(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.

(William) wrote in
m:

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.


I agree fully. I can't quite see them filing a petition to scrap Element 1,
though, can you?

Alun wrote in message .. .
(William) wrote in
m:

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.


I agree fully. I can't quite see them filing a petition to scrap Element 1,
though, can you?

I can't seem to find any of the [expletive deleted] virulent netcops
ragging on FISTS as they have NCI for overstepping their stated
bounds.

Why is that?

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