wrote in message
oups.com...
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but
not in name).


After re-reading the NPRM, I'm no longer so sure of that as I was. The
appendix shows the new wording of the changed sections and the sections that
show privileges have not been changed. So it may be that the FCC intends to
keep the distinction between flavors of Tech and make the codeless
Technicians upgrade to get any HF privileges. Their extensive discussion
sections also seem to support that. Thirty pages including footnotes is a
lot of details to digest.

If approach is true, there are a lot of Technicians in for a shock.

Anyway, I think the FCC needs to clarify that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but
not in name).


After re-reading the NPRM, I'm no longer so sure of that as I was. The
appendix shows the new wording of the changed sections and the sections
that
show privileges have not been changed. So it may be that the FCC intends
to
keep the distinction between flavors of Tech and make the codeless
Technicians upgrade to get any HF privileges. Their extensive discussion
sections also seem to support that. Thirty pages including footnotes is a
lot of details to digest.

If approach is true, there are a lot of Technicians in for a shock.

Anyway, I think the FCC needs to clarify that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Ah! Here it is...wouldn't ya know it? OK, so you're thinking the NPRM in
its submitted form, if accepted and passed, would mean that Codeless
Technicians would have to upgrade?

I agree with you--lots of folks in for a shock. I am now intrigued enough
to look through there and see what it says.

My initial thoughts are that, to do so, would seem to open up a whole can of
worms from a administration perspective. I mean, as it is, I have to
produce the actual piece of paper to prove that I have the 5wpm endorsement
(if I wanted to upgrade to General under the current licensing structure).
That is, if I understand the "way it works." LOL

So, there'd be more affected than just the No-Code techs, I think. For
instance, I couldn't begin to even find my endorsement and I am not sure
I'll ever be able to. That would mean, essentially, I am a Codeless Tech?

Kim W5TIT

"Kim" wrote in message
. ..
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but
not in name).


After re-reading the NPRM, I'm no longer so sure of that as I was. The
appendix shows the new wording of the changed sections and the sections
that
show privileges have not been changed. So it may be that the FCC intends
to
keep the distinction between flavors of Tech and make the codeless
Technicians upgrade to get any HF privileges. Their extensive discussion
sections also seem to support that. Thirty pages including footnotes is
a
lot of details to digest.

If approach is true, there are a lot of Technicians in for a shock.

Anyway, I think the FCC needs to clarify that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Ah! Here it is...wouldn't ya know it? OK, so you're thinking the NPRM in
its submitted form, if accepted and passed, would mean that Codeless
Technicians would have to upgrade?

They would have to upgrade to get HF privileges. Unless of course they take
the code in the near future and become Techs with code and thus gain the
Tech Plus privileges. I've read it a couple of more times and it seems to
say that no one gets any changes in privileges. No code Techs will continue
to be VHF only unless they upgrade to General. Techs with code will
continue with their current VHF + very limited HF unless they upgrade to
General. Any one wanting more privileges than they currently have will be
required to upgrade. Basically the FCC has chosen to fully support those
who wanted no automatic upgrades.


I agree with you--lots of folks in for a shock. I am now intrigued enough
to look through there and see what it says.


I'd suggest reading it several times. As I said it's a lot to digest at
once and it's not as clearly written as one would hope. However, I found
it was much clearer on the second and third readings.

My initial thoughts are that, to do so, would seem to open up a whole can
of
worms from a administration perspective. I mean, as it is, I have to
produce the actual piece of paper to prove that I have the 5wpm
endorsement
(if I wanted to upgrade to General under the current licensing structure).
That is, if I understand the "way it works." LOL


Yes, under they system now in place, you would have to produce your Tech
Plus license to upgrade. Other proof is an old Novice license even if
expired. Everyone else would have to produce a CSCE not more than 365 days
old.

Under the new system, one would not have to have anything other than credit
for Element 2 (the Tech written), i.e. a Technician license of any type.

