Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FISTS petition to the FCC | Policy | |||
NCI Petition available on FCC ECFS | Policy | |||
FCC taking Comments on RM-10787 Morse Code Elimination Petition | Policy | |||
NCI filed Petition for Rulemaking Aug. 13 | Policy | |||
Some comments on the NCVEC petition | Policy |