileges, added
data on the CW parts, and added a bit of 160 and 15 meter 'phone. Much
less HF than the ARRL proposal, and you need a Tech to get it.

I think the proposal is on AG4RQ's website.

73 de Jim, N2EY




Doesn't sound a likely prosepect

Alun February 21st 04 08:25 PM

(Hans K0HB) wrote in
m:

(N2EY) wrote


And K0HB hasn't even submitted his proposal.


Yes he has.

So we're not even close to an NPRM yet...


How did you reach that conclusion, oh great Imperial Pontificator?
FCC can issue an NPRM without considering input from ARRL, K0HB, or
Donald Duck.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Electric Smoke


The first 14 petitions came in very quickly. The League's was late, but
will at least get read because of who they are. I think we can effectively
discount any further petitions, the FCC will just give them a quick glance.
So an NPRM may not be long in coming.

I guess my date in the pool will probably turn out to be too early, as it
doesn't allow enough time for comments on the NPRM. I will make one more
predicition, though, Element 1 will not survive the process.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Bill Sohl February 21st 04 09:49 PM


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

The FAR is an organisation that raises money for college scholarships to

be
paid to licenced hams.


This isn't them. It has six members. Look on eham.net under the discussion
about the ARRL being representative.

That said, do you know what's in their petition. I am curious.


It's 59 pages but it boils down to this, in no particular order:

- Three license classes: Tech, General, Extra. Basically the same test
requirements as today (including 5 wpm code for General and Extra)

- No change to General or Extra privs

- Novices get upgraded to Tech, Advanceds get upgraded to Extra, both for

free
(no test).

- Techs and Tech Pluses merge, get all same privileges as listed below

- Techs retain all VHF/UHF

- Techs get 100W PEP on HF on parts of 160, 80, 40, 15 and 10. CW/data on

all
those bands, 'phone on 160, 10 and 15.

Basically, they dropped the code test for Tech Plus privileges, added data

on
the CW parts, and added a bit of 160 and 15 meter 'phone. Much less HF

than the
ARRL proposal, and you need a Tech to get it.

I think the proposal is on AG4RQ's website.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I believe it also proposes NO public question pools and
a 10 day waiting period before retesting a failed element.

Neither of these are likly at all. With the internet today, questions
will become public regardless of any effort to not publish them and
as for a waiting period on retesting, I can see no "same day"
retesting, but anything beyond that becomes an administrative
pain in the butt for VECs and FCC.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK




William February 21st 04 10:10 PM

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

Well I read on qrz and eham where another petition has been submitted.


Me too, some outfit called the Foundation for Amateur Radio or some such. Six
members. I wrote a comparison of their proposal and the ARRL one......

If
people want to delay whatever ruling the FCC finally issues that's probably
the most effective way to do it.


bwaahaahaa

If I haven't lost count, that's 16 petitions.


That agrees with my count.

Neither the ARRL nor the FAR petition has an RM number yet. And K0HB hasn't
even submitted his proposal. So we're not even close to an NPRM yet...

Just like the '60s all over again.


I remember it well. I turned two in 1960.

A pile of proposals - watch FCC pick a bit
of this and a bit of that and make nobody happy.

Maybe I should do a proposal....

73 de Jim, N2EY


You absolutely should. I'd enjoy seeing a PCTA propose the theory
that a Morse Code Exam is a disincentive to the use of CW on HF.

Colnel BeltSander February 21st 04 11:32 PM

Yeah, most hams being retired old tightwads
who know everything an have nothing better to do
you know....


"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...
Well I read on qrz and eham where another petition has been submitted.

If
people want to delay whatever ruling the FCC finally issues that's

probably
the most effective way to do it. If I haven't lost count, that's 16
petitions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



N2EY February 22nd 04 01:02 AM

In article , Alun
writes:

I think the proposal is on AG4RQ's website.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Doesn't sound a likely prosepect


The FISTS proposal has more of a chance, I think.

It will be interesting to see when/if all these proposals get RM numbers and
how long it is before FCC does the NPRM thing. Perhaps we need another pool!

73 de Jim, N2EY



N2EY February 22nd 04 01:02 AM

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

I think the proposal is on AG4RQ's website.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I believe it also proposes NO public question pools and
a 10 day waiting period before retesting a failed element.


You are correct, sir! Thanks for the reminder.

Neither of these are likly at all.


The 10 day wait is possible but not likely. How could it be enforced?

With the internet today, questions
will become public regardless of any effort to not publish them


Agreed. All it would take is one VE who wanted to make them public.

Also, someone would have to rewrite the entire existing Q&A pools. Who is going
to bell that cat?

and
as for a waiting period on retesting, I can see no "same day"
retesting, but anything beyond that becomes an administrative
pain in the butt for VECs and FCC.


FCC won't do it.

The only way I could see it happening would be for there to be
some sort of "clearinghouse" where all the VEs would send their
records for comparison. The clearinghouse would keep the last
10-11 days' worth of records and look for the same person taking
the same test less than 10 days apart, and pass it on to FCC.

Sun will rise in the west on the day that happens!

What *could* be implemented is "no retest at the same VE session" but that's
about it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY February 22nd 04 01:02 AM

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote


And K0HB hasn't even submitted his proposal.


Yes he has.


Formally or as a comment?

So we're not even close to an NPRM yet...


How did you reach that conclusion, oh great Imperial Pontificator?


The same way you don't.

FCC can issue an NPRM without considering input from ARRL, K0HB, or
Donald Duck.


Sure - but they haven't. And there's no hurry.

73 de Jim, N2EY



Robert Casey February 22nd 04 06:55 AM

N2EY wrote:


What *could* be implemented is "no retest at the same VE session" but that's
about it.



That would be surfficient enough of a rule change. Some VEs arrange
things where
the guy who registers the testees and takes the fees leaves before the
tests come out.
So it isn't possible to reregister and pay another fee at the same
session.


Bill Sohl February 22nd 04 07:21 AM


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

The FAR is an organisation that raises money for college scholarships to

be
paid to licenced hams.


This isn't them. It has six members. Look on eham.net under the discussion
about the ARRL being representative.

That said, do you know what's in their petition. I am curious.


It's 59 pages but it boils down to this, in no particular order:

- Three license classes: Tech, General, Extra. Basically the same test
requirements as today (including 5 wpm code for General and Extra)

(SNIP)

I just read the proposal. Much of the code retention argument
is the same as was raised and dismissed by the FCC in
the R&O for 98-143...howvever, there is a section
21 that I have no clue what they are talking about. It reads:

"21. Finally, it should be noted that by removing the Morse
radiotelegraphy requirements from the General Class and
Amateur Extra Class licenses, the Commission would be
creating the groundwork for a socially divisive caste system
within the Amateur Service - the 'no-codes' versus the
'know-codes'. To some degree, this is already a fact in
some circles. Amateur radio, by its very nature, is a very
social pursuit. However, by removing telegraphy from the
requirements of the General Class and Amateur Extra
Class licenses as petitioned by some in the community,
the Commission is potentially embarking upon a mission
that is virtually guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare." End of Quoted material

What does dropping code testing for General or
Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare."

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

What am I missing here?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com