So, there'd be more affected than just the No-Code techs, I think. For
instance, I couldn't begin to even find my endorsement and I am not sure
I'll ever be able to. That would mean, essentially, I am a Codeless Tech?

Kim W5TIT


You will still have your current Tech Plus privileges if and when the NPRM
goes through. Just keep a copy of your license that says Tech Plus when you
renew. The FCC database will show your "Previous Class" as Tech Plus so that
should be sufficient should there be an issue. Other things you can do are
get copies of old callbook pages or even records from the FCC archives. The
FCC does charge a fee for the latter but it can be worth it.

Again, it looks like the NPRM was crafted in such a manner that no one loses
any privileges that they now have and that they will not gain any privileges
that they don't already have unless they take the appropriate test. It
looks like the FCC took great care in this regard as there is lingering "ill
will" about lost privileges from various earlier changes and a lot of
negative comments in this go round about "automatic upgrades".

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Kim:

"That would mean, essentially, I am a Codeless Tech?"

Or, from your question, maybe, "A clueless tech?"

Warmest regards,
John


"Kim" wrote in message
. ..
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but
not in name).


After re-reading the NPRM, I'm no longer so sure of that as I was. The
appendix shows the new wording of the changed sections and the sections
that
show privileges have not been changed. So it may be that the FCC intends
to
keep the distinction between flavors of Tech and make the codeless
Technicians upgrade to get any HF privileges. Their extensive discussion
sections also seem to support that. Thirty pages including footnotes is a
lot of details to digest.

If approach is true, there are a lot of Technicians in for a shock.

Anyway, I think the FCC needs to clarify that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Ah! Here it is...wouldn't ya know it? OK, so you're thinking the NPRM in
its submitted form, if accepted and passed, would mean that Codeless
Technicians would have to upgrade?

I agree with you--lots of folks in for a shock. I am now intrigued enough
to look through there and see what it says.

My initial thoughts are that, to do so, would seem to open up a whole can of
worms from a administration perspective. I mean, as it is, I have to
produce the actual piece of paper to prove that I have the 5wpm endorsement
(if I wanted to upgrade to General under the current licensing structure).
That is, if I understand the "way it works." LOL

So, there'd be more affected than just the No-Code techs, I think. For
instance, I couldn't begin to even find my endorsement and I am not sure
I'll ever be able to. That would mean, essentially, I am a Codeless Tech?

Kim W5TIT

Kim wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but
not in name).


After re-reading the NPRM, I'm no longer so sure of that as I was. The
appendix shows the new wording of the changed sections and the sections
that
show privileges have not been changed. So it may be that the FCC intends
to
keep the distinction between flavors of Tech and make the codeless
Technicians upgrade to get any HF privileges. Their extensive discussion
sections also seem to support that. Thirty pages including footnotes is a
lot of details to digest.

If approach is true, there are a lot of Technicians in for a shock.

Anyway, I think the FCC needs to clarify that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Ah! Here it is...wouldn't ya know it? OK, so you're thinking the NPRM in
its submitted form, if accepted and passed, would mean that
Codeless Technicians would have to upgrade?

I agree with you--lots of folks in for a shock. I am now
intrigued enough
to look through there and see what it says.

My initial thoughts are that, to do so, would seem to open up a whole can of
worms from a administration perspective. I mean, as it is, I
have to
produce the actual piece of paper to prove that I have the 5wpm endorsement
(if I wanted to upgrade to General under the current licensing structure).
That is, if I understand the "way it works." LOL

That's how it works now, Kim. But that piece of paper could be
an old license that says "Technician Plus", or a page from an
old Callbook, etc. Or a listing from the FCC database showing your
former license class as "Technician Plus".

So, there'd be more affected than just the No-Code techs, I
think. For
instance, I couldn't begin to even find my endorsement and I am not sure
I'll ever be able to. That would mean, essentially, I am a
Codeless Tech?

Since the changes of April 2000, FCC has left it up to the Technician
licensee (!) to retain documentation that they
are/were Tech Pluses.

It would be the height of irony if, in fact, the FCC dropped
Element 1 yet kept non-code-tested Techs off of HF until
they got Generals or Extras.

Of course the "simple" solution is to upgrade to General or Extra.

73 de Jim N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...
Kim wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite
a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except
that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges
but
not in name).


After re-reading the NPRM, I'm no longer so sure of that as I was. The
appendix shows the new wording of the changed sections and the sections
that
show privileges have not been changed. So it may be that the FCC
intends
to
keep the distinction between flavors of Tech and make the codeless
Technicians upgrade to get any HF privileges. Their extensive
discussion
sections also seem to support that. Thirty pages including footnotes
is a
lot of details to digest.

If approach is true, there are a lot of Technicians in for a shock.

Anyway, I think the FCC needs to clarify that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Ah! Here it is...wouldn't ya know it? OK, so you're thinking the NPRM
in
its submitted form, if accepted and passed, would mean that
Codeless Technicians would have to upgrade?

I agree with you--lots of folks in for a shock. I am now
intrigued enough
to look through there and see what it says.

My initial thoughts are that, to do so, would seem to open up a whole
can of
worms from a administration perspective. I mean, as it is, I
have to
produce the actual piece of paper to prove that I have the 5wpm
endorsement
(if I wanted to upgrade to General under the current licensing
structure).
That is, if I understand the "way it works." LOL

That's how it works now, Kim. But that piece of paper could be
an old license that says "Technician Plus", or a page from an
old Callbook, etc. Or a listing from the FCC database showing your
former license class as "Technician Plus".

So, there'd be more affected than just the No-Code techs, I
think. For
instance, I couldn't begin to even find my endorsement and I am not
sure
I'll ever be able to. That would mean, essentially, I am a
Codeless Tech?

Since the changes of April 2000, FCC has left it up to the Technician
licensee (!) to retain documentation that they
are/were Tech Pluses.

It would be the height of irony if, in fact, the FCC dropped
Element 1 yet kept non-code-tested Techs off of HF until
they got Generals or Extras.

Which is exactly what the NPRM says now that I've read it several times.
Each "flavor" of Technician maintains its current privileges. To gain
additional privileges will require taking the appropriate written test.
They remark that upgrading will require taking only the "simple" General
written exam.

In other words anyone who wants more privileges than they currently have
will have to take a test.


Of course the "simple" solution is to upgrade to General or Extra.


And as I read the comments in the NPRM, that is exactly what they want
licensees to do rather than give them any freebies at their current grade.
In other words they do not want people to be content with an entry level
license.

73 de Jim N2EY


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY:

Could the CB'ers get by with a note from their mother? Or, is that too much to
hope for?

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
Kim wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but
not in name).


After re-reading the NPRM, I'm no longer so sure of that as I was. The
appendix shows the new wording of the changed sections and the sections
that
show privileges have not been changed. So it may be that the FCC intends
to
keep the distinction between flavors of Tech and make the codeless
Technicians upgrade to get any HF privileges. Their extensive discussion
sections also seem to support that. Thirty pages including footnotes is a
lot of details to digest.

If approach is true, there are a lot of Technicians in for a shock.

Anyway, I think the FCC needs to clarify that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Ah! Here it is...wouldn't ya know it? OK, so you're thinking the NPRM in
its submitted form, if accepted and passed, would mean that
Codeless Technicians would have to upgrade?

I agree with you--lots of folks in for a shock. I am now
intrigued enough
to look through there and see what it says.

My initial thoughts are that, to do so, would seem to open up a whole can
of
worms from a administration perspective. I mean, as it is, I
have to
produce the actual piece of paper to prove that I have the 5wpm
endorsement
(if I wanted to upgrade to General under the current licensing structure).
That is, if I understand the "way it works." LOL

That's how it works now, Kim. But that piece of paper could be
an old license that says "Technician Plus", or a page from an
old Callbook, etc. Or a listing from the FCC database showing your
former license class as "Technician Plus".

