FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
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 |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... 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 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 |
Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: "Dee D. Flint" Date: 3/23/2004 8:20 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: m 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. Naaaaaa.....They'll do "something", mostly because it's expected of them, not because it's necessarilly needed or appropriate to do so. The smartest thing they COULD have done was defuse all the controversy in the first place and "suspend" further code testing when S25.5 was modified...especially since that was the way they were already leaning in the first place, public opinon notwithstanding. And the second smartest thing they could have done was meld the Novice and Advanced Class licenses into the three remaining classes. The whole purpose of "Restructuring" was to administratively streamline the FCC's workload...Sooooooooo...Why leave two whole classes of licenses out there with no possibility of making new ones? They should have just taken a one-time swipe at clearing the database then. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions From: "Dee D. Flint" Date: 3/23/2004 8:20 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: m 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. Naaaaaa.....They'll do "something", mostly because it's expected of them, not because it's necessarilly needed or appropriate to do so. The smartest thing they COULD have done was defuse all the controversy in the first place and "suspend" further code testing when S25.5 was modified...especially since that was the way they were already leaning in the first place, public opinon notwithstanding. All of which is refreshingly like my "as little as needed" suggestion. And the second smartest thing they could have done was meld the Novice and Advanced Class licenses into the three remaining classes. The whole purpose of "Restructuring" was to administratively streamline the FCC's workload...Sooooooooo...Why leave two whole classes of licenses out there with no possibility of making new ones? They should have just taken a one-time swipe at clearing the database then. Maybe I should write up and add my ides to the mix. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message ... Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions From: "Dee D. Flint" Date: 3/23/2004 8:20 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: m 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. Naaaaaa.....They'll do "something", mostly because it's expected of them, not because it's necessarilly needed or appropriate to do so. The smartest thing they COULD have done was defuse all the controversy in the first place and "suspend" further code testing when S25.5 was modified...especially since that was the way they were already leaning in the first place, public opinon notwithstanding. And the second smartest thing they could have done was meld the Novice and Advanced Class licenses into the three remaining classes. The whole purpose of "Restructuring" was to administratively streamline the FCC's workload...Sooooooooo...Why leave two whole classes of licenses out there with no possibility of making new ones? They should have just taken a one-time swipe at clearing the database then. 73 Steve, K4YZ Keeping the classes has the advantage that they could easily be re-opened if they should decide that they made a mistake. It's happened in the past. With today's computerized databases, it just isn't that difficult to keep the "orphaned" classes. I suspect within the next few years, the Novice licenses will diminish greatly anyway due to lack of renewal. The simplest thing would have been to simply decide how many, if any, classes would keep the code and leave the structure otherwise unchanged. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... 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 Gee Dee, you say that as if that's a bad thing. Perhaps that's the idea. ;-) 73 de Bert WA2SI |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... 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 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. All things I had taken into account in my prediction! I remember how incredulous some were at my idea of how long it would take. My "4 years to change" may have even been optimistic! And yes, there is a decided lack of consensus in the Amateur community, especially when a sizable percentage of us (perhaps even a majority) prefer that Morse testing be kept, in direct opposition to the way things are likely to go! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... 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 Gee Dee, you say that as if that's a bad thing. Perhaps that's the idea. ;-) 73 de Bert WA2SI I want a decision to be made one way or the other. Hanging in limbo does none of us any good. Regardless of the FCC's decision, I will continue to encourage and support the study of code. As my own experience and abilities grow in its use, I find it ever more worthwhile. I just wish I had the discipline to carve out more time for it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... Keeping the "orpahned" classes has the advantage that they could easily be re-opened if they should decide that they made a mistake. Three classes is plenty and I doubt there's any regrets at reducing the number of licenses. It remains now as to what the best three are to be as per the RRL and NCVEC which are pretty much unified as to eliminating Tech and Advanced. Does any other country also have three classes? With today's computerized databases, it just isn't that difficult to keep the "orphaned" classes. It isn't just record keeping...it is also about keeping the rules and regs that are unique to those two classes on the books and subject to enforcement. Of course, another means is to leave Advanced and, rather than a free upgrade, just indicate that the privieges for Advanced are now identical to Extra. I suspect within the next few years, the Novice licenses will diminish greatly anyway due to lack of renewal. There are only about 32K now. The simplest thing would have been to simply decide how many, if any, classes would keep the code and leave the structure otherwise unchanged. That has been done by ARRL (three classes and only Extra would be code tested) and NCVEC (three licenses and NO code test at all). Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
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! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com