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

"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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"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"?

Why not? It's good enough for the Canadians, eh!


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.

The word Novice still makes me think of nuns before I think of amateur
radio!


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.

Sorry, but I think they should have to learn both. If you have a ham
licence you should _know_ the rules at least for your own class of licence,
period.


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

But it still falls well short of the amount of phone allowed in the IARU
Region 2 (North and South America) bandplan. Try reading that particular
document. You may find that it's an eye opener.

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.

Agreed, but the test needs to cover basic electronics theory accordingly

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,

Agreed, but the appropriate safety guidelines should be in the test

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.


Agreed, but _only_ if they don't get to take a new ultra-lame theory test

73,
Carl - wk3c


73 de Alun, N3KIP

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

"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"?

Why not? It's good enough for the Canadians, eh!

Exactly!

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.

That depends on what is in those tests.

Anyone
who's truly a technical "newbie" and needs to learn more should not be
offended by the class name Novice.

But what if they are? You're telling other people how they should
feel, what they should like...

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

Some other countries have a beginner class called Basic.

The word Novice still makes me think of nuns before I think of amateur
radio!

Me too. It's an embarassing name for a license.

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.

I'm not asking that anyone know everything from day one, just that
they be tested on the rules for the license they are granted. That's
reasonable.

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.

From the experience of Phil Kane and others, it's just not a good idea
at all. Anyone who is a newbie to amateur radio regulations should not
have any trouble passing a few questions on the regulations.

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.

Why? If they can look up the rules, why can't they look up the other
things as well?

Sorry, but I think they should have to learn both. If you have a ham
licence you should _know_ the rules at least for your own class of licence,
period.

I agree with Alun 100%. The rules are the one thing that every
licensee *HAS* to know *BEFORE* the license is granted.

Look at the enforcement letters of FCC, and you'll see that the vast
majority of alleged violations by hams are violations of operating
rules, not technical violations.

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

But it still falls well short of the amount of phone allowed in the IARU
Region 2 (North and South America) bandplan. Try reading that particular
document. You may find that it's an eye opener.

Izzat the one that gives CW and digital about 10-15% of the available
HF amateur spectrum?

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.

Agreed, but the test needs to cover basic electronics theory accordingly

Only after it covers the rules.

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,

Agreed, but the appropriate safety guidelines should be in the test

Ditto.

We're not talking a lot, here. The "old" Novice covered all that. No
reason the new one can't.

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.

Agreed, but _only_ if they don't get to take a new ultra-lame theory test

It adds an unnecessary level of regs and no real benefits.

Instead, just do this:

1) Basic/Novice: Six-character callsigns (including vanity) in 2x3
format.

2) General: Six- or five-character callsigns (including vanity) in
2x3, 1x3, or 2x2 format.

3) Extra: Six-, five- or four-character callsigns (including vanity)
in 2x3, 1x3, 2x2, 1x2 or 2x1 format.

Nobody in any license class has to give up a callsign they hold now.
Closed-off license classes can choose future vanity calls from the
groups for the next-lowest license class.

Simple, universal, gives an incentive and no "mark".

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

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. 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).


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.

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. 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. 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).

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.

Beginning in the early 1950s there were several hardcover
"Q & A" books published on ALL the FCC license exams
plus several other areas of licensing exams by other
agencies. Those had "typical" exam questions in them
including some "typical" schematics required to be drawn
during FCC exams.

A bookstore in my home town had amateur radio Q&A books
but not the Commercial radio license variety back in 1956.
I skimmed through one a friend had, saw enough to decide
that the theory part wasn't needed and didn't buy one. I
borrowed the loose-leaf-bound FCC rules from a nice person
at a broadcast station over a weekend and crammed,
memorizing the regulatory parts which were new to me.
Not a problem. Passed the two-hour test in one sitting
at the Chicago FCC field office. Four written examination
parts in successive order, a general sort of test first for
FCC organization and scope (rather short), followed by
successive parts for Third, Second, and finally First
Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator.
Radiotelegraph written test was about the same; three
in the office were taking that plus the annoying, audible
code cognition tests in the same room at the same time.

Back then all the FCC regulations came in loose-leaf form
with extra revision-subscriptions, all available from the
Government Printing Office. Took at least a week to get
a surface mail order back from DC. No Internet then, no
"free downloads" from GPO within seconds. No instant
test results forwarded direct to DC either...went by surface
mail from field offices and DC sent licenses back. Slow
movements in all directions.

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one). The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have. Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one).

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have.

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and
copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies.

Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that would be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of the
study guides.

Bash obtained his materials by other methods, and his books did not explain how
the material was obtained.

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

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

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"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.

This is very important. New is very cool, and fun. But so is the
vintage stuff sometimes. Those old tube rigs are very cool, most perform
pretty well, and of course many are real bargains, and allow a new ham
to get on the air for very little money. The relative simplicity also
acts as a classroom for the new ham, in which s/he can learn some RF
basics. It would be sad to give the new licensees access to HF, and not
allow them to access some of the cooler (IMO) rigs out there.

Heh, guess I'm waxing a little technonostalgic here!

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.

Never though of that, but I agree.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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