|
What The NPRM Isn't
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). - No "refarming" of subbands, nor expansion of license privileges except the above-mentioned Techs-get-Tech-Plus-privileges change And now the big one - "Entry-level-licensd" hams (for lack of a better term that includes Novices, Technicians and Tech Pluses) will still have very limited HF privileges. Ironically, they will have only Morse Code/CW on small segments of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus SSB and Morse Code/CW on a somewhat bigger slice of 10 meters. No digital/data/image modes, no FM on HF at all - even though most of those "entry-level-licensed" hams have all privileges above 50 MHz. No access to five of the HF/MF bands at all. Seems FCC went for "minimum change". Is that the best we can do? 73 de Jim, N2EY - |
|
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 While I wish something had been included to keep the overall level of effort up, this does not surprise me. - No new entry-level license class Here I happen to agree with the FCC's discussion. It's not needed as the current entry requirements are not prohibitive. - No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but not in name). Are you sure of that? Originally, I thought so too but the wording of the NPRM is not clear. It says no one will gain privileges and no one will lose privileges. Perhaps the Tech with code (Tech Plus) will simply become a closed class like Novice and Advanced. Personally, if their doing away with the code, I think they might as well consolidate all Techs at the Tech Plus privilege level. - No "refarming" of subbands, nor expansion of license privileges except the above-mentioned Techs-get-Tech-Plus-privileges change The refarming of subbands is a separate issue and should be treated separately. An expansion of privileges is not needed since the upgrade route will be even easier. And now the big one - "Entry-level-licensd" hams (for lack of a better term that includes Novices, Technicians and Tech Pluses) will still have very limited HF privileges. Ironically, they will have only Morse Code/CW on small segments of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus SSB and Morse Code/CW on a somewhat bigger slice of 10 meters. No digital/data/image modes, no FM on HF at all - even though most of those "entry-level-licensed" hams have all privileges above 50 MHz. No access to five of the HF/MF bands at all. Seems FCC went for "minimum change". Here again, I agree with the FCC's discussion. They entry level hams can gain all this by taking a simple written test to get their General ticket. Besides these privileges make a nice incentive to upgrade. Is that the best we can do? Do we really need to do more on the code issue? There are already other proposals around to address refarming, etc. 73 de Jim, N2EY As I've stated before, I think it will become a defacto two license class system. People will upgrade to General soon after passing their Tech test. Personally, any Tech classes that I teach after the change goes through will be a combo class. During the first half of the session, I'll teach the Tech material and during the second half, the related General material. I will actively encourage my students to go for General right from the get go. Perhaps the FCC is wanting to see how this will go for a while and depending on the results, reduce the number of classes to two. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: Perhaps the FCC is wanting to see how this will go for a while and depending on the results, reduce the number of classes to two. I am willing to bet that there will be some arguments made to the effect that once the code is dropped it WILL become a defacto 2-class license, and they will just go ahead in this NPRM and do it. Then how far till 1? Then none? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: Dee Flint wrote: Perhaps the FCC is wanting to see how this will go for a while and depending on the results, reduce the number of classes to two. I am willing to bet that there will be some arguments made to the effect that once the code is dropped it WILL become a defacto 2-class license, and they will just go ahead in this NPRM and do it. Then how far till 1? Then none? typical always accusing folks of trying to eleiminate licenss all together but their certainly are virtues to 1 Class of license esp in POV of the FCC, but also for hams maybe that would finaly end the classism of Hamradio 73 Steve, K4YZ |
an old friend wrote: but their certainly are virtues to 1 Class of license esp in POV of the FCC, but also for hams maybe that would finaly end the classism of Hamradio What will end is the decades old tradition of self-training. No Incentive = No Advancement. An eons-old proven fact. Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: an old friend wrote: but their certainly are virtues to 1 Class of license esp in POV of the FCC, but also for hams maybe that would finaly end the classism of Hamradio What will end is the decades old tradition of self-training. No Incentive = No Advancement. An eons-old proven fact. i guess we have your excuse Steve, K4YZ |
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 The VEC organization has full authority to change written tests (e.g. specific questions, subjects, etc) without any FCC action needed. The NPRM specifically mentioned the process is much quicker than rule making via the FCC. - 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). I'll have to read the NPRM again. I didn't come to that conclusion myself. - No "refarming" of subbands, nor expansion of license privileges except the above-mentioned Techs-get-Tech- Plus-privileges change Didn't the FCC mention that was being considered under different RMs? And now the big one - "Entry-level-licensd" hams (for lack of a better term that includes Novices, Technicians and Tech Pluses) will still have very limited HF privileges. Ironically, they will have only Morse Code/CW on small segments of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus SSB and Morse Code/CW on a somewhat bigger slice of 10 meters. No digital/data/image modes, no FM on HF at all - even though most of those "entry-level-licensed" hams have all privileges above 50 MHz. No access to five of the HF/MF bands at all. Seems FCC went for "minimum change". Seems that way to me too. Is that the best we can do? What else do you want? Cheers Bill K2UNK |
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... cut - No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but not in name). I'll have to read the NPRM again. I didn't come to that conclusion myself. I read it as Techs get the old tech plus preveldges and the title tech cut Is that the best we can do? What else do you want? Code testing and others wanting a Public flogging to make folks suffer in order to gain HF previlgeds of course Cheers Bill K2UNK |
K4YZ wrote:
Dee Flint wrote: Perhaps the FCC is wanting to see how this will go for a while and depending on the results, reduce the number of classes to two. I am willing to bet that there will be some arguments made to the effect that once the code is dropped it WILL become a defacto 2-class license, and they will just go ahead in this NPRM and do it. Well, let's look at the history.... Before 1951, there were effectively two license classes, A and B. (The third license class, C, was just a B taken by mail). Both allowed access to all amateur frequencies and all authorized modes, at full power, with one exception. The exception was that only Class A hams could operate 'phone on the ham bands between 2 and 25 MHz. From February 1953 until November 1968, there were effectively three license classes, Novice (1 year 1-time-only newcomer license), Technician (VHF-and-up experimenter license) and General/Conditional/Advanced/Extra (all privileges licenses). Some people refer to that time as a "golden age"..... In 1998 FCC proposed reduction to 4 license classes (open to new issues, that is) - Technician, General, Advanced, Extra. In 2000 they went one step further and closed off the Advanced, too. So there's definitely a precedent. OTOH, FCC has steadfastly refused free upgrades. Then how far till 1? Then none? Admin work - that's the rub. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Bill Sohl wrote:
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 The VEC organization has full authority to change written tests (e.g. specific questions, subjects, etc) without any FCC action needed. The NPRM specifically mentioned the process is much quicker than rule making via the FCC. All the QPC/VECs are allowed to do is increase the size of the question pool. They cannot change the methodology of the written test, such as how many questions are on the test, the passing grade, the marking method (some tests take off points for wrong answers so that if you don't know the answer, you're better off leaving it balnk instead of guessing), etc. For example, the current format is multiple-choice with 4 possible answers. Can the QPC/VEC go to six possible answers (reduces the chances of a pure-guess correct answer)? - 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). I'll have to read the NPRM again. I didn't come to that conclusion myself. It's not clear to me - I just assumed that since the Tech requirement would be Element 2, and since all Tech Pluses are being renewed as Tech, and the only difference between Tech and Tech Plus is Element 1. - No "refarming" of subbands, nor expansion of license privileges except the above-mentioned Techs-get-Tech- Plus-privileges change Didn't the FCC mention that was being considered under different RMs? Yep, but it seems odd to do it piecemeal. And now the big one - "Entry-level-licensd" hams (for lack of a better term that includes Novices, Technicians and Tech Pluses) will still have very limited HF privileges. Ironically, they will have only Morse Code/CW on small segments of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus SSB and Morse Code/CW on a somewhat bigger slice of 10 meters. No digital/data/image modes, no FM on HF at all - even though most of those "entry-level-licensed" hams have all privileges above 50 MHz. No access to five of the HF/MF bands at all. Seems FCC went for "minimum change". Seems that way to me too. Is that the best we can do? What else do you want? The problem I see is that the current entry-level license funnels people to VHF/UHF. This came about in part because of S25.5, which has been history for over two years now. Now there's nothing wrong with VHF/UHF operating, but it has certain limitations. With basic equipment it's usually limited to local and maybe regional communications. It's also not the easiest part of the spectrum for homebrewing. Wouldn't it be better to offer newcomers a more balanced selection of frequencies to use? And more than two modes on HF? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: 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 The VEC organization has full authority to change written tests (e.g. specific questions, subjects, etc) without any FCC action needed. The NPRM specifically mentioned the process is much quicker than rule making via the FCC. All the QPC/VECs are allowed to do is increase the size of the question pool. They could also, therefore lower the size of the pool. Likewise, they can change subject areas addressed by questions in each pool. In doing so, the VEC orgs could migrate the current Tech question pool to a pool the more aligns with a "beginner license" test. They cannot change the methodology of the written test, such as how many questions are on the test, the passing grade, the marking method (some tests take off points for wrong answers so that if you don't know the answer, you're better off leaving it balnk instead of guessing), etc. Agreed. I was only talking content, not process. (SNIP) - No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but not in name). I'll have to read the NPRM again. I didn't come to that conclusion myself. It's not clear to me - I just assumed that since the Tech requirement would be Element 2, and since all Tech Pluses are being renewed as Tech, and the only difference between Tech and Tech Plus is Element 1. I follow your logic, but I think it would be clearer if so stated by the FCC in their final R&O. (SNIP) And now the big one - "Entry-level-licensd" hams (for lack of a better term that includes Novices, Technicians and Tech Pluses) will still have very limited HF privileges. Ironically, they will have only Morse Code/CW on small segments of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus SSB and Morse Code/CW on a somewhat bigger slice of 10 meters. No digital/data/image modes, no FM on HF at all - even though most of those "entry-level-licensed" hams have all privileges above 50 MHz. No access to five of the HF/MF bands at all. Seems FCC went for "minimum change". Seems that way to me too. Is that the best we can do? What else do you want? The problem I see is that the current entry-level license funnels people to VHF/UHF. This came about in part because of S25.5, which has been history for over two years now. Agree. Now there's nothing wrong with VHF/UHF operating, but it has certain limitations. With basic equipment it's usually limited to local and maybe regional communications. It's also not the easiest part of the spectrum for homebrewing. Wouldn't it be better to offer newcomers a more balanced selection of frequencies to use? And more than two modes on HF? I agree. I liked the idea of a broader beginner license. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
John Smith wrote:
N2EY: Personally, I think they should dump tech. Either let them study and get general or forget it, hopefully the newbie's will figure that out on their own... We should have some entry level test that reasonably smart 8th graders can handle. "Get them when they're young..." |
whats wrong with the one now that a reasonably smart 6 year old can pass?
http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2002/03/10/1/ "robert casey" wrote in message k.net... John Smith wrote: N2EY: Personally, I think they should dump tech. Either let them study and get general or forget it, hopefully the newbie's will figure that out on their own... We should have some entry level test that reasonably smart 8th graders can handle. "Get them when they're young..." |
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). - No "refarming" of subbands, nor expansion of license privileges except the above-mentioned Techs-get-Tech-Plus-privileges change And now the big one - "Entry-level-licensd" hams (for lack of a better term that includes Novices, Technicians and Tech Pluses) will still have very limited HF privileges. Ironically, they will have only Morse Code/CW on small segments of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus SSB and Morse Code/CW on a somewhat bigger slice of 10 meters. No digital/data/image modes, no FM on HF at all - even though most of those "entry-level-licensed" hams have all privileges above 50 MHz. No access to five of the HF/MF bands at all. Seems FCC went for "minimum change". Is that the best we can do? 73 de Jim, N2EY - As I have said many times, the FCC, which consists mainly of lawyers, isn't gonna do nothing more than what is absolutely necessary. Dan/W4NTI |
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 |
"K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: Perhaps the FCC is wanting to see how this will go for a while and depending on the results, reduce the number of classes to two. I am willing to bet that there will be some arguments made to the effect that once the code is dropped it WILL become a defacto 2-class license, and they will just go ahead in this NPRM and do it. Then how far till 1? Then none? 73 Steve, K4YZ In the discussion section of the NPRM, the FCC specifically said they would not address any changes at this time. I think they'll stick to it while they consider other petitions. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
John Smith wrote: robert: Frankly, what about amateur radio do you see as being so difficult. I keep seeing this same idea reflected in others text--I thought them only joking? If you belive nothing else I ever write John Believe this some hams are very serious about thinking the test should be some kind of ordel What freaks (or freqs) the various licenses can operate on? Ohms law? Formulas for power? Wavelength? Concept of extremely dense rf fields posing a danger? Harmonics and the need for traps, filters, etc? Power limitations on various bands? What is it which you see as a real road block and bordering on the edge of rocket science? I just don't get it? John "robert casey" wrote in message k.net... John Smith wrote: N2EY: Personally, I think they should dump tech. Either let them study and get general or forget it, hopefully the newbie's will figure that out on their own... We should have some entry level test that reasonably smart 8th graders can handle. "Get them when they're young..." |
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... [snip] I'll have to read the NPRM again. I didn't come to that conclusion myself. It's not clear to me - I just assumed that since the Tech requirement would be Element 2, and since all Tech Pluses are being renewed as Tech, and the only difference between Tech and Tech Plus is Element 1. It's not clear at all. However, the appendix shows the proposed new wording and the privileges sections of Part 97 remain unchanged. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"robert casey" wrote in message k.net... John Smith wrote: N2EY: Personally, I think they should dump tech. Either let them study and get general or forget it, hopefully the newbie's will figure that out on their own... We should have some entry level test that reasonably smart 8th graders can handle. "Get them when they're young..." We already do. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "b.b." wrote in message oups.com... wrote: 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). - No "refarming" of subbands, nor expansion of license privileges except the above-mentioned Techs-get-Tech-Plus-privileges change And now the big one - "Entry-level-licensd" hams (for lack of a better term that includes Novices, Technicians and Tech Pluses) will still have very limited HF privileges. Ironically, they will have only Morse Code/CW on small segments of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus SSB and Morse Code/CW on a somewhat bigger slice of 10 meters. No digital/data/image modes, no FM on HF at all - even though most of those "entry-level-licensed" hams have all privileges above 50 MHz. No access to five of the HF/MF bands at all. Seems FCC went for "minimum change". Is that the best we can do? 73 de Jim, N2EY Typical FCC bandaid fix that will leave in it's wake more problems than the one it solves. It doesn't create any new problems that I can see. Take off your eye patches. As they say in their discussion, anyone wanting expanded privileges will only have to take the appropriate written test. See the discontinuity in exams vs priveleges that Jim/N2EY points out. |
an_old_friend wrote:
John Smith wrote: robert: Frankly, what about amateur radio do you see as being so difficult. I keep seeing this same idea reflected in others text--I thought them only joking? If you belive nothing else I ever write John Believe this some hams are very serious about thinking the test should be some kind of ordel I'd think that would be something to appeal to a masochist like you, Mark. Dave K8MN |
an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: robert: Frankly, what about amateur radio do you see as being so difficult. I keep seeing this same idea reflected in others text--I thought them only joking? If you belive nothing else I ever write John Believe this some hams are very serious about thinking the test should be some kind of ordel Other than your name and that you are a documented deviate/liar, what's there to believe about anything YOU say...?!?!? No one wants to make the tests an "ORDEAL", Mark... Some of us DO want the tests to (1) be a valid demonstration of the applicant's comprehension of the required knowledge, and (2) fulfill the caveat of the Basis and Purpose of Part 97. Anything else is "Drama Queen" rantings. No more...no less... Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: robert: Frankly, what about amateur radio do you see as being so difficult. I keep seeing this same idea reflected in others text--I thought them only joking? If you belive nothing else I ever write John Believe this some hams are very serious about thinking the test should be some kind of ordel cuting stevie sexaul reference No one wants to make the tests an "ORDEAL", Mark... then you have been lying for years you want the apliacant to "suffer" to prove his devotion to the ars Some of us DO want the tests to (1) be a valid demonstration of the applicant's comprehension of the required knowledge, and (2) fulfill the caveat of the Basis and Purpose of Part 97. some folks do you aren't one of them of course you made it plain you want the apliacant to suffer to prove himself wothy Anything else is "Drama Queen" rantings. No more...no less... you are exactly a drama queen not doubt of about it Steve, K4YZ |
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
... wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... [snip] I'll have to read the NPRM again. I didn't come to that conclusion myself. It's not clear to me - I just assumed that since the Tech requirement would be Element 2, and since all Tech Pluses are being renewed as Tech, and the only difference between Tech and Tech Plus is Element 1. It's not clear at all. However, the appendix shows the proposed new wording and the privileges sections of Part 97 remain unchanged. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, did I see a post from you--I was just trying to look it up--where you said it looked to you like the No-Code Techs would have to upgrade to.......can't remember what class it was that was said? But, at any rate, it was stated (maybe by you) that some upgrades would have to happen? Can you direct me to the post? I am curious about what I was reading now. If it wasn't you, no matter, I'll see if I can come across it again. Kim W5TIT |
"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:
"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 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 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 |
Dee Flint wrote: "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 I fully agree that they the FCC expect itbut from my reading it is far from clear that they will require it 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 |
Dee Flint wrote:
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. Interesting - in many ways! For one thing, there would still be two kinds of Technicians - those with HF and those without. But more telling would be how many Techs would get Generals or Extras in order to get HF. We'd finally see how much of a "barrier" the 5 wpm code test really is/was, by how many Techs upgrade and how many don't. The sad part of it is that the recipe for success is clear from the history, but some folks don't like to look at history. Back in 1951 the Novice license was created. It was a limited term, easy-to-get license that started the most new hams out on HF CW. The Novice license ushered in an era of tremendous growth in US ham radio. There were perhaps 100,000 hams in 1951, and a dozen years later there were 2-1/2 times that many - most of whom had started out as Novices. But all attempts to reinvent the Novice were rejected by FCC. Some of those attempts were ill-conceived in detail, but the basic concept is valid. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
Here is a link to the general test, will all the FALSE ANSWERS REMOVED, please, share this with the techs, day after the code is dropped, let's see how many we can get to general! http://blake.prohosting.com/mailguy2/generaltest.txt John wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: 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. Interesting - in many ways! For one thing, there would still be two kinds of Technicians - those with HF and those without. But more telling would be how many Techs would get Generals or Extras in order to get HF. We'd finally see how much of a "barrier" the 5 wpm code test really is/was, by how many Techs upgrade and how many don't. The sad part of it is that the recipe for success is clear from the history, but some folks don't like to look at history. Back in 1951 the Novice license was created. It was a limited term, easy-to-get license that started the most new hams out on HF CW. The Novice license ushered in an era of tremendous growth in US ham radio. There were perhaps 100,000 hams in 1951, and a dozen years later there were 2-1/2 times that many - most of whom had started out as Novices. But all attempts to reinvent the Novice were rejected by FCC. Some of those attempts were ill-conceived in detail, but the basic concept is valid. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: 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. Interesting - in many ways! For one thing, there would still be two kinds of Technicians - those with HF and those without. Yes there will be. The NPRM bore down heavily on the point that licensees are expected to continue to develop and learn and thus if they want more privileges, they show that development by upgrading. But more telling would be how many Techs would get Generals or Extras in order to get HF. I think that will indeed be very interesting. I was plotting the data from the ah0a site out of curiosity and it is easy to see on a graph the bubble in 2000 and it is easy to see the fact that it was small and temporary. The only class that is steadily increasing significantly in numbers is the Extra. We'd finally see how much of a "barrier" the 5 wpm code test really is/was, by how many Techs upgrade and how many don't. My guess is that at least half the Technicians are inactive and will not upgrade. Of the remaining portion, there will probably be half that either don't hear about the change or don't hear that much about the change and so won't pursue it. There will also be a handful that aren't really interested in HF and so will not upgrade. Still if only 1/4 of the Techs upgrade in the next year, it will be quite a burden on the VEs for a while. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com