|
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! |
"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! |
Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: Mike Coslo Date: 3/23/2004 9:04 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Maybe I should write up and add my ides to the mix. Why not, Mike...It IS March, ya know...! ! ! ! Steve, K4YZ |
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. |
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 |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an incentive (gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to Morse proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance. [snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement] 73, Carl - wk3c |
|
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an incentive (gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to Morse proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance. [snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement] 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 |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an incentive (gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to Morse proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance. [snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement] 73, Carl - wk3c I agree with making priveleges granted keyed to tested knowledge. Arbitrary requirements were always an embarassment to try to justify. I felt so sorry for all the feeble attempts of the PCTA to try to do so. bb |
"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 |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. There may still need to be *some* evaluation done even at the 100/50W power level, but they are simplified compared to what needs to be known for the whole raneg of amateur power/frequencies. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air I agree 100%! That's the whole point of multiple license classes. It's not in the best interests of amateur radio to require all newcomers to pass the Extra just to get started. ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago No it's not clear at all! In fact, it's an apples and oranges comparison. Here's why: Books like "Now You're Talking" are meant to be stand-alone study guides. They contain the entire question pool, with explanations of each question and how to get the answer. And much more. The old License Manuals were not meant to be "one stop" books. They focused on the license process only - where the tests were held, the process, etc. The "study guides" were *not* the actual Q&A, but rather *essay* questions intended to indicate the areas to be tested. If you really want to make a comparison, take an old ARRL License Manual, add on "How To Become A Radio Amateur", "Learning The Radiotelegraph Code" and "Understanding Amateur Radio" and you'll begin to have an apples-to-apples comparison. Or consider these questions from the 1976 ARRL License Manual: Study Question #31: Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components: (a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter, (d) ammeter. Study Question #32: From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed by the load be determined? Study Question #33: In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery? Study Question #34: Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank, (c) high voltage source, (d) plate-current meter, (e) plate-voltage meter, (f) rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor. Study Question #35: What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit? The above were just *some* of the study questions for the *Novice* exam of 1976. Took up less than a page. How many pages of explanation would it take to teach the above material? The actual exam did not use these questions. Instead, it might show, for example, a schematic of the amplifier circuit similar to, but not exactly like the one shown in the license manual, with 5 of the components labeled "a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?" And that's at the *Novice* level. Does anyone think that the current entry-level exams are tougher than that? ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... The NCVEC proposal definitely *is* a dumbing down. The ARRL proposal is much better because it does not set a precedent of no homebrewing, etc. The "signed statement" thing of the NCVEC proposal is really, really bad. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an incentive (gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to Morse proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance. [snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement] 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 They didn't bypass Novice since they had to pass the written before 2000. The testing to get to tech was divided into two written elements. What many bypassed was the code test. If Novice was nocode with VHF access, especially to 2m, I'd bet there wouldn't have been anywhere near the number of techs we have today. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"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. |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. There may still need to be *some* evaluation done even at the 100/50W power level, but they are simplified compared to what needs to be known for the whole raneg of amateur power/frequencies. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air I agree 100%! That's the whole point of multiple license classes. It's not in the best interests of amateur radio to require all newcomers to pass the Extra just to get started. ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago No it's not clear at all! In fact, it's an apples and oranges comparison. Here's why: Books like "Now You're Talking" are meant to be stand-alone study guides. They contain the entire question pool, with explanations of each question and h ow to get the answer. And much more. The old License Manuals were not meant to be "one stop" books. They focused on the license process only - where the tests were held, the process, etc. The "study guides" were *not* the actual Q&A, but rather *essay* questions intended to indicate the areas to be tested. Wrong...see below. If you really want to make a comparison, take an old ARRL License Manual, The "old ARRL License Manual" was all anyone needed to pass the tests in the late 50s. Novice material was covered in 4 or 5 pages and General/Tech was about 12/16 pages. NO other info or books were needed. add on "How To Become A Radio Amateur", "Learning The Radiotelegraph Code" and "Understanding Amateur Radio" and you'll begin to have an apples-to-apples comparison. Or consider these questions from the 1976 ARRL License Manual: Study Question #31: Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components: (a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter, (d) ammeter. AND the study guide included the diagram. I memorized all 15 "draw a diagram" answers for the General written. 5 of those EXACT questions were on the General written I took in 1958. Study Question #32: From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed by the load be determined? All you needed to know was the formula...and that was in the study guide. Study Question #33: In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery? Anyway...you get the picture. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"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 |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an incentive (gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to Morse proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance. [snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement] 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 They didn't bypass Novice since they had to pass the written before 2000. The testing to get to tech was divided into two written elements. What many bypassed was the code test. If Novice was nocode with VHF access, especially to 2m, I'd bet there wouldn't have been anywhere near the number of techs we have today. Cheers, Bill K2UNK I said they elected to use the no-code Technician as their entry to ham radio rather than the Novice license. Yes they took the Novice written but not the code. Thus they "bypassed" the Novice license in the sense that they never held a Novice license. They had basically two choices to enter ham radio (unless of course they chose to do additional study and sit for higher class tests at the same time). 1) They could take (and pass) the Novice written plus 5wpm and get a Novice license. 2) They could take (and pass) the Novice written and Tech written and get a no-code Tech license. The prospective ham generally took the route 2 to enter ham radio rather than route 1. Thus by that choice, the people themselves made the Tech no-code the entry level license despite the fact that it was more difficult than earning the Novice license. The restructuring in 2000 merely formalized what had already occurred. Having earned my initial license in 1992 (Tech with HF), I'm quite familiar with what was going on. The majority of people sitting for their first license took the Tech no-code route to put off learning the code not because of its two meter and VHF access. Prior to on-air experience, they simply were not personally familiar enough with various ham activities to select their entry route on the basis of the desireability of having 2m access. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"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 |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an incentive (gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to Morse proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance. [snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement] 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. Yes. For decades I've worked with people who were interested in electronics and radio, so interested that they made that their career choice and never once tried to get an amateur license. Isn't that strange to you? I'm sure it is... LHA / WMD |
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). |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an incentive (gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to Morse proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance. [snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement] 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. I took the Technician test because it had the access that I wanted. Until I went to a few club functions and started working contests with the higher licensed hams, I was VHF-centric. This is part of my thoughts on the natural divide between MF/HF and VHF/UHF. I noted that divide before I ever took a test, and many of the Technicians I know seem to have that impression also. And finally, Exactly WHO is the Technician test too hard for? I hear and see people talking about this, but I really want to know who it is too hard for? And with the Morse test going, who is the General or Extra test too hard for? I find it very interesting that the NCVEC does not produce one bit of evidence for the failure rate among those tested. If the tests are too hard, there should be a percentage of testees that fail the tests. That might go a long way in convincing me that they are too hard. Instead, we hear the tests are too hard, but no hard evidence whatsoever. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 - |
N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. There may still need to be *some* evaluation done even at the 100/50W power level, but they are simplified compared to what needs to be known for the whole raneg of amateur power/frequencies. I don't think that safety stops at the "station evaluation level. One of the things that will probably happen if we get out of the mode that makes us even think of doing safety evaluations is that the new hams may not be thinking about RF safety at all. "Remember, don't put the antenna of your handy talkie in the puppy's mouth and press the talk button". I'm no genius (ask Len) and yet I don't understand what is so hard about RF safety that we need to almost eliminate it from the testing for the introductory license. If we really should eliminate it, we probably should limit the power to something like 5 watts or so. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air I agree 100%! That's the whole point of multiple license classes. It's not in the best interests of amateur radio to require all newcomers to pass the Extra just to get started. Sure. I'm just pretty bullish on the safety requirements. ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago No it's not clear at all! In fact, it's an apples and oranges comparison. Here's why: Books like "Now You're Talking" are meant to be stand-alone study guides. They contain the entire question pool, with explanations of each question and how to get the answer. And much more. The old License Manuals were not meant to be "one stop" books. They focused on the license process only - where the tests were held, the process, etc. The "study guides" were *not* the actual Q&A, but rather *essay* questions intended to indicate the areas to be tested. If you really want to make a comparison, take an old ARRL License Manual, add on "How To Become A Radio Amateur", "Learning The Radiotelegraph Code" and "Understanding Amateur Radio" and you'll begin to have an apples-to-apples comparison. Or consider these questions from the 1976 ARRL License Manual: Study Question #31: Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components: (a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter, (d) ammeter. Study Question #32: From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed by the load be determined? Study Question #33: In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery? Study Question #34: Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank, (c) high voltage source, (d) plate-current meter, (e) plate-voltage meter, (f) rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor. Study Question #35: What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit? The above were just *some* of the study questions for the *Novice* exam of 1976. Took up less than a page. How many pages of explanation would it take to teach the above material? The actual exam did not use these questions. Instead, it might show, for example, a schematic of the amplifier circuit similar to, but not exactly like the one shown in the license manual, with 5 of the components labeled "a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?" And that's at the *Novice* level. Does anyone think that the current entry-level exams are tougher than that? You know, I can't answer that question very easily. I don't believe that more questions makes for a harder test. And although I wasn't raised on hollow state, I figured out the questions you posed after a little enjoyable study. ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... The NCVEC proposal definitely *is* a dumbing down. The ARRL proposal is much better because it does not set a precedent of no homebrewing, etc. The NCVEC proposal is just plain Dumb. And I think it is also insulting toward the lowest license class. The "signed statement" thing of the NCVEC proposal is really, really bad. Just like the weird thing I was supposed to sign when I bought that C.B. rig right about the time they gave up on licensing. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm no genius (ask Len) and yet I don't understand what is so hard about RF safety that we need to almost eliminate it from the testing for the introductory license. If we really should eliminate it, we probably should limit the power to something like 5 watts or so. People are more at risk from RF exposure using their cell phones on a daily basis, operating at very high frequencies, where the antenna is less than an inch from their brain than they ever will be from any ham radio transmissions. |
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 - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The power limits make sense. Do you support not teaching newcomers about RF safety? I believe they should be, and as long as they know the fundamentals, they should have the same power privileges as the rest of us. I'll say right out that not teaching new people the fundamentals of RF and electrical safety is not very responsible. The power limit is about RF exposure and the need to do the evaluations. This is something that I think can reasonably be considered beyond the "beginner" level, as it requires a foundation in a number of areas. We can't expect the newcomer to learn EVERYTHING before then can get on the air ... compare the Novice tests of years past with their small number of questions and study guides with a dozen or less pages to "Now You're Talking," which contains 200-some pages and it's clear that "the bar" for entry has increased greatly from the entry level tests that I and many others took those many years ago ... the proposal is not a "dumbing down" for the entry level ... it's an attempt to rationalize beginner level tests and beginner level privileges, while providing an incentive (gee, I hate to use that word, since the incentive used to be keyed to Morse proficiency more than anything else) to learn and advance. [snipped the rest where we seem to be in fundamental agreement] 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 They didn't bypass Novice since they had to pass the written before 2000. The testing to get to tech was divided into two written elements. What many bypassed was the code test. If Novice was nocode with VHF access, especially to 2m, I'd bet there wouldn't have been anywhere near the number of techs we have today. Even with an Element 1 test, there would probably be a lot more novices if there had been VHF access. Conjecture of course. - mike KB3EIA - |
JJ wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: I'm no genius (ask Len) and yet I don't understand what is so hard about RF safety that we need to almost eliminate it from the testing for the introductory license. If we really should eliminate it, we probably should limit the power to something like 5 watts or so. People are more at risk from RF exposure using their cell phones on a daily basis, operating at very high frequencies, where the antenna is less than an inch from their brain than they ever will be from any ham radio transmissions. No argument there. I hope that newcomers won't try to use their HT's like they do a cell phone, presses up against the ear. Maybe *another* safety question? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions
From: Mike Coslo Date: 3/25/2004 9:33 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: They didn't bypass Novice since they had to pass the written before 2000. The testing to get to tech was divided into two written elements. What many bypassed was the code test. If Novice was nocode with VHF access, especially to 2m, I'd bet there wouldn't have been anywhere near the number of techs we have today. Even with an Element 1 test, there would probably be a lot more novices if there had been VHF access. Conjecture of course. I dunno, Mike... Novices were given 220MHz priviledges along with some (dubiously) adequate 10 meter phone priviledges and it sputtered to a halt almost as quickly as it started. I was in SoCal when "Novice Enhancement" took effect, and one can hardly argue that there is a dearth of repeaters on that band in that region...even that, very little additional activity was heard. I think I worked a half dozen Novices on 220 in the year after it was implemented. HF is the spectrum everyone wants to play on, all of the wizz-bang technology that's sprouting up on V/UHF notwithstanding. Any carrots we wish to put in front of the new-licensee cart are going to have to be 1.8 to 29.7MHz flavored carrots, I think! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
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 , 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com