"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...


RM-10867 - ARRL, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6516083735




RM-10870 - NCVEC, 3 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6516082208



RM-10868 - AG4RQ, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6515783299


73 de Jim, N2EY

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people
realize that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It
demonstrates a lack of consensus in the ham community, which could
cause the FCC to do exactly nothing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



That's probably what some of the old guard are trying to do. They are most
likely filing spurious petitions to delay the inevitable.

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...


RM-10867 - ARRL, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6516083735




RM-10870 - NCVEC, 3 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6516082208



RM-10868 - AG4RQ, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6515783299


73 de Jim, N2EY

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people
realize that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It
demonstrates a lack of consensus in the ham community, which could
cause the FCC to do exactly nothing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



That's probably what some of the old guard are trying to do. They are most
likely filing spurious petitions to delay the inevitable.

Oh I doubt that. It's more likely that everyone knows a change is coming
one way or another and views this as an opportunity to shape the
requirements to their own individual visions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

That's probably what some of the old guard are trying to do. They are most
likely filing spurious petitions to delay the inevitable.

Oh I doubt that. It's more likely that everyone knows a change is coming
one way or another and views this as an opportunity to shape the
requirements to their own individual visions.

Yes, isn't that strange?

Some folks just don't like to be tied down to 1930s standards and
practices, wanting to live in this new millenium rather than the old.

LHA / WMD

Alun wrote:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...


RM-10867 - ARRL, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6516083735




RM-10870 - NCVEC, 3 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6516082208



RM-10868 - AG4RQ, 18 March 2004

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r..._pdf=pdf&id_do
cum ent=6515783299


73 de Jim, N2EY

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people
realize that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It
demonstrates a lack of consensus in the ham community, which could
cause the FCC to do exactly nothing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




That's probably what some of the old guard are trying to do. They are most
likely filing spurious petitions to delay the inevitable.

Bad form, Alun. One petition I have seen is of the "old guard type".
The others are eliminating Morse code testing (or keeping it for the
highest class, making the testing regimen easier. Seems like most of
them are along the lines of what you want, not the old guard.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Alun wrote:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

How many petitions does that make altogether. Don't these people
realize that the plethora of petitions will drag out the process? It
demonstrates a lack of consensus in the ham community, which could
cause the FCC to do exactly nothing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

That's probably what some of the old guard are trying to do.

The facts speak differently.

They are most
likely filing spurious petitions to delay the inevitable.

Hardly "spurious". Hardly inevitable, either.

Bad form, Alun. One petition I have seen is of the "old guard type".
The others are eliminating Morse code testing (or keeping it for the
highest class, making the testing regimen easier. Seems like most of
them are along the lines of what you want, not the old guard.

In fact, some of them are either redundant or followups. Note that the
No Code International and NCVEC petitions that have closed are
virtually identical. Why didn't NCVEC wait until they had all their
ideas together and submit just one petition? That's what ARRL did ;-)

Hans, K0HB may yet submit a petition, too. It won't be an "old guard"
type.

It should be noted that there is plenty of precedent for this, too.
There were no less than *11* petitions that got RM numbers way back in
the 1960s, leading up to "incentive licensing".

73 de Jim, N2EY

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


73 de Jim, N2EY

Actually they assigned numbers to 4 petitions, you missed this one
RM-10869 - K4SX 18 September 2003
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6515285 430

Brief summary follows --

RM-10867 ARRL Petition
Auto upgrade Technician and Novice to General
Auto upgrade Advanced to Extra
Create a new no-code beginner class with limited HF priveleges
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
Increases Extra class to 13 WPM
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.


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.



--
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!

"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!

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

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.