"KØHB" wrote in news:fAURc.14700$cK.2691
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

W5YI fingerprints all over this POS.

http://www.rrsta.com/rain/ncvec.html

"Entry Level" 20-item examination, renewable forever.

No homebrewing allowed.

30 Volt limit to the final stage on all transmitters.

Ghetto-ized with distinctive call signs (similar to the "Star of David"
sleeve insignia seen in Warsaw during WW-II?)

Restricted to legacy modes (stifling experimentation with emerging
amateur techniques, SS for example)

Hopefully this one doesn't ever see daylight as an FCC docket.

73, de Hans, K0HB

-----

*D-H = Dump Huck









Actually, I am in favour of this proposal. This maybe contradicts my former
position, but I have changed my mind.

Alun, N3KIP

"Alun" wrote


Actually, I am in favour of this proposal.


What part are you in favor of.....

......the part about an entry level licensee who takes a 20-item exam and
can be a ham until he dies?

......the part about an amateur radio licensee who cannot build their own
equipment?

......the part about an amateur radio licensee who cannot experiment with
new transmission modes?

......the part which places specific limits on the voltage values in the
finals?

This whole thing flies in the face of just about every tenet of 97.1.
FCC should not toss it aside lightly, they should hurl it aside with
great force.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , Alun
writes:

Actually, I am in favour of this proposal. This maybe contradicts my former
position, but I have changed my mind.

Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

W5YI fingerprints all over this POS.

http://www.rrsta.com/rain/ncvec.html

It's not anything new, Hans. But there is a new twist - see end of this post.
And yes, W5YI had a big piece of developing it. The rationale for it was
written up in an article called "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" by KL7CC. I
did a commentary/reply on that paper, which I sent to its authors and also
posted here some months back.

"Entry Level" 20-item examination, renewable forever.

It's worse than that. The 20 questions would include very little of the
regulations or theory.

No homebrewing allowed.

Only the assembly of "approved" kits.

30 Volt limit to the final stage on all transmitters.

Something about shock hazard. Yet the same person can work on any other type of
electronic, electrical or radio equipment with high voltages present and no
license. Why house current is not considered hazardous is left unexplained.

What the 30 volt rule effectively does is outlaw anything with tubes for those
with the proposed license. Got an old TS-520 or FT-101 that would get a
beginner started? Sorry, they can't use it legally.

Ghetto-ized with distinctive call signs (similar to the "Star of David"
sleeve insignia seen in Warsaw during WW-II?)

Paging Mr. Godwin...

Restricted to legacy modes (stifling experimentation with emerging
amateur techniques, SS for example)

Hopefully this one doesn't ever see daylight as an FCC docket.

It's already got an RM-number.

*D-H = Dump Huck

That's putting it mildly.

There's one other point, which everybody seems to have missed first time
through:

The proposed "Communicator" license doesn't conform to S25, nor to CEPT
requirements. Holders of such a license would probably not be eligible for CEPT
reciprocal licensing. (Just like how the UK "Foundation" licenses are only good
in the UK).

Simply a collection of very bad ideas. Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I
can provide a link if you want.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

That last point is true, but the Novice is also non-compliant with s25 and
CEPT, albeit they are no longer issuing any.


Which is an argument for its removal!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

Actually, I am in favour of this proposal. This maybe contradicts my
former position, but I have changed my mind.

Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

That's a fair question, Jim. It was really my XYL who persuaded me. She is
a Tech, and her perspective is a bit different from mine as an Extra. It is
easy to forget just how hard the theory tests seem to some people. She
convinced me of the value of a true entry-level licence.

I agree that the entry-level license could be improved. But what NCVEC proposes
throws the baby out with the bath water.

With all due respect to your XYL, bright elementary-school children have earned
Extra class licenses. How difficult can the tests really be?

Having said that, if you let anyone loose on the air after a 20 question
test, it is only reasonable to restrict them in the sorts of ways that this
proposal does, i.e. no microwaves, no linears/not enough power for an RF
safety assesment, no control op privileges, etc.

I agree with some of that. Power restrictions reduce/eliminate the RF exposure
troubles, for example. But the NCVEC proposal goes too far.

And it's not just the number of questions that's important. The material
covered is much more the issue. IMHO the current tests cover a lot of areas at
a fairly superficial level, rather than basic information in some depth.

Even the voltage restriction is perfectly reasonable from a safety POV.

I disagree!

There's no license requirement to work on non-radio electronics like stereo
amplifiers. Nor to work on house-current powered appliances. Yet all of a
sudden there's some sort of extreme hazard if a "Communicator" has a
transmitter with 50 volts on the final amplifier transistors.

For that matter, what about power supplies connected to the AC line? More than
50 volts inside them.

Of course, it does rule out a lot of boat anchors, but c'est la vie.

It's a stupid rule, and there's no reason for it. Heck, under the rule, a
"Communicator" ham could use a BA *receiver* with 300 volt B+, but not a modern
transceiver with 50 volt finals (which do exist).

And what about antennas? Many types of antenna, when fed the 100 or so watts of
RF allowed by the "Communicator" license, will have exposed parts with hundreds
or thousands of volts on them. Shall we require that "Communicators" only use
certain approved antenna types?

Do you
really think someone with a 20-question test would know how to load up such
a rig?

Yes! Or they'd learn. Instruction manuals, newsgroups, Elmers, etc. Lots of
info sources out there.

One of the most basic reasons for amateur radio to exist is to facilitate and
encourage learning by hams. Undue restrictions work against that.

In the old days they could just have asked nearly anyone, but that
ain't so anymore.

Sorry, Alun, I don't accept that argument at all.

I got my Novice license at the age of 13 back in 1967. Written test was 20 or
25 questions, multiple choice, all of them basic radio and regulations. None
asked how to tune up a typical transmitter of the day.

My first transmitter was homebrewed by me from available parts, using ideas
from books and magazines. Nobody showed me how to build it or tune it up; I
just read the articles and figured it out. 350 volts B+ but I never got shocked
by it. Just a little common sense. Hundreds of thousands of other Novices from
1951 onwards have similar stories.

Perhaps unlike the old Novices, new hams are only likely to meet other hams
after they get QRV.

I don't accept that argument either. Hams today have *more* Elmering resources
than ever before. Just look at all the online amateur radio resources available
for free.

Most of them won't have anyone to warn them of the
dangers of electrocution, etc.

Nobody warned me. I'm still here.

Basic electrical safety is part-and-parcel of any amateur license.

As for CW, you all know my views.

And mine!

The code test is gone in most European
countries, the only effect of which seems to be an increase in HF activity
(the HF bands may be virtually dead, but I was EI4VXI for a week recently,
and heard it from that end).

I don't find the HF bands to be virtually dead at all. But I work mostly CW,
and things on that mode are hopping!

PS: I think that the existing grades of licence should all be merged into
one, whereas this proposal maintains a General/Extra division.

Then why not support K0HB's proposal? Even though I disagree with some of it,
Hans' proposal is much, much, much superior to the NCVEC proposal. Which should
not only be hurled aside with great force, but also stomped into the dust.

What exactly do you mean by "existing grades of licence should all be merged
into one"? Does this mean all existing hams from Novice to Advanced would get a
free upgrade to Extra (full privileges)?

Or how about this for the entry-level license class (from ideas I've posted
here several times):

3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures,
and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main objective
is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-150 watts on HF/MF and
25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level determined by RF exposure limits).

Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31 and many of the other common data
modes like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or
club
trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum. Basic

is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's
still
a reason to upgrade.

Why not?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures,
and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main objective
is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-150 watts on HF/MF and
25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level determined by RF exposure
limits).

Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31 and many of the other common data
modes like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or
club
trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum.
Basic

is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's
still
a reason to upgrade.

Why not?

Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only" license? The
purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under the
supervison of an experienced operator. Then after some period of time or
minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade?

Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative quagmire and
just "get on with it"...??? As you and I have both pointed out on numerous
occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's little
validation for a new "entry class" license...

Now...if the POOLS were closed and the applicants actually HAD to LEARN
something, there MIGHT be a reason to have a simpler test to get started with..

73
Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures,
and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main objective
is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-150 watts on HF/MF and
25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level determined by RF exposure
limits).

Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31 and many of the other common data
modes like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or
club
trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum.
Basic

is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's
still
a reason to upgrade.

Why not?


Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only" license? The
purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under the
supervison of an experienced operator. Then after some period of time or
minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade?

Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative quagmire and
just "get on with it"...??? As you and I have both pointed out on numerous
occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's little
validation for a new "entry class" license...

And that is perhaps the most telling point, Steve. If a 9 year old kid
can pass the Extra, there is no reason to make tests easier. I don't
doubt that the child is a bit exceptional, but there are the Technician
and General licenses, which are certainly easier.



Now...if the POOLS were closed and the applicants actually HAD to LEARN
something, there MIGHT be a reason to have a simpler test to get started with..

I don't think there are any good reasons to have a simpler test. If
anything, I would like the Extra made harder.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 8/11/2004 9:11 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative quagmire and
just "get on with it"...??? As you and I have both pointed out on numerous
occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's little
validation for a new "entry class" license...

And that is perhaps the most telling point, Steve. If a 9 year
old kid
can pass the Extra, there is no reason to make tests easier. I don't
doubt that the child is a bit exceptional, but there are the Technician
and General licenses, which are certainly easier.

And I really wonder what, if anything, one of those 9 year olds could tell
you about radio propagation, modes, etc...

But it's not just kids...It's just about anyone anymore.

Now...if the POOLS were closed and the applicants actually HAD to LEARN
something, there MIGHT be a reason to have a simpler test to get started
with..

I don't think there are any good reasons to have a simpler test. If
anything, I would like the Extra made harder.

The test is hard enough, IF we were really testing applicants on thier
knowledge...We're not...We're testing them on the questions.

Would you want to go under the knife of a surgeon who got through medical
school on "open pool" testing? =0

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Mike Coslo" wrote


I don't think there are any good reasons to have a simpler test.


If the test regime was such that the examinations were comprehensive
enough to justify the privileges granted (it currently is not), then a
simple test for a limited-term learners permit (like the original Novice
concept) would be very appropriate.

73, de Hans, K0HB