"Alex Flinsch" wrote in message
...
In article , N2EY wrote:


RM-10867 - ARRL, 18 March 2004


http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6516083735
-----------------------------------------

RM-10870 - NCVEC, 3 March 2004


http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6516082208
----------------------------------------

RM-10868 - AG4RQ, 18 March 2004


http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...f=pdf&id_docum
ent=6515783299
-----------------------------------------

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

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...pdf&id_documen
t=6515285430

Brief summary follows --

RM-10867 ARRL Petition
Auto upgrade Technician and Novice to General

Wrong. The auto upgrade is Tech only to General.
Novice stays as Novice.

Auto upgrade Advanced to Extra
Create a new no-code beginner class with limited HF priveleges

Which is what the existing Novices go to.

Drop code requirements for General
Retain 5 WPM code for Extra
------------------------------------------------
RM-10868 AG4RQ Petition
Merge Novice and Technician classes keeping priveleges of both
Upgrade Advanced to Extra
Retain 5 WPM code for General and Extra
------------------------------------------------
RM-10869 K4SX Petition
Retains no-code Technician as is
Retains 5 WPM General

Not likly.

Increases Extra class to 13 WPM

Never happen

no mention of Novice or Advanced class elimination
-----------------------------------------------
RM-10870 NCVEC Petition
Essentially the same as the ARRL petition, but removes the code
requirement
for Extras also.

Also includes a "commercial only" transmitter rule for
Communicator (Novice)
Also includes power limit for Communicator/Novice

-------------------------------------------------
FWIW, I think the best possible result would be a combination of the ARRL
and AG4RQ versions -- merge Novice and Technician classes and priveleges.
Drop the code for General. Upgrade Advanced to Extra, and keep 5 WPM for
Extra.

I expect to see the ARRL petition win out, but they'll
lose on keeping any code. The code war was lost and
so noted in 98-143 R&O (6 years ago). Nothing
has changed, nor has there been any new arguments
that have been made to retain code testing at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article t, Bill Sohl wrote:
Auto upgrade Technician and Novice to General

Wrong. The auto upgrade is Tech only to General.
Novice stays as Novice.

Auto upgrade Advanced to Extra
Create a new no-code beginner class with limited HF priveleges

Which is what the existing Novices go to.

oops, you are correct, my error.



------------------------------------------------
RM-10869 K4SX Petition
Retains no-code Technician as is
Retains 5 WPM General

Not likly.

Increases Extra class to 13 WPM

Never happen

Agreed, this one just makes things more complicated, but then this is the US
government we are talking about, so who can tell...




no mention of Novice or Advanced class elimination
-----------------------------------------------
RM-10870 NCVEC Petition
Essentially the same as the ARRL petition, but removes the code
requirement
for Extras also.

Also includes a "commercial only" transmitter rule for
Communicator (Novice)
Also includes power limit for Communicator/Novice

The same power limits are defined in the ARRL proposal also. The 100/50 watt
limits proposed are set so they would be below the RF environmental
evaluation required levels.


-------------------------------------------------
FWIW, I think the best possible result would be a combination of the ARRL
and AG4RQ versions -- merge Novice and Technician classes and priveleges.
Drop the code for General. Upgrade Advanced to Extra, and keep 5 WPM for
Extra.

I expect to see the ARRL petition win out, but they'll
lose on keeping any code. The code war was lost and
so noted in 98-143 R&O (6 years ago). Nothing
has changed, nor has there been any new arguments
that have been made to retain code testing at all.


That's what I expect to happen also, although I think that the merger that I
mentioned above would keep more existing (coded) hams happy. Personally I
see no real reason to keep any code testing requirement.


--
Alex / AB2RC
Yaesu FT100 software for Linux http://www.qsl.net/kc2ivl
Why do they call Radio "Wireless", between my shack and antennas
I must have over 1500 feet of wire!

Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 3/23/2004 9:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Maybe I should write up and add my ides to the mix.

Why not, Mike...It IS March, ya know...! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

N2EY wrote:

RM-10867 - ARRL, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516083 735




RM-10870 - NCVEC, 3 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516082 208



RM-10868 - AG4RQ, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6515783 299


73 de Jim, N2EY


Use and to keep the links from getting screwed up.

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Alex Flinsch" wrote in message
...
In article t, Bill Sohl
wrote:
[snip]
RM-10870 NCVEC Petition
Essentially the same as the ARRL petition, but removes the code
requirement
for Extras also.

Also includes a "commercial only" transmitter rule for
Communicator (Novice)
Also includes power limit for Communicator/Novice

The same power limits are defined in the ARRL proposal also. The 100/50
watt
limits proposed are set so they would be below the RF environmental
evaluation required levels.

The power limits make sense.

They're similar to what has existec in the past.

Disallowing homebrew is counter to the purpose
of the ARS and should not be enacted.

I agree 100%.

However, in addition to the "commercial only" rule, the NCVEC proposal calls
for a low voltage limit, which would also keep new hams from taking
advantage of hamfest bargains on older rigs with tube finals, like the
venerable FT-101, TS-520/820, etc. This is an unnecessary impediment to new
hams getting a "starter" HF rig at affordable prices.

Again I agree. Also, it's unenforceable, and open to contradiction. For
example, could a "Communicator" build a power supply for his/her manufactured
rig? Any such supply that uses house current would pose at least as much of a
shock hazard as, say, a TS-520. But the Communicator would be allowed to build
such a supply, but not to buy a TS-520. Or, rather, he/she could *buy* the
TS-520, but could not *transmit* with it. Makes no sense at all.

I also dislike the entry level class name proposed by the NCVEC proposal -
"communicator" - I prefer retaining the traditional "novice" name, which is
recognized around the world (and has been used in other countries as well).

How about "Basic"?

What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than have a
lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that they be
*replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that they have obtained
a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by it. This is proposed so that
the "Communicator" test and its pool can be made smaller.

Is that a good idea?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

The power limits make sense.

Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they
should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have
the same power privileges as the rest of us.

I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF
and electrical safety is not very responsible.

The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations.
This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the
"beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas.

We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then
can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their
small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages
to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear
that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests
that
I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a
"dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize
beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an
incentive
(gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to Morse
proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance.

[snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement]

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article m, "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

How many petitions does that make altogether.

Three currently. The other 14 are way past their Comment ending
date.

3 + 14 = 17 for 2003 to 2004.

I correct myself. There are FOUR RMs released.

RM-10869 is a page and a half proposing to reinstitute morse code
testing by Ronald Lowrance, K4SX.

RM-10867 is from the beloved ARRL...
RM-10868 is from the "grassroots organization" Radio Amateur
Foundation...
RM-10869 is from K4SX representing (apparently) himself...
RM-10870 is from the NCVEC.

LHA / WMD

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

The power limits make sense.

Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they
should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have
the same power privileges as the rest of us.

I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF
and electrical safety is not very responsible.

The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations.
This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the
"beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas.

We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then
can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their
small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages
to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear
that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests
that
I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a
"dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize
beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an
incentive
(gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to
Morse
proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance.

[snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement]


The real oddity is how this situation came about. Once the no-code
technician license was introduced, people chose to take the route of
studying the 200 page book to get the no-code tech license rather than the
much simpler Novice written and simple 5wpm test. It was the beginners
themselves who changed the Tech to a beginner license by choosing to bypass
the Novice. People are strange.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

The power limits make sense.

Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they
should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have
the same power privileges as the rest of us.

I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF
and electrical safety is not very responsible.

The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations.
This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the
"beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas.

We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then
can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their
small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages
to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear
that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests
that
I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a
"dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize
beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an
incentive
(gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to Morse
proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance.

[snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement]

73,
Carl - wk3c

I agree with making priveleges granted keyed to tested knowledge.
Arbitrary requirements were always an embarassment to try to justify.
I felt so sorry for all the feeble attempts of the PCTA to try to do
so.

bb

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[snipped stuff where we seem to be in agreement]
I also dislike the entry level class name proposed by the NCVEC
proposal -
"communicator" - I prefer retaining the traditional "novice" name, which
is
recognized around the world (and has been used in other countries as
well).

How about "Basic"?

I still prefer "Novice" ... anyone who's more than a beginner technically
will
probably go straight through to General, or even Extra, in one sitting.
Anyone
who's truly a technical "newbie" and needs to learn more should not be
offended
by the class name Novice.

It's been around a long time, still fits, and is recognized worldwide - some
other
countries even have a beginner class called Novice.

What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than
have a
lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that they be
*replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that they have
obtained
a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by it. This is proposed so
that
the "Communicator" test and its pool can be made smaller.

Is that a good idea?

It's clearly a "learn as you go" proposition any way you look at it ...
NOBODY knows
everything there is to know from day one.

Since the rules can be looked up (just as one can use a "crib sheet" to
remember sub-band
edges) it seems to me that its not an unreasonable proposition. I'd rather
have someone
know a bit more about radio and operating and have to refer to the rules as
they learn to
make sure they did things "by the book" than to shortcut the *basic* theory
and operating
practices.

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

1) less conversion of CW/data space to SSB
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.
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.

73,
Carl - wk3c