So, there'd be more affected than just the No-Code techs, I
think. For
instance, I couldn't begin to even find my endorsement and I am not sure
I'll ever be able to. That would mean, essentially, I am a
Codeless Tech?

Since the changes of April 2000, FCC has left it up to the Technician
licensee (!) to retain documentation that they
are/were Tech Pluses.

It would be the height of irony if, in fact, the FCC dropped
Element 1 yet kept non-code-tested Techs off of HF until
they got Generals or Extras.

Of course the "simple" solution is to upgrade to General or Extra.

73 de Jim N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...
Kim wrote:
Ah! Here it is...wouldn't ya know it? OK, so you're thinking the NPRM
in
its submitted form, if accepted and passed, would mean that
Codeless Technicians would have to upgrade?

I agree with you--lots of folks in for a shock. I am now
intrigued enough
to look through there and see what it says.

My initial thoughts are that, to do so, would seem to open up a
whole can of worms from an administration perspective.
I mean, as it is, I have to produce the actual
piece of paper to prove that I have the 5wpm endorsement
(if I wanted to upgrade to General under the current licensing
structure).
That is, if I understand the "way it works." LOL

That's how it works now, Kim. But that piece of paper could be
an old license that says "Technician Plus", or a page from an
old Callbook, etc. Or a listing from the FCC database showing your
former license class as "Technician Plus".

So, there'd be more affected than just the No-Code techs, I
think. For
instance, I couldn't begin to even find my endorsement and I am not
sure
I'll ever be able to. That would mean, essentially, I am a
Codeless Tech?

Since the changes of April 2000, FCC has left it up to the Technician
licensee (!) to retain documentation that they
are/were Tech Pluses.

It would be the height of irony if, in fact, the FCC dropped
Element 1 yet kept non-code-tested Techs off of HF until
they got Generals or Extras.

But isn't that exactly what is proposed. Once it becomes the
new regulations (i.e. no code test anymore at all) there really
is no way for a code-less Tech to then become a Tech
with coode since there won't be anymore code tests being
administered.

Of course the "simple" solution is to upgrade to General or Extra.

And since a CSCE is good for a year, many code-less techs
might want to consider getty element 3 so when the new
regs become the rules, they can just go for a paper upgrade
on the day the rules become effective. Lots of Techs and
advanced licensees did that in early 2000 once the new rules
were set to go into place in April of that year.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Kim wrote:
large cut
It would be the height of irony if, in fact, the FCC dropped
Element 1 yet kept non-code-tested Techs off of HF until
they got Generals or Extras.

But isn't that exactly what is proposed. Once it becomes the
new regulations (i.e. no code test anymore at all) there really
is no way for a code-less Tech to then become a Tech
with coode since there won't be anymore code tests being
administered.

OTOH this being the govt it could be the result I hope the FCC will
make it clear in the report and order

Of course the "simple" solution is to upgrade to General or Extra.

And since a CSCE is good for a year, many code-less techs
might want to consider getty element 3 so when the new
regs become the rules, they can just go for a paper upgrade
on the day the rules become effective. Lots of Techs and
advanced licensees did that in early 2000 once the new rules
were set to go into place in April of that year.

I intend personaly to so once the R&O is issued since the FCC may try
and drag its feet, (and if so I expect NCI will try anf hold thier toes
to te fire) or till my wife decides to take her tech test herself so as
to have some reason myself to be there


Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...


Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Kim wrote:
large cut
It would be the height of irony if, in fact, the FCC dropped
Element 1 yet kept non-code-tested Techs off of HF until
they got Generals or Extras.

But isn't that exactly what is proposed. Once it becomes the
new regulations (i.e. no code test anymore at all) there really
is no way for a code-less Tech to then become a Tech
with coode since there won't be anymore code tests being
administered.

OTOH this being the govt it could be the result I hope the FCC will
make it clear in the report and order

In the discussion in the NPRM, they make it clear that they expect any Tech
not having HF privileges (i.e. codeless Techs) to take the General exam and
upgrade to get HF privileges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE