RadioBanter - FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27384-fcc-assigns-rm-numbers-three-new-restructuring-petitions.html)

In article , Alex Flinsch
writes:

Actually they assigned numbers to 4 petitions, you missed this one
RM-10869 - K4SX 18 September 2003

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...df=pdf&id_docu
ment=6515285430

Thank you, I missed that one at first.

73 de Jim, N2EY

But writing was a real PITA back when I was in high school, no word
procesors or
computers then. or printers. How did people manage to bang out
typewritten papers without errors?

You had PAPER?!?

I admit that I had better materials than Abe Linclon had (charred sticks
on slate). :-)

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Back in the olden days before Bash published his books, I imagine that
some ham clubs
had compiled remembered questions from FCC tests. To help members
upgrade.

I never encountered anything like that in any ham club. Closest thing to it was
that some clubs would lend out the ARRL License Manual and Ameco study guides
to members.

And
I suppose someone had snuck a peek at those mail in novice and tech
tests before the FCC
said everyone had to test at a field office (Early 1976 they decreed
that, so I had to test
at the FCC).

I never encountered that, either.

However, having said that, I personally much prefer the ARRL proposal to the
NCVEC one for the following reasons:

2) I don't like the "commercial gear only" part of the NCVEC petition
because it unnecessarily
discourages homebrew and tinkering - something that novices have *always*
been allowed (and
encouraged by 97.1) to do.
3) I don't like the "low voltage" only part of the NCVEC petition, because
it precludes the new
ham from getting a good hamfest deal on an older rig like FT-101,
TS-520/820, etc. for no good
reason (nothing stops them from building power supplies that use 110VAC or
220VAC on the
*primaries*, so what's the sense in this proposal.

A few questions on electrical safety and procedures on the test should
address this issue.
Besides, other than an FCC inspector paying a visit, how could be
enforced? The FCC
doesn't have the budget for that. Output power can be limited to say
100W. Easier to
enforce, as signal strength can be measured remotely (not foolproof,
maybe his beam is
aimed right at you). The power limit would avoid the RF exposure issue.

I agree 100%.

and,
4) I don't like the NCVEC to "put the mark of Cain" on the newbies with a
special, never-used
callsign block that makes them stand out as targets for those who are
disgruntled with ANY change.

The old Novice licensees got WN#XXX callsigns to designate them as
novices.

In some areas WV prefixes were also used. I'm not sure why.

Other than a
few bozos, everyone accepted them as legit hams. When you upgraded to
general, the FCC
replaced the N with A or B in your callsign. The FCC must have had an
internal use only
note as to which you'd get when they issued your novice call.

It was the sequence.

First FCC issued all the W#xxx calls. Novices got WN#xxx or WV#xxx and when
they upgraded the letter was just dropped.

When those were gone, the same sequence was done with K#xxx calls.

Then came WA, WB, etc. Since the license was only good for 1 or 2 years until
the mid 1970s, there was no chance that the entire sequence would be run
through.

Today, you
could get a vanity callsign with the
WN if you want, even if you're an extra. Wonder if WN2ISE was ever
issued? Someone did
have WA2ISE before I was issued it in 1976, as a tech (general written
and 5wpm).

A lot of it has to do with the FCC computer systems and their ability to handle
changes. My info says the ARS callsign database was first computerized in 1964.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

I said they elected to use the no-code Technician as their entry to ham
radio rather than the Novice license. Yes they took the Novice written but
not the code. Thus they "bypassed" the Novice license in the sense that
they never held a Novice license. They had basically two choices to enter
ham radio (unless of course they chose to do additional study and sit for
higher class tests at the same time).

1) They could take (and pass) the Novice written plus 5wpm and get a Novice
license.
2) They could take (and pass) the Novice written and Tech written and get a
no-code Tech license.

The prospective ham generally took the route 2 to enter ham radio rather
than route 1. Thus by that choice, the people themselves made the Tech
no-code the entry level license despite the fact that it was more difficult
than earning the Novice license. The restructuring in 2000 merely
formalized what had already occurred.

I agree except for one point: The decision was made by different people for a
number of factors, such as the *perceived* difficulty and the *perceived*
rewards.

Having earned my initial license in 1992 (Tech with HF), I'm quite familiar
with what was going on. The majority of people sitting for their first
license took the Tech no-code route to put off learning the code not because
of its two meter and VHF access. Prior to on-air experience, they simply
were not personally familiar enough with various ham activities to select
their entry route on the basis of the desireability of having 2m access.

Here in EPA, after about 1980 the predominant entry license was the Tech. This
was true even before it lost its code test. The reason was 2 meter/440 access,
which Novices didn't have. A prospective ham would see almost every ham with a
2 meter HT or mobile, ask "what license do I need to talk to you guys" and wind
up with a Tech. Code or no code.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Here in EPA, after about 1980 the predominant entry license was the Tech.

This

was true even before it lost its code test. The reason was 2 meter/440 access,
which Novices didn't have. A prospective ham would see almost every ham with a
2 meter HT or mobile, ask "what license do I need to talk to you guys" and

wind

up with a Tech. Code or no code.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as a government entity, is
not under any regulations of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). EPA operating on amateur radio bands is a violation of the
Communications Act of 1934.

Gotcha! Here "EPA" means "Eastern Pennsylvania". I'm in "NNJ",
northern New Jersey.
The country is divided up into around a hundred zones by the ARRL. For
radio contesting
and reception reports.

========================
I'm having roast rabbit for Easter dinner. :-)

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

I said they elected to use the no-code Technician as their entry to ham
radio rather than the Novice license. Yes they took the Novice written
but
not the code. Thus they "bypassed" the Novice license in the sense that
they never held a Novice license. They had basically two choices to
enter
ham radio (unless of course they chose to do additional study and sit for
higher class tests at the same time).

1) They could take (and pass) the Novice written plus 5wpm and get a
Novice
license.
2) They could take (and pass) the Novice written and Tech written and get
a
no-code Tech license.

The prospective ham generally took the route 2 to enter ham radio rather
than route 1. Thus by that choice, the people themselves made the Tech
no-code the entry level license despite the fact that it was more
difficult
than earning the Novice license. The restructuring in 2000 merely
formalized what had already occurred.

I agree except for one point: The decision was made by different people
for a
number of factors, such as the *perceived* difficulty and the *perceived*
rewards.

Actually that was what I was trying to point out and you've clarified it
quite nicely.

Having earned my initial license in 1992 (Tech with HF), I'm quite
familiar
with what was going on. The majority of people sitting for their first
license took the Tech no-code route to put off learning the code not
because
of its two meter and VHF access. Prior to on-air experience, they simply
were not personally familiar enough with various ham activities to select
their entry route on the basis of the desireability of having 2m access.

Here in EPA, after about 1980 the predominant entry license was the Tech.
This
was true even before it lost its code test. The reason was 2 meter/440
access,
which Novices didn't have. A prospective ham would see almost every ham
with a
2 meter HT or mobile, ask "what license do I need to talk to you guys" and
wind
up with a Tech. Code or no code.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I can see where that could easily be a dominant factor if the prospective
ham had some exposure to that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE