|
Yet another petition submitted
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 |
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 |
|
On 21 Feb 2004 03:17:03 GMT, N2EY wrote:
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. Isn't that what a regulatory agency 'sposed to do? ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On 21 Feb 2004 03:17:03 GMT, N2EY wrote: 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. Isn't that what a regulatory agency 'sposed to do? ggg I dunno, but it's what a lot of them do do. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On 21 Feb 2004 03:17:03 GMT, N2EY wrote: 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. Isn't that what a regulatory agency 'sposed to do? ggg I dunno, but it's what a lot of them do do. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 |
|
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message m... (N2EY) wrote And K0HB hasn't even submitted his proposal. Yes he has. So is it up to 17 petitions? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
"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 |
|
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 |
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 |
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. |
"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 |
"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 |
"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 |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net...
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? I don't think you're missing a thing, Bill...However the "authors" of the petition you cite are certainly a bit shy of a bag full...! ! ! ! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes: 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'. We've had hams who never passed a code test since 1991. Where have these guys been? To some degree, this is already a fact in some circles. Oh? 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 Couldn't that same thing be said of almost anything? Multiple license classes, vabity calls, operating awards..... What does dropping code testing for General or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive enforcement nightmare." I have no idea. I had no part in writing the thing, just in analyzing it. Why not ask the authors? A few of them are all over eham.net 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? I don't see how, since that hasn't been the case for Techs. What am I missing here? I'm not sure what they're getting at, either. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Bill Sohl" writes: 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'. We've had hams who never passed a code test since 1991. Where have these guys been? To some degree, this is already a fact in some circles. Oh? 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 Couldn't that same thing be said of almost anything? Multiple license classes, vabity calls, operating awards..... What does dropping code testing for General or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive enforcement nightmare." I have no idea. I had no part in writing the thing, just in analyzing it. Why not ask the authors? A few of them are all over eham.net 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? I don't see how, since that hasn't been the case for Techs. What am I missing here? I'm not sure what they're getting at, either. 73 de Jim, N2EY 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. 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? 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. ---------------- Clearly section 21 is anything BUT clear as to what RAF believes...IMHO. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net...
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 Bill, your question reminds me of a scenario painted by Steve, to which TAFKA Rev Jim responded below. It is very enlightening to see that after a decade of saying that the Morse Code Exam was no barrier at all to the Amateur Service, he pipes in with a new theory - that a Morse Exam is a disincentive to the use of CW on HF. Thought you might enjoy the flip-flop. bb ---------------- (William) wrote in message . com... (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim, we've had that very same or greater disincentive since 1912. Why is it NOW a problem? Why? ---------------- |
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. We have intentional QRM on the bands already. Haven't heard any on CW, myself... 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? 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? 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? 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. 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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. |
(William) wrote in message . com...
(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. Isn't it about time you upgraded? 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. |
(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? |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com