"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

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.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
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.


Actually the VEs always have the option to not run a retest. When we've had
limited time access to the facility or have limited time due to other
commitments, we've simply stated no retests at that particular session.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
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.


Actually the VEs always have the option to not run a retest.

I agree.

When we've had limited time access to the facility
or have limited time due to other commitments, we've
simply stated no retests at that particular session.

I believe you don't need any reason to not allow
retests. There is no "right" to an immediate retest
for anyone regardless of how long the test session
may actually be.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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%

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 :-)

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

Agree again.

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.

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

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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