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. 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

(N2EY) wrote in
:

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. 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


The FAR is an organisation that raises money for college scholarships to be
paid to licenced hams. Their major annual fundraiser is a very large
hamfest. Not on the scale of, say, Dayton, but pretty big. I used to go to
it, but they moved the location further away. I used to be a member and get
their newsletter, which is another way they raise money, and quite a few
ham clubs are affiliated to them also.

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

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

(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

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

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 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

"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

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