| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
NCVEC files license resstructuring proposal
The NCVEC has filed a petition on restructuring US
licensing. You can obtain a PDF or RTF copy via one of the following: http://www.arnewsline.org/newspages/...20Petition.pdf or http://www.arnewsline.org/newspages/...20Petition.rtf |
Official NCVEC Press Release:
VECs PROPOSE NEW ENTRY LEVEL COMMUNICATOR HAM LICENSE The National Conference of VECs filed a Petition for Rulemaking on March 1, 2004 proposing their version of a new entry-level Amateur Service license and redistribution of some HF frequencies to General and Amateur Extra Class licensees. The petition, which is somewhat similar to the one filed by the American Radio League, requires no required demonstrated Morse code proficiency for any license class ...including Extra. The NCVEC proposed the same HF/VHF/UHF bands for the entry level class as the ARRL and both petitions grant more privileges to all classes. The VEC's proposal, however, allows wider voice subbands and less exclusive CW/digital frequencies. The NCVEC petition also places more emphasis on the use of 15 and 10 meters for entry-level voice operation than does the ARRL. The VECs proposed an additional 50 kHz of 80-meter voice spectrum over the ARRL proposal and 25 kHz more 40 meter voice spectrum for both the General and Extra Class. At 15 Meters, the General Class would get an additional 75 kHz of voice spectrum over ARRL proposal; Extra Class, an additional 50 kHz. The frequency privileges proposed for the new entry level class which the VECs want called the "Communicator" Class a 80 Meters: 3950-4000 kHz (voice/image), 3550-3675 kHz (digital/CW). 40 Meters: 7250-7300 kHz (voice/image), 7050-7150 kHz (Digital/CW). 15 Meters: 21350-21450 kHz voice/image), 21050-21150 kHz (Digital/CW). 10 meters: 28.300-28.500 and 29000-29700 kHz (voice/image), 28050-28150 kHz (CW/Digital). All bands 6 Meters through 70 cm: Full Amateur privileges. The NCVEC envisions that all Novice Class operators would automatically become Communicator Class licensees as of the effective date. At the same time, Technician and Tech Plus amateurs would be upgraded to the General Class ...Advanced Class licensees would become Extra Class. The VECs believed that there was no other effective way to redistribute Novice/Tech Plus spectrum to the General and Extra Class without this automatic upgrade feature. This means that some 350,000 Tech/Tech Plus and 85,000 Advanced Class would not be testing for an upgrade to the next class. This amounts to about 60 percent or all current licensees and those in the two year grace period. On the other hand, the VECs anticipate a greatly expanded demand for entry-level ("Communicator") testing and license preparation material. Some 40,000 Novices would be automatically upgraded to the new entry level which would not only contain their existing frequency bands, but additional HF/VHF/UHF bands as well. The NCVEC proposes that existing Novice, Technician, Tech Plus and Advanced Class operators be issued a new Communicator, General or Extra Class license document upon their next renewal. The new privileges will "kick in," of course, as of the effective date. The Novice, Technician, Tech Plus and Advanced Class licenses will be permanently retired. The VECs suggested that Communicator Class call signs might come from the authorized but unallocated NA1AAA through NZ0ZZZ call sign block. Proposed entry level transmitter power is proposed to be 100 watts when the operation takes place below 24 MHz; 50 watts above. This is the same as the ARRL proposal. In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. Communicator Class licensees may not install repeater or remote base stations, be a volunteer examiner or establish a club station. Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. The VECs Question Pool Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination questions. This petition was reviewed prior to submission by all 14 of the VEC's around the country, and was approved by a 2 to 1 margin. While some areas of disagreement were to be expected, the fact that such an overwhelming majority of the VEC's approved the NCVEC petition speaks well for it's being representative of the true feelings and opinions of those most in tune with the examination process and the needs of the Amateur Radio community. This is further supported by the fact that the NCVEC and ARRL petitions are similar in basic concept, and in fact agree on most issues. Taken together, these two filings appear to be speaking in a unified voice as to the needs of the future of Amateur Radio in the United States" The FCC acknowledged receipt of the Petition for Rulemaking on March 4, 2004. It is not known when it will be distributed for initial Public Comment. The ARRL Petition has not been assigned an RM (rulemaking) file number yet either. ---End of press release--- The NCVEC has filed a petition on restructuring US licensing. You can obtain a PDF or RTF copy via one of the following: http://www.arnewsline.org/newspages/...20Petition.pdf or http://www.arnewsline.org/newspages/...20Petition.rtf |
(quoting the NCVEC proposal)
In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage What about the 110 AC line? and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. Might as well call it "Appliance Class" and be done with it. Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. This is the worst part. We must fight this like the plague. What it *really" means is that there will be *no* rules and regs questions on the 20 question test! It is precisely this sort of thing that messed up cb. The VECs Question Pool Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination questions. The old Novice I took was 20 questions, and we could homebrew. Which I did from Day One. If a 13 year old kid with books for Elmers could safely build transmitters in the hollowstate era, why all these additional limits today? This petition was reviewed prior to submission by all 14 of the VEC's around the country, and was approved by a 2 to 1 margin. Which means a third of them disapproved. Were the individual VEs polled? This NCVEC thing is very similar to the "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" paper by KL7CC. I wrote a detailed commentary on it some time back. NCVEC's proposal makes the ARRL one look good. Which isn't saying much... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: This is further supported by the fact that the NCVEC and ARRL petitions are similar in basic concept, and in fact agree on most issues. Taken together, these two filings appear to be speaking in a unified voice as to the needs of the future of Amateur Radio in the United States" The FCC acknowledged receipt of the Petition for Rulemaking on March 4, 2004. It is not known when it will be distributed for initial Public Comment. The ARRL Petition has not been assigned an RM (rulemaking) file number yet either. ---End of press release--- Good on the NECVEC! I got my copy and will look it over caarefully. LHA / WMD |
Bill Sohl wrote:
Official NCVEC Press Release: VECs PROPOSE NEW ENTRY LEVEL COMMUNICATOR HAM LICENSE The National Conference of VECs filed a Petition for Rulemaking on March 1, 2004 proposing their version of a new entry-level Amateur Service license and redistribution of some HF frequencies to General and Amateur Extra Class licensees. The petition, which is somewhat similar to the one filed by the American Radio League, requires no required demonstrated Morse code proficiency for any license class ...including Extra. The NCVEC proposed the same HF/VHF/UHF bands for the entry level class as the ARRL and both petitions grant more privileges to all classes. The VEC's proposal, however, allows wider voice subbands and less exclusive CW/digital frequencies. The NCVEC petition also places more emphasis on the use of 15 and 10 meters for entry-level voice operation than does the ARRL. The VECs proposed an additional 50 kHz of 80-meter voice spectrum over the ARRL proposal and 25 kHz more 40 meter voice spectrum for both the General and Extra Class. At 15 Meters, the General Class would get an additional 75 kHz of voice spectrum over ARRL proposal; Extra Class, an additional 50 kHz. The frequency privileges proposed for the new entry level class which the VECs want called the "Communicator" Class a 80 Meters: 3950-4000 kHz (voice/image), 3550-3675 kHz (digital/CW). 40 Meters: 7250-7300 kHz (voice/image), 7050-7150 kHz (Digital/CW). 15 Meters: 21350-21450 kHz voice/image), 21050-21150 kHz (Digital/CW). 10 meters: 28.300-28.500 and 29000-29700 kHz (voice/image), 28050-28150 kHz (CW/Digital). All bands 6 Meters through 70 cm: Full Amateur privileges. The NCVEC envisions that all Novice Class operators would automatically become Communicator Class licensees as of the effective date. At the same time, Technician and Tech Plus amateurs would be upgraded to the General Class ...Advanced Class licensees would become Extra Class. The VECs believed that there was no other effective way to redistribute Novice/Tech Plus spectrum to the General and Extra Class without this automatic upgrade feature. This means that some 350,000 Tech/Tech Plus and 85,000 Advanced Class would not be testing for an upgrade to the next class. This amounts to about 60 percent or all current licensees and those in the two year grace period. On the other hand, the VECs anticipate a greatly expanded demand for entry-level ("Communicator") testing and license preparation material. Some 40,000 Novices would be automatically upgraded to the new entry level which would not only contain their existing frequency bands, but additional HF/VHF/UHF bands as well. We already know what I think about that, so I'll pass on arguing this point The NCVEC proposes that existing Novice, Technician, Tech Plus and Advanced Class operators be issued a new Communicator, General or Extra Class license document upon their next renewal. The new privileges will "kick in," of course, as of the effective date. The Novice, Technician, Tech Plus and Advanced Class licenses will be permanently retired. The VECs suggested that Communicator Class call signs might come from the authorized but unallocated NA1AAA through NZ0ZZZ call sign block. Proposed entry level transmitter power is proposed to be 100 watts when the operation takes place below 24 MHz; 50 watts above. This is the same as the ARRL proposal. I still want to see the people (tech's specifically) that have been harmed by RF. In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage How odd! Are the newbies going to not be allowed to use antennas like Magloops? These people have it SO WRONG! Presumably thay are admitting that there are safety issues involved, which there are. Then teach the newbies safety, don't avoid the issue, teach them Safety!! I find that the pussyfooting around safety, where these proposals to limit power are made, is verging on criminal negligence. and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. This is illogical! What purpose would forcing an amateur to use a commercially built product be? mThe main reason I am in Amateur radio at all is for the homebrewing and restoring of radio equipment. I propose an addition to the proposal in which Hams of all classes must drink only Pepsi or Coke, whichever company donates more to the BPL defense fund. The communicators should also not be allowed to own a soldering iron or electronic tools This will keep them out of their commercially built transcievers, and keep them safe from booboo's that they might get from foolishly messing with electronics, where they might get shocked or something Communicator Class licensees may not install repeater or remote base stations, be a volunteer examiner or establish a club station. That is pretty much like it is now, I think it makes sense Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. The VECs Question Pool Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination questions. Cannot a person of even limited intelligence take a test of more than 25 questions? I took bigger tests in grade school. What this is doing is alarmingly like the citizens band radio I bought in I think the late 70's or early 80's. At this point, the F.C.C. was still lamely trying to have some kind of callsign and "rules". I "had" to read a little pamphlet, and assign myself a callsign by some strange method that I forget at the moment. Even had places for me to sign. If a person can certifiy that they have read and understand part 97, there is no reason at all that they shouldn't just say they read a book about the whole process and sign for that. This petition was reviewed prior to submission by all 14 of the VEC's around the country, and was approved by a 2 to 1 margin. While some areas of disagreement were to be expected, the fact that such an overwhelming majority of the VEC's approved the NCVEC petition speaks well for it's being representative of the true feelings and opinions of those most in tune with the examination process and the needs of the Amateur Radio community. 50 million flies can't be wrong.......... - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... (quoting the NCVEC proposal) In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage What about the 110 AC line? Good glub OM, where did you get your technical facts? 110 VAC was the standard line voltage in 1927! Today the standard is 125 VAC. Update your notes. and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. Might as well call it "Appliance Class" and be done with it. Sour grapes. Poo-Poohs. Cry me a river. Same shi+ different day. Blah Blah Blah. You old ham farts think everyone should know code just because YOU had to learn it 40+ Years ago in a smoke filled room. OyVey Bitch-****-and-Moan.....(playing my violin) Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. This is the worst part. We must fight this like the plague. What it *really" means is that there will be *no* rules and regs questions on the 20 question test! How do you know that? You don't even know what the present day standard Line Voltage is! The old Novice I took was 20 questions, and we could homebrew. Which I did from Day One. If a 13 year old kid with books for Elmers could safely build transmitters in the hollowstate era, why all these additional limits today? That was THEN - this is NOW. I got my licence in 1969 btw and my first xmitter was a DX-60B (which I built from a kit) and a Drake 2B. Would I burden today's hams to do the same? No way. It's a different era. As someone said at a Bond Traders Luncheon I was at 2 Months ago: "Glue-ing feathers to your ass DOES NOT make you a rooster in the hen house". NCVEC's proposal makes the ARRL one look good. Which isn't saying much... I'll give you that one. The ARRL is trying to backpeddle big time as the hobby is dying on the vine with ever month of the full-page listings of SK's. They should have been doing this kind of restructuring 20 Years ago!! It's probably too late now. EXAMPLE: Plunk a teenager in front of a new Yaesu HF station and a 2 gHz Pentium w/DSL, DVD, CD burner and a Kazaa account and *try to guess* which one he'll want to play with.....(grin) |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage How odd! Are the newbies going to not be allowed to use antennas like Magloops? Or dipoles? Or antenna tuners? Or line-powered power supplies? These people have it SO WRONG! Presumably thay are admitting that there are safety issues involved, which there are. Then teach the newbies safety, don't avoid the issue, teach them Safety!! There's a logical inconsistency in this requirement. The purpose of safety questions in the written test is not so much to protect an amateur from the consequences of his/her own ignorance as to protect *others*. I find that the pussyfooting around safety, where these proposals to limit power are made, is verging on criminal negligence. Consider this: In most areas that I know of, a homeowner can work on his/her electrical wiring without a license or test of any kind. Same for plumbing. Just can't do it to somebody else's house as a "professional" - meaning for money. So a Communicator could legally wire or re-wire his/her entire house, but could not legally *operate* a TS-520. Or even a solid-state rig with 48 volt finals....because he/she might hurt themselves! and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. This is illogical! What purpose would forcing an amateur to use a commercially built product be? 1) To sell more commercially built products (read the "21st Century" paper - it talks about how we need more hams or the ham equipment manufacturers will close up shop). 