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

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
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.

Carl - wk3c

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 homebrew/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)/

Personally, I think many of the provisions of the NCVEC proposal actually
insult beginners.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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

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

"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

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.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

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

[expletive deleted]

of getting approved by the FCC.

One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code
for extras.

That's the key question these days for any license requirement these days. You
make an excellent point.

The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does FCC get
out of protecting hams from BPL interference?"

As the
treaty requirement is now gone, and no other service uses it, why
bother.

Because hams *do* use it. Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

The FCC isn't
in the business of giving out gold stars for the

[expletive deleted]

of it.

Not about "gold stars". About qualifications. Of course there's differences of
opinion on what qualified means.

Code isn't a lid filter,

*No* test is a perfect "lid filter". Particularly not a test given one time.
There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through much
more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not filtered out by
those testing and education systems.

as witness
14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there.

You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

Remember this:

All those folks on 14.313, 3950, W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams that
included the rules and regulations. Most of them passed multiple written exams,
yet they broke the rules anyway. So obviously those written tests aren't a
perfect lid filter either. Shall we dump the rules and regs from those written
exams because they didn't do the job?

oh wait, that's what NCVEC is proposing for the entry level!

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

But, only the NCVEC petition calls for total elimination of the morse
code test. How does that square with the NCI position on code?

LHA / WMD

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