Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Phil Kane" wrote in message . net... On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote: 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? I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules. Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the NCVEC plan for a number of reasons. I'll take that to mean you do not support the "signed statement" idea, Carl? What's interesting about the NCVEC proposal is that if you remove the "signed statement" bad idea, and the "no home- brew/30 volt final" bad ideas, and the "additional unnecessary widening of the phone bands at the expense of CW/data" bad idea, and the "special beginner callsign" bad idea, you wind up with a proposal that's pretty darn close to the ARRL one. (Yeah, I know about the 5 wpm for Extra thing). As to support of ARRL petition... I'll let Carl speak for himself (although I believe we both agree). Specifically, I support the ARRL petition almost 100%. The ONLY aspect of the ARRL petition I disagree with is (as you know already) the retention of a code test for Extra. Personally, I think many of the provisions of the NCVEC proposal actually insult beginners. I agree completely. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:27:17 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:
As to support of ARRL petition... I'll let Carl speak for himself (although I believe we both agree). Specifically, I support the ARRL petition almost 100%. The ONLY aspect of the ARRL petition I disagree with is (as you know already) the retention of a code test for Extra. That's where I stand as well. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:28 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:
In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property. In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as receiving stolen goods. Not for the lack of us around whose office he lurked wanting that action taken..... Need we rehash this again ?? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the NCVEC plan for a number of reasons. Right. You are already an Extra and none of your amateur privileges will be changed by any of the 4 new proposals. Not to worry. Amateurs thought that once before...remember...!??! In any case, any changes to Amateur Radio Service rules or regulations DO affect ANY licensee, regardless of class or years licensed. But, only the NCVEC petition calls for total elimination of the morse code test. How does that square with the NCI position on code? Why does it matter to you? You are not an Amateur Radio licesee and anything that DOES happen will not affect you in ANY case... Steve, K4YZ |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:28 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote: In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property. In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as receiving stolen goods. Not for the lack of us around whose office he lurked wanting that action taken..... Need we rehash this again ?? What for...by your own statements you admit nothing was done by the FCC? The fact that one or more FCC attorneys may have wanted action taken doesn't validate anything other than those FCC folks that wanted action couldn't convince their management that the case either had merit or was worth the time and expense. .. All the academic discussion of what may have been the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means nothing in the end. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... [snip] 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 Just goes to show you that Morse only privs on HF don't appeal very much to the vast majority of people who want to talk, learn and experiment with digital modes, etc. Carl - wk3c I'm just amazed at how easily some can brush aside the monumental waste of time learning the Morse Code and become. Probably someone without a job, on disability, or retired. Boy you certainly know how to jump to erroneous conclusions. Welp, we had a sailor on here long ago who insisted that everyone else devote as much time as it took to learn the code or stay the hell out of ham radio. Where did he learn the code? The Navy taught it to him while he earned 3 hots and a cot, plus a paycheck. I work a full time job, which also entails travel further limiting my time. So did I at the time I was learning the code. Lots of frustrating work. Payoff? I don't use it. I found learning Morse to be no more of a waste of time than studying theory. I do. So much so that I used the description, "monumental waste of time." They both take time and both are worthwhile. Not to me. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: [snip] I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the NCVEC plan for a number of reasons. I'll take that to mean you do not support the "signed statement" idea, Carl? Correct ... there is much about the NCVEC proposal that I don't like. What's interesting about the NCVEC proposal is that if you remove the "signed statement" bad idea, and the "no home- brew/30 volt final" bad ideas, and the "additional unnecessary widening of the phone bands at the expense of CW/data" bad idea, and the "special beginner callsign" bad idea, you wind up with a proposal that's pretty darn close to the ARRL one. (Yeah, I know about the 5 wpm for Extra thing). I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of getting approved by the FCC. As to support of ARRL petition... I'll let Carl speak for himself (although I believe we both agree). Specifically, I support the ARRL petition almost 100%. The ONLY aspect of the ARRL petition I disagree with is (as you know already) the retention of a code test for Extra. Ditto ... Personally, I think many of the provisions of the NCVEC proposal actually insult beginners. Ditto ... I agree completely. Ditto ... 73, Carl - wk3c |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:26:48 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:
What for...by your own statements you admit nothing was done by the FCC? The fact that one or more FCC attorneys may have wanted action taken doesn't validate anything other than those FCC folks that wanted action couldn't convince their management that the case either had merit or was worth the time and expense. .. All the academic discussion of what may have been the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means nothing in the end. Not being prosecuted or otherwise punished for an act doesn't mean that the act didn't take place. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of getting approved by the FCC. One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code for extras. As the treaty requirement is now gone, and no other service uses it, why bother. The FCC isn't in the business of giving out gold stars for the hell of it. Code isn't a lid filter, as witness 14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Dee's comments on Novice vs. Tech From: (William) Date: 3/28/2004 9:06 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: They both take time and both are worthwhile. Not to me. But who...better yet WHAT are you...?!?!? A person who cannot answer a straight question, that has professed admiration for a known pathological liar and has himself been caught trying to misrepresent the truth and then subsequently trying to hide that with even more misrepresentations. So "we" are impressed by your opinions....WHY...?!?! Steve, K4YZ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
My restructuring proposal | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
What's All Dose Numbers Hams Use | Dx |