2) To get new hams in the habit of buying, not building 3) To eliminate even more theory from the written test The main reason I am in Amateur radio at all is for the homebrewing and restoring of radio equipment. More to the point: How many hams do we lose each year to electrocution from their transmitters? How many hams cause serious interference problems with their home-brew or restored rigs? I propose an addition to the proposal in which Hams of all classes must drink only Pepsi or Coke, whichever company donates more to the BPL defense fund. The Dr. Pepper contingent will have a fit! The communicators should also not be allowed to own a soldering iron or electronic tools This will keep them out of their commercially built transcievers, and keep them safe from booboo's that they might get from foolishly messing with electronics, where they might get shocked or something But they would legally be allowed to build power supplies for their commercially built rigs.... Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. The VECs Question Pool Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination questions. Cannot a person of even limited intelligence take a test of more than 25 questions? I took bigger tests in grade school. Me too. You should see the tests they give second-graders here. The old Novice test was originally 20 questions, then 25, then 30. Most of the added questions were concerned with safety and the expanded privileges. Novices are allowed to homebrew anything they can legally use on the air. What this is doing is alarmingly like the citizens band radio I bought in I think the late 70's or early 80's. At this point, the F.C.C. was still lamely trying to have some kind of callsign and "rules". I "had" to read a little pamphlet, and assign myself a callsign by some strange method that I forget at the moment. Even had places for me to sign. Where do you think NCVEC got the idea about the rules? If a person can certifiy that they have read and understand part 97, there is no reason at all that they shouldn't just say they read a book about the whole process and sign for that. BINGO! Check this out: From the 1976 ARRL License Manual: NOVICE (1976) Study Question #31: Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components: (a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter, (d) ammeter. Study Question #32: From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed by the load be determined? Study Question #33: In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery? Study Question #34: Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank, (c) high voltage source, (d) plate-current meter, (e) plate-voltage meter, (f) rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor. Study Question #35: What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit? The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?" That was for a Novice! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Bill Sohl wrote: Proposed entry level transmitter power is proposed to be 100 watts when the operation takes place below 24 MHz; 50 watts above. This is the same as the ARRL proposal. I still want to see the people (tech's specifically) that have been harmed by RF. It makes sense in light of the present rf hazard calcs that we have to perform. But I've not seen anyone claimed to have been harmed by rf. |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage How odd! Are the newbies going to not be allowed to use antennas like Magloops? Or dipoles? Or antenna tuners? Or line-powered power supplies? These people have it SO WRONG! Presumably thay are admitting that there are safety issues involved, which there are. Then teach the newbies safety, don't avoid the issue, teach them Safety!! There's a logical inconsistency in this requirement. The purpose of safety questions in the written test is not so much to protect an amateur from the consequences of his/her own ignorance as to protect *others*. Sure. And there is no logical argument that can convince me that safety shouldn't be practiced from the start. It doesn't have to be safety officer level, but it has to be there, and it has to be there from the start. I find that the pussyfooting around safety, where these proposals to limit power are made, is verging on criminal negligence. Consider this: In most areas that I know of, a homeowner can work on his/her electrical wiring without a license or test of any kind. Same for plumbing. Just can't do it to somebody else's house as a "professional" - meaning for money. So a Communicator could legally wire or re-wire his/her entire house, but could not legally *operate* a TS-520. Or even a solid-state rig with 48 volt finals....because he/she might hurt themselves! That's why they shouldn't be allowed to have electrical tools! ;^) and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. This is illogical! What purpose would forcing an amateur to use a commercially built product be? 1) To sell more commercially built products (read the "21st Century" paper - it talks about how we need more hams or the ham equipment manufacturers will close up shop). 2) To get new hams in the habit of buying, not building 3) To eliminate even more theory from the written test zzzzzzzzzz...... now *that* sounds like a much fun as a stick in the eye. The main reason I am in Amateur radio at all is for the homebrewing and restoring of radio equipment. More to the point: How many hams do we lose each year to electrocution from their transmitters? How many hams cause serious interference problems with their home-brew or restored rigs? I propose an addition to the proposal in which Hams of all classes must drink only Pepsi or Coke, whichever company donates more to the BPL defense fund. The Dr. Pepper contingent will have a fit! If they provide enough money, then maybe they will be the one! The communicators should also not be allowed to own a soldering iron or electronic tools This will keep them out of their commercially built transcievers, and keep them safe from booboo's that they might get from foolishly messing with electronics, where they might get shocked or something But they would legally be allowed to build power supplies for their commercially built rigs.... Right! we'll have to work on that! The goal is no booboo's. We have to protect the new hams from themselves. So I would amend the proposal to not allow Communicator's to use ANY voltages over 48 volts. Maybe they should wear aluminum foil hats too? Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. The VECs Question Pool Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination questions. Cannot a person of even limited intelligence take a test of more than 25 questions? I took bigger tests in grade school. Me too. You should see the tests they give second-graders here. The old Novice test was originally 20 questions, then 25, then 30. Most of the added questions were concerned with safety and the expanded privileges. Novices are allowed to homebrew anything they can legally use on the air. I have always though that having more questions on a test made the test easier! If you have a twenty question test, you don't have to miss many to get a failing grade. What this is doing is alarmingly like the citizens band radio I bought in I think the late 70's or early 80's. At this point, the F.C.C. was still lamely trying to have some kind of callsign and "rules". I "had" to read a little pamphlet, and assign myself a callsign by some strange method that I forget at the moment. Even had places for me to sign. Where do you think NCVEC got the idea about the rules? But didn't learn much else. Maybe they should check the aftermath of that example. If a person can certifiy that they have read and understand part 97, there is no reason at all that they shouldn't just say they read a book about the whole process and sign for that. BINGO! Testing would certainly be easier! Check this out: From the 1976 ARRL License Manual: NOVICE (1976) Study Question #31: Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components: (a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter, (d) ammeter. Study Question #32: From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed by the load be determined? Study Question #33: In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery? Study Question #34: Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank, (c) high voltage source, (d) plate-current meter, (e) plate-voltage meter, (f) rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor. Study Question #35: What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit? The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?" That was for a Novice! Good questions! And actually not all that hard. Sounds like an enjoyable test to take. - Mike KB3EIA - |
William wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: Proposed entry level transmitter power is proposed to be 100 watts when the operation takes place below 24 MHz; 50 watts above. This is the same as the ARRL proposal. I still want to see the people (tech's specifically) that have been harmed by RF. It makes sense in light of the present rf hazard calcs that we have to perform. But I've not seen anyone claimed to have been harmed by rf. I was nailed by maybe 50 watts of RF one time on the tip of my finger. I was tuning up a MFJ tuner, and there was a problem somewhere. The metal band on the tuner apparently capacitively coupled me to the tuning cap and shazam! Darned if RF burns don't hurt a LOT. I think that NCVEC and ARRL and others are missing the boat here. With the likely disappearance of Morse as a requirement, they are simply proposing *another* caste system, in which there is an elite, and an underclass ghetto of people with what to me seem to be radically reduced privileges. I don't have anything against different levels, but this seems like too much discrimination. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,
ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some sense. The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is just the creation of another group of "great unwashed" We DON'T learn do we? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
"Hambone the Magnificent" wrote in
groups.com: "N2EY" wrote in message ... (quoting the NCVEC proposal) In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage What about the 110 AC line? Good glub OM, where did you get your technical facts? 110 VAC was the standard line voltage in 1927! Today the standard is 125 VAC. Update your notes. and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. Might as well call it "Appliance Class" and be done with it. Sour grapes. Poo-Poohs. Cry me a river. Same shi+ different day. Blah Blah Blah. You old ham farts think everyone should know code just because YOU had to learn it 40+ Years ago in a smoke filled room. OyVey Bitch-****-and-Moan.....(playing my violin) Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. This is the worst part. We must fight this like the plague. What it *really" means is that there will be *no* rules and regs questions on the 20 question test! How do you know that? You don't even know what the present day standard Line Voltage is! The old Novice I took was 20 questions, and we could homebrew. Which I did from Day One. If a 13 year old kid with books for Elmers could safely build transmitters in the hollowstate era, why all these additional limits today? That was THEN - this is NOW. I got my licence in 1969 btw and my first xmitter was a DX-60B (which I built from a kit) and a Drake 2B. Would I burden today's hams to do the same? No way. It's a different era. As someone said at a Bond Traders Luncheon I was at 2 Months ago: "Glue-ing feathers to your ass DOES NOT make you a rooster in the hen house". NCVEC's proposal makes the ARRL one look good. Which isn't saying much... I'll give you that one. The ARRL is trying to backpeddle big time as the hobby is dying on the vine with ever month of the full-page listings of SK's. They should have been doing this kind of restructuring 20 Years ago!! It's probably too late now. EXAMPLE: Plunk a teenager in front of a new Yaesu HF station and a 2 gHz Pentium w/DSL, DVD, CD burner and a Kazaa account and *try to guess* which one he'll want to play with.....(grin) It's 120v actually, not 125, and the International IEC standards are 115v/60Hz and 230v/50Hz |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC, ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some sense. The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is just the creation of another group of "great unwashed" We DON'T learn do we? - Mike KB3EIA - I can hear Larry now, "I'm a Superior Ham because I have higher voltage finals..." Or Bruce, "Know Ham = Know Voltage." |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
I think that NCVEC and ARRL and others are missing the boat here. With the likely disappearance of Morse as a requirement, they are simply proposing *another* caste system, in which there is an elite, and an underclass ghetto of people with what to me seem to be radically reduced privileges. I don't have anything against different levels, but this seems like too much discrimination. It doesn't sit well with you that you are cast with the pro-code caste? Some hams NEED a caste system just to prove they are "better" than others, thus fulfilling a self-deficiency. For a very long time morse code ability was the caste marker, having no reasonable value except for some to brag that they were "better" than no-coders. Tsk, tsk, tsk...all the pro-coders beginning to cry and whine...? LHA / WMD |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: That was for a Novice! Good questions! And actually not all that hard. Sounds like an enjoyable test to take. Easy to say when you've taken all your tests and never have to take another test (if you renew within time bounds). Put yourself in the newcomer's place and look at it from their vantage point -and- that of the FCC. But, I don't think you will. You will, like way too many others, look at it from your own personal viewpoint and experience and desires and by default try to make all newcomers think as you do. You can't freeze testing as it was in 1976...or 1986, 1966, 1956, 1946, or 1936. The overall environment is constantly changing even if your personal activities isn't changing. LHA / WMD |
"Hambone the Magnificent" wrote in message groups.com... "N2EY" wrote in message ... (quoting the NCVEC proposal) In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage What about the 110 AC line? Good glub OM, where did you get your technical facts? 110 VAC was the standard line voltage in 1927! Today the standard is 125 VAC. Update your notes. and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. Might as well call it "Appliance Class" and be done with it. Sour grapes. Poo-Poohs. Cry me a river. Same shi+ different day. Blah Blah Blah. You old ham farts think everyone should know code just because YOU had to learn it 40+ Years ago in a smoke filled room. OyVey Bitch-****-and-Moan.....(playing my violin) Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. This is the worst part. We must fight this like the plague. What it *really" means is that there will be *no* rules and regs questions on the 20 question test! How do you know that? You don't even know what the present day standard Line Voltage is! The old Novice I took was 20 questions, and we could homebrew. Which I did from Day One. If a 13 year old kid with books for Elmers could safely build transmitters in the hollowstate era, why all these additional limits today? That was THEN - this is NOW. I got my licence in 1969 btw and my first xmitter was a DX-60B (which I built from a kit) and a Drake 2B. Would I burden today's hams to do the same? No way. It's a different era. But why forbid them from experiencing such an activity?? That makes no sense in light of the basis and purpose of amateur radio as stated in the current Part 97. They should not be required to homebrew nor should they be prevented from home brewing. As someone said at a Bond Traders Luncheon I was at 2 Months ago: "Glue-ing feathers to your ass DOES NOT make you a rooster in the hen house". NCVEC's proposal makes the ARRL one look good. Which isn't saying much... I'll give you that one. The ARRL is trying to backpeddle big time as the hobby is dying on the vine with ever month of the full-page listings of SK's. They should have been doing this kind of restructuring 20 Years ago!! It's probably too late now. EXAMPLE: Plunk a teenager in front of a new Yaesu HF station and a 2 gHz Pentium w/DSL, DVD, CD burner and a Kazaa account and *try to guess* which one he'll want to play with.....(grin) The problem is NOT in the licensing structure. There is no structure that will dramatically increase the number of amateur radio operators, not even a no test license. The non-licensed services have proven that. Today CB activity is way down. It is so low that there are now people who not only have not heard of ham radio, they haven't even heard of CB! The actual problem is stems from several elements. 1) Most people outside of amateur radio have never heard of it. So even if they might be inclined to pursue this hobby, they will never be involved. 2) Amateur radio, as with any specialized activity, is only going to appeal to a limited number of people in the first place. 3) There is a greater multitude of hobbies and activities available today than ever before. People have to make choices on how to spend their time and money. I've seen no evidence of ham radio "dying on the vine". The listing of SK's has shown no quantum leap. The number of new licensees exceeds the number of licenses expiring. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage How odd! Are the newbies going to not be allowed to use antennas like Magloops? Or dipoles? Or antenna tuners? Or line-powered power supplies? These people have it SO WRONG! Presumably thay are admitting that there are safety issues involved, which there are. Then teach the newbies safety, don't avoid the issue, teach them Safety!! There's a logical inconsistency in this requirement. The purpose of safety questions in the written test is not so much to protect an amateur from the consequences of his/her own ignorance as to protect *others*. Sure. And there is no logical argument that can convince me that safety shouldn't be practiced from the start. It doesn't have to be safety officer level, but it has to be there, and it has to be there from the start. I agree 100%. Even back in my Novice days there were safety questions on the test. I find that the pussyfooting around safety, where these proposals to limit power are made, is verging on criminal negligence. Consider this: In most areas that I know of, a homeowner can work on his/her electrical wiring without a license or test of any kind. Same for plumbing. Just can't do it to somebody else's house as a "professional" - meaning for money. So a Communicator could legally wire or re-wire his/her entire house, but could not legally *operate* a TS-520. Or even a solid-state rig with 48 volt finals....because he/she might hurt themselves! That's why they shouldn't be allowed to have electrical tools! ;^) HAW! But it just points out how ridiculous that part of the NCVEC proposal really is. Here's two mo 1) Audiophiles and radio restorers build and work on all sorts of high-voltage electronics without any test. Why is a ham transmitter so dangerous if it has more than 30 volts, but not a ham receiver or a stereo amplifier? 2) Low voltage is no guarantee of safety. A 100 watt transceiver powered by 13.8 volts will typically require 20 A or more to transmit full power. 35 A and 50 A supplies are common. Don't get your rig across those terminals... and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. This is illogical! What purpose would forcing an amateur to use a commercially built product be? 1) To sell more commercially built products (read the "21st Century" paper - it talks about how we need more hams or the ham equipment manufacturers will close up shop). 2) To get new hams in the habit of buying, not building 3) To eliminate even more theory from the written test zzzzzzzzzz...... now *that* sounds like a much fun as a stick in the eye. It's what NCVEC is trying to sell. Some folks here seem to be buying it. I don't. Some of the main Basis and Purposes of the ARS are technical education, experimentation, and related stuff. Limiting *any* class of ham license to manufactured gear and so many final volts directly contradicts those B&P. The main reason I am in Amateur radio at all is for the homebrewing and restoring of radio equipment. More to the point: How many hams do we lose each year to electrocution from their transmitters? How many hams cause serious interference problems with their home-brew or restored rigs? I propose an addition to the proposal in which Hams of all classes must drink only Pepsi or Coke, whichever company donates more to the BPL defense fund. The Dr. Pepper contingent will have a fit! If they provide enough money, then maybe they will be the one! I prefer Sprite or 7Up, myself. Better yet, a Yuengling Black & Tan or a Guiness Stout. The communicators should also not be allowed to own a soldering iron or electronic tools This will keep them out of their commercially built transcievers, and keep them safe from booboo's that they might get from foolishly messing with electronics, where they might get shocked or something But they would legally be allowed to build power supplies for their commercially built rigs.... Right! we'll have to work on that! The goal is no booboo's. We have to protect the new hams from themselves. So I would amend the proposal to not allow Communicator's to use ANY voltages over 48 volts. No power tools, no vacuum cleaners..oh wait, what about the CRT in the computer monitor? Or the ATX power supply in the computer! Oh the humanity! Maybe they should wear aluminum foil hats too? Seriously, I think such rules insult those we are trying to attract. Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. The VECs Question Pool Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination questions. Cannot a person of even limited intelligence take a test of more than 25 questions? I took bigger tests in grade school. Me too. You should see the tests they give second-graders here. The old Novice test was originally 20 questions, then 25, then 30. Most of the added questions were concerned with safety and the expanded privileges. Novices are allowed to homebrew anything they can legally use on the air. I have always though that having more questions on a test made the test easier! If you have a twenty question test, you don't have to miss many to get a failing grade. That's one way to look at it. What this is doing is alarmingly like the citizens band radio I bought in I think the late 70's or early 80's. At this point, the F.C.C. was still lamely trying to have some kind of callsign and "rules". I "had" to read a little pamphlet, and assign myself a callsign by some strange method that I forget at the moment. Even had places for me to sign. Where do you think NCVEC got the idea about the rules? But didn't learn much else. Maybe they should check the aftermath of that example. Maybe it's what they want! If a person can certifiy that they have read and understand part 97, there is no reason at all that they shouldn't just say they read a book about the whole process and sign for that. BINGO! Testing would certainly be easier! One wonders what would be left to test! And here's the bottom line: If there is *anything* that *must* be part of testing for a ham license of *any* class, it's safety and the rules and regulations. No exceptions, no signed statements. What you are seeing is exactly what I predicted about the anticodetest arguments being used against the written test. Check this out: From the 1976 ARRL License Manual: NOVICE (1976) Study Question #31: Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components: (a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter, (d) ammeter. Study Question #32: From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed by the load be determined? Study Question #33: In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery? Study Question #34: Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank, (c) high voltage source, (d) plate-current meter, (e) plate-voltage meter, (f) rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor. Study Question #35: What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit? The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?" That was for a Novice! Good questions! And actually not all that hard. Not for you and not for me. Even when I was a 13 year old Novice-to-be those questions were not "hard". Some folks here are obviously stumped by them, though.. Sounds like an enjoyable test to take. Challenge is the word I'd use. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage How odd! Are the newbies going to not be allowed to use antennas like Magloops? Or dipoles? Or antenna tuners? Or line-powered power supplies? These people have it SO WRONG! Presumably thay are admitting that there are safety issues involved, which there are. Then teach the newbies safety, don't avoid the issue, teach them Safety!! There's a logical inconsistency in this requirement. The purpose of safety questions in the written test is not so much to protect an amateur from the consequences of his/her own ignorance as to protect *others*. Sure. And there is no logical argument that can convince me that safety shouldn't be practiced from the start. It doesn't have to be safety officer level, but it has to be there, and it has to be there from the start. I agree 100%. Even back in my Novice days there were safety questions on the test. I find that the pussyfooting around safety, where these proposals to limit power are made, is verging on criminal negligence. Consider this: In most areas that I know of, a homeowner can work on his/her electrical wiring without a license or test of any kind. Same for plumbing. Just can't do it to somebody else's house as a "professional" - meaning for money. So a Communicator could legally wire or re-wire his/her entire house, but could not legally *operate* a TS-520. Or even a solid-state rig with 48 volt finals....because he/she might hurt themselves! That's why they shouldn't be allowed to have electrical tools! ;^) HAW! But it just points out how ridiculous that part of the NCVEC proposal really is. Here's two mo 1) Audiophiles and radio restorers build and work on all sorts of high-voltage electronics without any test. Why is a ham transmitter so dangerous if it has more than 30 volts, but not a ham receiver or a stereo amplifier? 2) Low voltage is no guarantee of safety. A 100 watt transceiver powered by 13.8 volts will typically require 20 A or more to transmit full power. 35 A and 50 A supplies are common. Don't get your rig across those terminals... I know what you mean. One of my jobs in the deep past involved working around 5 Volt power supplies. Problem was they were many hundreds of amps! I couldn't wear my wedding ring or any jewelry, and they bought me a pair of non-conductive glasses. No metal belt buckles, etc. and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. This is illogical! What purpose would forcing an amateur to use a commercially built product be? 1) To sell more commercially built products (read the "21st Century" paper - it talks about how we need more hams or the ham equipment manufacturers will close up shop). 2) To get new hams in the habit of buying, not building 3) To eliminate even more theory from the written test zzzzzzzzzz...... now *that* sounds like a much fun as a stick in the eye. It's what NCVEC is trying to sell. Some folks here seem to be buying it. I don't. Some of the main Basis and Purposes of the ARS are technical education, experimentation, and related stuff. Limiting *any* class of ham license to manufactured gear and so many final volts directly contradicts those B&P. Agreed! The main reason I am in Amateur radio at all is for the homebrewing and restoring of radio equipment. More to the point: How many hams do we lose each year to electrocution from their transmitters? How many hams cause serious interference problems with their home-brew or restored rigs? I propose an addition to the proposal in which Hams of all classes must drink only Pepsi or Coke, whichever company donates more to the BPL defense fund. The Dr. Pepper contingent will have a fit! If they provide enough money, then maybe they will be the one! I prefer Sprite or 7Up, myself. Better yet, a Yuengling Black & Tan or a Guiness Stout. I believe that is *2* Guiness Stout's! For some reason you're supposed to have 2. I won't argue! Happy St Paddy's day BTW The communicators should also not be allowed to own a soldering iron or electronic tools This will keep them out of their commercially built transcievers, and keep them safe from booboo's that they might get from foolishly messing with electronics, where they might get shocked or something But they would legally be allowed to build power supplies for their commercially built rigs.... Right! we'll have to work on that! The goal is no booboo's. We have to protect the new hams from themselves. So I would amend the proposal to not allow Communicator's to use ANY voltages over 48 volts. No power tools, no vacuum cleaners..oh wait, what about the CRT in the computer monitor? Or the ATX power supply in the computer! Oh the humanity! Maybe they should wear aluminum foil hats too? Seriously, I think such rules insult those we are trying to attract. Not that we're arguing, but I'll give you Game, Set, and Match on that comment. Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. The VECs Question Pool Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination questions. Cannot a person of even limited intelligence take a test of more than 25 questions? I took bigger tests in grade school. Me too. You should see the tests they give second-graders here. The old Novice test was originally 20 questions, then 25, then 30. Most of the added questions were concerned with safety and the expanded privileges. Novices are allowed to homebrew anything they can legally use on the air. I have always though that having more questions on a test made the test easier! If you have a twenty question test, you don't have to miss many to get a failing grade. That's one way to look at it. What this is doing is alarmingly like the citizens band radio I bought in I think the late 70's or early 80's. At this point, the F.C.C. was still lamely trying to have some kind of callsign and "rules". I "had" to read a little pamphlet, and assign myself a callsign by some strange method that I forget at the moment. Even had places for me to sign. Where do you think NCVEC got the idea about the rules? But didn't learn much else. Maybe they should check the aftermath of that example. Maybe it's what they want! rrrgh, (twitching a bit here) If a person can certifiy that they have read and understand part 97, there is no reason at all that they shouldn't just say they read a book about the whole process and sign for that. BINGO! Testing would certainly be easier! One wonders what would be left to test! And here's the bottom line: If there is *anything* that *must* be part of testing for a ham license of *any* class, it's safety and the rules and regulations. No exceptions, no signed statements. What you are seeing is exactly what I predicted about the anticodetest arguments being used against the written test. Yup! Remember, the tests cannot be simple enough for some people. Check this out: From the 1976 ARRL License Manual: NOVICE (1976) Study Question #31: Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components: (a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter, (d) ammeter. Study Question #32: From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed by the load be determined? Study Question #33: In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery? Study Question #34: Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank, (c) high voltage source, (d) plate-current meter, (e) plate-voltage meter, (f) rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor. Study Question #35: What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit? The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?" That was for a Novice! Good questions! And actually not all that hard. Not for you and not for me. Even when I was a 13 year old Novice-to-be those questions were not "hard". Some folks here are obviously stumped by them, though.. Sounds like an enjoyable test to take. Challenge is the word I'd use. I like a challenge! Some people do not. I think that one of the most damning things about the age that we live in is that somehow, some way, those who want no challenges are in their ascendancy. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC, ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some sense. The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is just the creation of another group of "great unwashed" We DON'T learn do we? Apparently there's NO reading, either. The only power limitation of the NECVEC petition-proposal is in a 400 KHz low sub-band on 10m for the three lower classes. Re-read the NECVEC petition-proposal and report back. LHA / WMD |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: I think that NCVEC and ARRL and others are missing the boat here. With the likely disappearance of Morse as a requirement, they are simply proposing *another* caste system, in which there is an elite, and an underclass ghetto of people with what to me seem to be radically reduced privileges. I don't have anything against different levels, but this seems like too much discrimination. It doesn't sit well with you that you are cast with the pro-code caste? Some hams NEED a caste system just to prove they are "better" than others, thus fulfilling a self-deficiency. For a very long time morse code ability was the caste marker, having no reasonable value except for some to brag that they were "better" than no-coders. Tsk, tsk, tsk...all the pro-coders beginning to cry and whine...? I have a caste system for you, Len: Everyone who has an amateur radio license is "in". You're "out". Dave K8MN |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: That was for a Novice! Good questions! And actually not all that hard. Sounds like an enjoyable test to take. Easy to say when you've taken all your tests and never have to take another test (if you renew within time bounds). Put yourself in the newcomer's place and look at it from their vantage point -and- that of the FCC. But, I don't think you will. You will, like way too many others, look at it from your own personal viewpoint and experience and desires and by default try to make all newcomers think as you do. You, Len, like way too many others, look at things from your own personal viewpoint and experience and desires and attempt to dictate regulation of amateur radio from that perspective. You'd have all the newcomers think of a five word per minute code test as an insurmountable obstacle. You can't freeze testing as it was in 1976...or 1986, 1966, 1956, 1946, or 1936. The overall environment is constantly changing even if your personal activities isn't changing. "Activities isn't"? Testing was changed again just a few years back. You know, around the time you were going to get an "Extra right out of the box". You really mustn't rush into these things. Take a few decades. Try to decide about GETTING INTO AMATEUR RADIO. Then all you have to do is wait and hope that the requirements will be lowered enough so that you can get in. Dave K8MN |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
The actual problem is stems from several elements. 1) Most people outside of amateur radio have never heard of it. So even if they might be inclined to pursue this hobby, they will never be involved. 2) Amateur radio, as with any specialized activity, is only going to appeal to a limited number of people in the first place. 3) There is a greater multitude of hobbies and activities available today than ever before. People have to make choices on how to spend their time and money. Some people probably will choose a hobby that doesn't require taking a test to get a license to do it. So we have to get a prospective ham person past that chore. Not a big chore, but still a chore. |
William wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC, ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some sense. The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is just the creation of another group of "great unwashed" We DON'T learn do we? - Mike KB3EIA - I can hear Larry now, "I'm a Superior Ham because I have higher voltage finals..." Or Bruce, "Know Ham = Know Voltage." You've been on a roll lately, Brian. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Alun wrote in message . ..
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in : (quoting the NCVEC proposal) In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final transmitter amplifier stage What about the 110 AC line? and that only commercially manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees. Might as well call it "Appliance Class" and be done with it. Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules. This is the worst part. We must fight this like the plague. What it *really" means is that there will be *no* rules and regs questions on the 20 question test! Agreed It is precisely this sort of thing that messed up cb. The VECs Question Pool Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination questions. The old Novice I took was 20 questions, and we could homebrew. Which I did from Day One. If a 13 year old kid with books for Elmers could safely build transmitters in the hollowstate era, why all these additional limits today? This petition was reviewed prior to submission by all 14 of the VEC's around the country, and was approved by a 2 to 1 margin. Which means a third of them disapproved. Were the individual VEs polled? No, I wasn't Do you get to vote on who represents your VEC at NCVEC? Do individual VEs have any say at all? It seems to me that NCVEC wants to get into the regulatory side of things without having to get input of *any* kind from the VEs themselves. This NCVEC thing is very similar to the "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" paper by KL7CC. I wrote a detailed commentary on it some time back. NCVEC's proposal makes the ARRL one look good. Which isn't saying much... It has some improvements over the League's plan, but that all depends on your perspective. I don't see *any* improvements over the ARRL proposal. What do you see, besides no code test for Extra (ARRL proposal drops all code testing except 5 wpm for Extra)? I'm not in favour of making the theory requirements easier. But that's exactly what the NCVEC proposal does - to an extent even greater than the ARRL proposal. Both of these plans upgrade all the Techs to General just to add a lower class licence without increasing the number of classes. This is because they know the FCC won't accept anything that makes the end result more complicated. They also upgrade Advanceds to Extra. I don't think we need an easier theory test to attract people. If someone is genuinely interested they will learn the theory. I agree 100%. NCVEC doesn't - where is the "improvement"? What we need is simply publicity. Most people are scarcely aware that ham radio even exists. Too true. But we also have to accept that only a small percentage of those who become aware will be interested, and that of those who are interested only some will actually become active licensed amateurs regardless of what is done to the requirements. The code test does need to be dumped to get over the hurdle of potential recruits who immediately lose interest when it is mentioned. I disagree. People who are *really* interested will learn 5 wpm. That has been demonstrated over and over again. No-code licencing for VHF+ did not eliminate that problem, no matter what anyone says to the contrary. Any intelligent person knew that code testing was only postponed if they wanted HF. Sure - but not all want HF, or can get on HF effectively. However, most people don't even get that far. Our visibility is zero. Not zero, but not as high as it needs to be. Besides, I am sure that the FCC will eliminate Element 1 anyway. Let's say for a moment that you're right, and Element 1 is simply dropped for all license classes. Which proposal do you think is better - ARRL's or NCVEC's, and why? By all means restructure, but these petitions are misguided. I agree that NCVEC's is very misguided. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Mike Coslo wrote:
The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is just the creation of another group of "great unwashed" A few questions on electrical safety on the test should solve the problem that the final voltage restriction is trying to address. How would you enforce it anyway? The frequency of your carrier is easily enforced (by someone tuning a receiver at a remote FCC field office), power level less so, and the B+ on the finals can't be except by a visit from the FCC. They don't have the budget for that. |
Robert Casey wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is just the creation of another group of "great unwashed" A few questions on electrical safety on the test should solve the problem that the final voltage restriction is trying to address. How would you enforce it anyway? The frequency of your carrier is easily enforced (by someone tuning a receiver at a remote FCC field office), power level less so, and the B+ on the finals can't be except by a visit from the FCC. They don't have the budget for that. Agreed. I have never been in favor of unenforceable rules. Can anyone come up with a good rationale for not teaching RF safety in some depth at the lowest level of license class? Are these newbies worth less to us? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: The actual problem is stems from several elements. 1) Most people outside of amateur radio have never heard of it. So even if they might be inclined to pursue this hobby, they will never be involved. 2) Amateur radio, as with any specialized activity, is only going to appeal to a limited number of people in the first place. 3) There is a greater multitude of hobbies and activities available today than ever before. People have to make choices on how to spend their time and money. Some people probably will choose a hobby that doesn't require taking a test to get a license to do it. So we have to get a prospective ham person past that chore. Not a big chore, but still a chore. It only takes a very tiny bit of encouragement to get them to take the test if their interest is more than just a "that's kind of interesting" level. The biggest problem remains the fact that so few people have heard of amateur radio. Today we are at the point where there are even people who haven't even heard of CB. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC, ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some sense. The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is just the creation of another group of "great unwashed" We DON'T learn do we? Apparently there's NO reading, either. The only power limitation of the NECVEC petition-proposal is in a 400 KHz low sub-band on 10m for the three lower classes. Re-read the NECVEC petition-proposal and report back. I have, and are you talking about something else? I took NECVEC to be a typo, since NCVEC is a group that put forth a proposal some time ago. Perhaps you are referring to a different group? At any rate, No need to modify my argument if you are referring to the NCVEC and not the NECVEC. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
I have a caste system for you, Len: Everyone who has an amateur radio license is "in". You're "out". Dave K8MN We'll see. |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: I have, and are you talking about something else? I took NECVEC to be a typo, since NCVEC is a group that put forth a proposal some time ago. Perhaps you are referring to a different group? At any rate, No need to modify my argument if you are referring to the NCVEC and not the NECVEC. My apologies, most noble of high rank amateurdom. A mere typo...and you vulture-wannabes are attracted as to carrion. NEC = Numerical Electromagnetic Code (method of moments computer calculation for EM fields) NEC = National Electrical Code (for electric power distribution) NC = No Comment...the left hand middle finger trembled on the E key as I laughed in trying to suppress The Finger sign? :-) LHA / WMD |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Can anyone come up with a good rationale for not teaching RF safety in some depth at the lowest level of license class? Are these newbies worth less to us? Newbies aren't worth anything to you royal, noble AMATEUR licensees. That's a given. QED by everything in Google. :-) Is the FCC supposed to enforce OHSA, too? Surgeon General's office? How about the Center for Disease Control? :-) LHA / WMD |
|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC, ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some sense. Mike, There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry level license: 1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you can't run more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't need to be tested on it) 2) To give an incentive (challenge) to learn more and qualify for a higher class license. (If the entry-level license conveys all privileges, why bother to upgrade?) The term "caste" isn't really accurate, though. "Caste" is something a person is born into and cannot escape, regardless of personal accomplishment. "Class" would be more accurate, because upward mobility is possible. The limitations on homebrewing and final voltage proposed by NCVEC are unenforceable, pointless and would cut off Communicators from an important part of amateur radio for no justifiable reason. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: I have, and are you talking about something else? I took NECVEC to be a typo, since NCVEC is a group that put forth a proposal some time ago. Perhaps you are referring to a different group? At any rate, No need to modify my argument if you are referring to the NCVEC and not the NECVEC. My apologies, most noble of high rank amateurdom. No need to apologize, Len. Thanks for the clarification. - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC, ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some sense. Mike, There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry level license: 1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you can't run more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't need to be tested on it) Sure, but I'm not even close to convinced that any tests need or should be simplified. I wonder if anyone can provide evidence that the those giving the tests are being overburdened? 2) To give an incentive (challenge) to learn more and qualify for a higher class license. (If the entry-level license conveys all privileges, why bother to upgrade?) But my idea, or non-idea does just that, without punitive power restrictions based on what I consider bogus rationale. For those that are happy to just ve on VHF and above, the Technician ticket is just the thing. Want HF access? Take the General test! Without Element one, there isn't anything to hold ya back. From what I see, simply removing Element 1 and letting the dust settle is a better plan than either the NCVEC or ARRL plans. The term "caste" isn't really accurate, though. "Caste" is something a person is born into and cannot escape, regardless of personal accomplishment. "Class" would be more accurate, because upward mobility is possible. The term caste is used mainly for the class aspect, not based on the religion aspect. Evil Extra's being reincarnated as CB'ers comes to mind! ;^) The limitations on homebrewing and final voltage proposed by NCVEC are unenforceable, pointless and would cut off Communicators from an important part of amateur radio for no justifiable reason. Agreed 100 percent! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license restructuring
From: Mike Coslo Date: 3/19/2004 6:58 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC, ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some sense. Mike, There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry level license: 1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you can't run more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't need to be tested on it) Sure, but I'm not even close to convinced that any tests need or should be simplified. I wonder if anyone can provide evidence that the those giving the tests are being overburdened? What I am wondering is why everyone wants to set these power levels low to avoid testing on questions about SAFETY! We're talking about requiring some knowledge that might prevent the person from hurting himself or others. Why are we so anxious to avoid them..?!?! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com