Alun wrote in message . ..
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

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




Remind me Jim, what do FISTS propose? Given that they are an organisation
for the promotion of CW, I have trouble beleiving that they would suggest
anything that is actually responsive to the removal of the international CW
test requirement, but I could be wrong(?).

Alun

Alun, please remember that FISTS is an organization that promotes the
fun of morse code use. It was not meant to be a political
organization.

Alun wrote in message . ..

Remind me Jim, what do FISTS propose?

You can read the entire FISTS proposal at:

http://www.fists.org/FIST_FCC_Petition_8-30-303.pdf

It can be summed up in six major points:

1) Techs get Tech Plus HF privileges without a code test (which
effectively merges the two license classes)

2) Techs allowed all digital modes on HF.

3) Extra code test made 12 wpm

4) No retesting at the same VE session

5) Improved written exams (see petition for details)

6) All the rest of the existing rules stay as-is (no free upgrades,
Tech remains entry-level exam, etc.)

The FAR/RAF proposal was obviously written in response to the ARRL
one, and the two of them are much more alike than they are to the
FISTS proposal.

Given that they are an organisation
for the promotion of CW, I have trouble beleiving that they would suggest
anything that is actually responsive to the removal of the international CW
test requirement, but I could be wrong(?).

Note that under the FISTS proposal Techs would not have to take a code
test to get Novice/Tech Plus HF.

Note also that the vast majority of individuals commenting supported
this
proposal, and that agreement among FISTS members was in excess of 98%.

Will FCC enact all of it? Maybe not, but if you don't ask you never
get.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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?

Agree 100%

One way would be for FCC to compare dates of all incoming VE test
reports. That's just not going to happen!

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.

Test takers themselves could, as was done by Bash in the 60's
just remember a couple of questions and share them on RRAQ
(rec.radio.amateur.questions :-)

That too.

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

Agree again.

Not just rewritten but recertified by FCC. Don't hold yer breath!


I'm all for secret tests and a 30 day wait. But such things are simply
not in the cards for the foreseeable future. The stuff FISTS wants has
a better chance!

Heck, the reason we have 10 year licenses is to save FCC admin work.

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.

Wow, Jim, we are in 100% agreement here on those two
points.

Why are you surprised? Those issues were debated here years ago and
the
same conclusions reached.

It would be neat to see if the FAR folks would volunteer to run a VE
session cross-check clearinghouse at their own expense to enforce the
10 day rule. Or to take on rewriting all of the question pools.

Cheers and see my post on "section 21". I'm interested
in your opinion of what the petitioners are suggesting.

I think I answered that one. Remind me if I didn't.

It sure looks to me like the FARRAF thing was written in response to
the ARRL proposal.


73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

Here's AG4RQ's response to my questions:

K2UNK Question: What does dropping code testing for General
or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a
very expensive enforcement nightmare."?

AQ5RQ Reply: Bill, the enforcememt nightmare would come
from instantly granting a quarter of a million or more
Techs HF privileges.

Quarter million? More like 322,000, since the ARRL-proposed free upgrade
would
go to all Techs and Tech Pluses.

OTOH there's no indication of how many would actually use the new
privileges.

I believe there are a good number of family member techs
who probably have limited desire even to get on HF at all.

We have intentional QRM on
the bands already.

Haven't heard any on CW, myself...

I suspect any animosity would be short lived anyway.

Add a quarter of a million Techs
to the bands, along with the resentment over this
whole code/no-code issue. What do you think will
happen?

How will anyone know who is who just from a callsign? There's sure to be
some
resentment no matter what.

Some fun facts:

If either the ARRL or FAR proposals are enacted, about 322,000 Techs and
Pluses
will have more HF/MF. Not just 'phone but CW and data. The ARRL proposal
spreads them out over most of nine bands while the FAR proposal
concentrates
all 322,000 into half of 160, small slivers of 80 and 40, and a bit more
of 10
and 15. And no 'phone on the bands between 2 and 25 MHz.

Which proposal do you think will maximize crowding and resentment?

Good point.

Comparisons to the old Novice are not valid because there were far fewer
than
322,000. It's clear that one reason ARRL proposed the upgrade to General
was to
*avoid* crowding.

K2UNK Question: Does RAF believe that if a General
or Advanced (K2UNK, mental goof, meant to say Extra)
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

AG4RQ Reply: Under the RAF proposal, the only Generals
and Extras (You said Advanced. I think you meant
Extra) would be those who passed a code test. We
want to keep licensing requirements for General and
Extra as is, with a 5 wpm code test.
----------------

He didn't understand the question?

Agreed.

It's clear from the proposal that all license classes would be allowed to
use
Morse. Not an issue.

Clearly section 21 is anything BUT clear as to what RAF
believes...IMHO.

I think it's pretty clear. The FAR/RAF? proposal was written as a reaction
to
the ARRL proposal, and is similar in some ways but offers drastically less
HF/MF (space and bands) to hams who haven't passed a code test.

The big question, then, comes down to this:

If it is accepted that Element 1 will be removed for at least some classes
of
licenses with HF privs, (note that "if", folks!) is it preferable to:

A) limit them to small parts of a few bands that are relatively unpopular,
particularly during sunspot minima years

or

B) allow them significant access to all HF/MF bands?

Well put.

Personally, I don't think the 5 wpm code test is a real "barrier" to
anyone,
given the wide range of accomodations now in place and the training
methods now
available. But if it's going to be dropped for some license classes, it
seems
to me that B makes more sense than A.

Agreed.

IOW, ARRL would spread the free upgradees out and give them a smorgasboard
of
options, FAR would concentrate them and give them a restricted diet.

Which do you think makes more sense?

Agree again.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

AQ5RQ Reply: Bill, the enforcememt nightmare would come
from instantly granting a quarter of a million or more
Techs HF privileges. We have intentional QRM on
the bands already. Add a quarter of a million Techs
to the bands, along with the resentment over this
whole code/no-code issue. What do you think will
happen?



Well, there were all those general lites and extra lites (I'm one) that got
HF phone privs in 2000. And no nightmare happened. Oh there was the
usual learning curve all newbies go thru (and a burst of newbies happened)
but most everyone learned.

So I would predict that after a short learning curve period that there
will be
no problem. Oh there might be a few people fumbling around with CW,
but the experienced CW ops might just as soon be happy that new people
are interested in the mode. Prehaps some bandwidth in the old novice
subbands could be dedicated to training new operators via gentlemen's
agreements. Or older ops who haven't touched a key in 20 years.

Again, note that 14.313 was rampant before restructuring.

How will anyone know who is who just from a callsign? There's sure to be some
resentment no matter what.



Lots of extras kept their original callsigns. Though I don't think that
there are any
WN#*** calls that are not vanity calls around anymore. But I kept my
call that
I was assigned as a Tech (5wpm and general written) back in 1976. And I had
to take a sending test back then at the FCC field office. So I would
look like
a no code HFer if this thing goes thru. Not worried about it.