Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
I suspect that when the FCC eliminates "Element 1" they will (editorially)
renumber the elements.


I sure hope so, Carl! Stuff like that drives me crazy!


yea.. I know.. I'm already there..

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.

So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and
leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some
future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization
of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs
in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket match,
I take the former every time.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.

Apparently it didn't bother FCC for decades. But then again, they often focus
on the wrong things.

Before March 21, 1987, the Tech and General used the same written, called
Element 3. When they split that into two separate tests, the names were
changed
to 3A and 3B. A similar split took place back in 1967 when the Extra
written
(Element 4) was split into Advanced and Extra.

Etc.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Where you posting from, Jim?

Home, as usual.

There are three screen names on this account. One is used by other(s), one is
my call and this one is a "universal spare" based on my old call. For some
reason AOL is having trouble with NG access on my other screen name so I
switched over to this one for a while.

But I'm still me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.

So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and
leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some
future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization
of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs
in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket match,
I take the former every time.


I'm afraid we're gonna get the taffy-pull/furball anyway, though. By inaction,
FCC has opened the floodgates to a zillion petitions on everyhting under the
sun. Which will then be smooshed into an NPRM, and finally maybe some rules
changes that have little resemblance to said NPRM.

Maybe somewhere in there that stupid BPL idea will get squelched.

No offense, Phil, but the fact that we even have to fight as bad an idea as BPL
has caused my respect for a certain "expert agency" to all but disappear.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Phil Kane wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.


So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and
leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some
future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization
of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs
in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket match,
I take the former every time.


When you put it that way, yes. Bu I expect that there will be lots of
that taffy pulling, when we have a former President of NCI espousing his
terrible proposed changes, while Carl's method would work without making
a mess. But the FCC has to weigh both. There will probably be even more
proposals as time goes on.

And since many of the statement I've seen from them talk about their
desire to remove regulations, I wonder what the final outcome might be.
In an extreme (admittedly unlikely) outcome, we may not have to worry
about the numbering of the elements. There may be no elements. But I see
a possibility of there being only one element after the dust settles.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Phil Kane wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:03:31 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:


hmmmm, I don't know about you, but I really like to have the numbers
line up.


So do I, but if it's a choice of dropping the code test NOW and
leaving a hole where Element 1 used to be to be dealt with at some
future date, or futzing around for months with a total reorganization
of test elements, privileges, band segments, etc via a series of NPRMs
in a taffy-pull that will make r.r.a.p. look like a sedate cricket
match,
I take the former every time.


When you put it that way, yes. Bu I expect that there will be lots of
that taffy pulling, when we have a former President of NCI espousing his
terrible proposed changes,

What are you talking about above? If you're refering to W5YI, he
may have made/not made some PERSONAL comments in the NCVEC
meeting, but as far as I can read, they did not get into the NCVEC
petition ...

while Carl's method would work without making a mess.
By this, I take it you mean NCI's petition ... we appreciate your kind
words of support. :-)

But the FCC has to weigh both. There will probably be even more
proposals as time goes on.

And since many of the statement I've seen from them talk about their
desire to remove regulations, I wonder what the final outcome might be.
In an extreme (admittedly unlikely) outcome, we may not have to worry
about the numbering of the elements. There may be no elements. But I see
a possibility of there being only one element after the dust settles.

The FCC is NOT going to abandon amateur testing ... they can't under
the ITU Radio Regulations ... in fact, there is an ITU Recommenation
on the qualifications of amateurs that is mentioned, though not in a
mandatory
way, in the newly-revised Article 25 ... it's there as "good advice/guidance
to administrations" ...

Carl - wk3c

"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
No offense, Phil, but the fact that we even have to fight as bad an idea
as BPL
has caused my respect for a certain "expert agency" to all but disappear.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Whoever said the FCC was an "expert agency"???

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On 22 Aug 2003 10:43:17 GMT, WA3IYC wrote:

No offense, Phil, but the fact that we even have to fight as bad an
idea as BPL has caused my respect for a certain "expert agency" to all
but disappear.

I hate to admit it, but my own loss of respect for the policy,
administrative, and in some regards technical decisions being made
by the top brass of said "expert agency" was one of the reasons that
this "expert" and many others are no longer with said "agency".

My mentor in climbing the legal ladder just hit the retirement
rolls, and a good protege of mine is heading for same at the end of
next month. They feel the same way.

After a while when one plays in manure one can't get rid of the
smell....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Retired and loving every minute of it....
Work was getting in the way of my hobbies

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:48:47 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote:

But there could end up being *one* test, no?

An commision that would seriously consider the technically bankrupt
technology of BPL would be most capable of such a thing.

They are being considered by two entirely different processors with
entirely different agendas and outside pressures.

BPL will be well briefed to the "Eighth Floor" Commission sanctum
folks by the time that the Commission has to look at it, and the
decisions at the Commission level will be industry-political, not
technological.

Ham testing, OTOH, will be decided at the Division Chief level, two
levels below the Commission, and will be rubber-stamped by the
Bureau Chief (one level below) as well as by the Commission.

That's the real world.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article ,
(WA3IYC) writes:

There are three screen names on this account. One is used by other(s), one is
my call and this one is a "universal spare" based on my old call. For some
reason AOL is having trouble with NG access on my other screen name so I
switched over to this one for a while.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...the same person who made disparaging remarks about
"why would anyone have more than one screen name?"

Strange, isn't it, hypocrites seem to wind up biting themselves...

LHA