Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "WA8ULX" wrote in message ... No-Code Licenses should come a designator following there Callsign, that lets people know there status. Such as W5TIT-1, or W5TIT-2, that way we will know if they are Mentally Challenged Operator, or a Lazy Operator, 1 being Mental, 2 being Lazy, that way we would know which ones not to talk to. Not up to date on your history, are you? most PCTA types LIVE in the past, how odd. They USE to have no code license designations, starting with "N". Oops, that was a *fact*. Clint KB5ZHT |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
WA8ULX wrote:
No-Code Licenses should come a designator following there Callsign, that lets people know there status. Such as W5TIT-1, or W5TIT-2, that way we will know if they are Mentally Challenged Operator, or a Lazy Operator, 1 being Mental, 2 being Lazy, that way we would know which ones not to talk to. Hmmm ... I've been proudly no-code since upgrading to Technician, then General, then Advanced back in the 70's. ... after a grand total of *1* CW contact as a Novice and none since. Yeah, I studied for and passed the FCC-administered 13wpm code test back then. But, I consider it a silly little requirement for joining our exclusive little club. So, I guess that means that I should add a "-2" after my call when I ID, huh? I'm pretty sure that I'm not "Mental" (though the fact that I'm actually responding to this post is strong evidence to the contrary) since I graduated from college with a 4.0 GPA with a major in Computer Science and a minor in Electronics Engineering Technology. Don't get me wrong, I highly respect the people who use CW, and I think it's use should be encouraged. Considering its value, you can hardly do otherwise. And, yes, I believe that the CW-only portions of the bands must be preserved. But, to require it for licensing makes about sense as forcing every driver's test to be passed in a car with a manual transmission. What's the point on testing someone on something they may never use again. If, some day, they see value in it, let them go learn it. By the way, a few weeks back, I decided that I'm going to hit the books again and go for Extra before the end of the year. Yeah, it's a silly pride thing since I'll likely never actually use the little band slivers that I don't already have with Advanced. Besides, then I'll be able to step forward publicly with my feelings that Advanced and Extra should go away ... that an entry level class (Novice?) with low power privileges in all bands and a higher (General?) license that gives you everything are all the classes we need. Anything higher, like my Advanced and the Extra I'll have soon is just vanity. Let the ARRL create awards for folks who pass tests demonstrating a higher level of technical skill. -- Bob, KB0GT |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() What's the point on testing someone on something they may never use again. Just like the present written its foolish to take the written test when no knowlege is required. By the way, a few weeks back, I decided that I'm going to hit the books again and go for Extra before the end of the year. No need to study, go take it now, Im sure you will Ace it, it really is a JOKE. Besides, then I'll be able to step forward publicly with my feelings that Advanced and Extra should go away ... that an entry level class (Novice?) with low power privileges in all bands and a higher (General?) license that gives you everything are all the classes we need. Oh im sure its coming, I look for just 1 License. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob,
This is the model that Canada moved to in the 1990s, and morrors the CEPT structure to a great degree. We have two categories - Basic and Advanced. Morse can be added on to either. Basic gets you full privileges above 30 MHz, with power restrictions (560W PEP on SSB - not much of a restriction!). Morse adds on full access to all of the HF bands. Advanced adds on full legal power capability (2,250W PEP), the ability to build or your own transmitting equipment and operate a club repeater, be a VE, and a few other goodies. Only one call sign is issued (exception below...) - it is assigned upon receiving the Basic licence, and is good for life. No renewals or fees are charged. When you upgrade to Advanced, or add on Morse, a new certificate is issued, but the call remains the same. The only time the call sign must change is if you move to another area in Canada (i.e. VE2 moves to VE6, you must apply for a new VE6 call sign). Those who held one of the older qualifications are automatically transfered in the licence database to the appropriate new licence category.. A lot cleaner and cheaper! 73, Leo Besides, then I'll be able to step forward publicly with my feelings that Advanced and Extra should go away ... that an entry level class (Novice?) with low power privileges in all bands and a higher (General?) license that gives you everything are all the classes we need. Anything higher, like my Advanced and the Extra I'll have soon is just vanity. Let the ARRL create awards for folks who pass tests demonstrating a higher level of technical skill. -- Bob, KB0GT |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ... Wrong again. BZZZZZT, wrong on your part. There was a whole slew of N-class licenses, I knew several of them... N5VSQ, N5XDT, etc. Clint KB5ZHT Those calls were not issued on the basis of whether they had or had not passed a code test. Those call signs were issued to people who had passed General and Technician with code as well as no-code Techs. There is NO way to tell from a call sign whether they passed code as the call signs were issued on the basis of license class only. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE (an original N call issued when I passed my Tech with code in 1992. I have never held a codeless license). |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ... hmm, guess all the n-class operators that were no code technicians many years ago just "didn't exist"... they quit confining them to just n-calls years ago, though. Figured somebody living totally in the past with a blind eye to the future wouldn't know that, though. Clint KB5ZHT N calls were issued to Generals, Techs with code (Tech +), and codeless Techs. It did not indicate whether the person passed a code test or not. When I took my original license testing, I passed the Novice written, Tech written, and code. I was issued an N call (which I still hold today). I never held a codeless license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ... hmm, guess all the n-class operators that were no code technicians many years ago just "didn't exist"... they quit confining them to just n-calls years ago, though. Figured somebody living totally in the past with a blind eye to the future wouldn't know that, though. Clint KB5ZHT N calls were issued to Generals, Techs with code (Tech +), and codeless Techs. It did not indicate whether the person passed a code test or not. When I took my original license testing, I passed the Novice written, Tech written, and code. I was issued an N call (which I still hold today). I never held a codeless license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE To further expand (and you should know this from having studied for the exam): 2x3 calls beginning with W, K and N are assigned to Novice class licensees and higher. All the Ws available in the sequential assignment are used up. However some vacant calls are available via the vanity program. We are currently in the Ks. It will be some time before these are used up. When they are, calls will be assigned from the N block. 1x3 calls beginning with W, K, and N are assigned to Technician (both with and without code) class and General class and higher. All the sequentially assigned calls have been used up. Some vacant calls are available via the vanity program. No distinction in the call sign is based on whether or not the Technician has passed the code. So today, new licensees with or without code will receive a 2x3 call beginning with K. 2x2 calls beginning with W, K, and N are assigned to Advanced class and higher. Again all the sequential ones are gone and only some vacant calls are available via the vanity program. 1x2 and 2x1 calls beginning with W, K, and N are assigned to Extra class only. All the sequential calls are gone but there may be some vacant calls available via the vanity program. 2x1 calls beginning with AA through AL are assigned to Extra class only. Again all the sequential calls are gone with perhaps some vacant calls being available via the vanity program. 2x2 calls beginning with AA through AL are assigned to Extra class only. These are still available in the sequential assignment and available calls may also be requested via the vanity program. The no-code techs that you know with N calls simply received their calls when the N block of 1x3 calls was being used for the Technician (coded and no-code) and General class licensees. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dick Carroll; wrote:
Jim Hampton wrote: What? The last call I had before I got out of amateur radio was N2JH. That was *not* a no-code ticket! My licenses were WN2CJV, WB2OSP, WA3RJX, N2JH, and now AA2QA (after deciding to get back into amateur radio and simply testing out in one session - with no code copied between 1969 and 1993 except for the fact that I couldn't help but copy the Morse sent in the movie 'Fantastic Voyage'). Starting with WB2OSP, all were extra class tickets at 20 words per minute. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ... "WA8ULX" wrote in message ... No-Code Licenses should come a designator following there Callsign, that lets people know there status. Such as W5TIT-1, or W5TIT-2, that way we will know if they are Mentally Challenged Operator, or a Lazy Operator, 1 being Mental, 2 being Lazy, that way we would know which ones not to talk to. Not up to date on your history, are you? most PCTA types LIVE in the past, how odd. They USE to have no code license designations, starting with "N". Oops, that was a *fact*. Clint KB5ZHT So much for the accuracy of Clint's "facts". Was there any doubt? - Mike KB3EIA - |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ... hmm, guess all the n-class operators that were no code technicians many years ago just "didn't exist"... they quit confining them to just n-calls years ago, though. Figured somebody living totally in the past with a blind eye to the future wouldn't know that, though. Clint KB5ZHT N calls were issued to Generals, Techs with code (Tech +), and codeless Techs. It did not indicate whether the person passed a code test or not. When I took my original license testing, I passed the Novice written, Tech written, and code. I was issued an N call (which I still hold today). I never held a codeless license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE To further expand (and you should know this from having studied for the exam): 2x3 calls beginning with W, K and N are assigned to Novice class licensees and higher. All the Ws available in the sequential assignment are used up. However some vacant calls are available via the vanity program. We are currently in the Ks. It will be some time before these are used up. When they are, calls will be assigned from the N block. 1x3 calls beginning with W, K, and N are assigned to Technician (both with and without code) class and General class and higher. All the sequentially assigned calls have been used up. Some vacant calls are available via the vanity program. No distinction in the call sign is based on whether or not the Technician has passed the code. So today, new licensees with or without code will receive a 2x3 call beginning with K. 2x2 calls beginning with W, K, and N are assigned to Advanced class and higher. Again all the sequential ones are gone and only some vacant calls are available via the vanity program. 1x2 and 2x1 calls beginning with W, K, and N are assigned to Extra class only. All the sequential calls are gone but there may be some vacant calls available via the vanity program. 2x1 calls beginning with AA through AL are assigned to Extra class only. Again all the sequential calls are gone with perhaps some vacant calls being available via the vanity program. 2x2 calls beginning with AA through AL are assigned to Extra class only. These are still available in the sequential assignment and available calls may also be requested via the vanity program. The no-code techs that you know with N calls simply received their calls when the N block of 1x3 calls was being used for the Technician (coded and no-code) and General class licensees. Game, set, and Match! Ohh, this will be good to watch the wordsmmithing. I'll bet it starts with "I never said...... - Mike KB3EIA - |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Dee D. Flint wrote: "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ... Wrong again. BZZZZZT, wrong on your part. There was a whole slew of N-class licenses, I knew several of them... N5VSQ, N5XDT, etc. Clint KB5ZHT Those calls were not issued on the basis of whether they had or had not passed a code test. Those call signs were issued to people who had passed General and Technician with code as well as no-code Techs. There is NO way to tell from a call sign whether they passed code as the call signs were issued on the basis of license class only. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE (an original N call issued when I passed my Tech with code in 1992. I have never held a codeless license). How d'ya think he's going to "BZZZZTT" out of this one Dee? Clint is simply mistaken. Maybe time for N2EY to weigh in one this one See above. Dee's information is correct. FCC has *never* differentiated between code-tested and non-code-tested Technician callsigns. Also, with one exception, there has never been any requirement for a ham to change callsigns when upgrading license class. That one exception, now long gone, was the requirement to give up the Novice "N" or "V". ...............oh..........wait a second........ Jim must be a no-coder with that call sign. Jim, has Clint outed you? 8^) Nothing to be "outed" from! I have held this callsign since 1977, when it was sequentially issued. Before that I held WA3IYC, and before that, WN3IYC. -- And while we're on the subject of callsigns... I recall reading here recently that someone with a 2x3 WA8 call claimed to have held that same call since 1956. That's not correct, because FCC did not issue WA8 prefix calls that far back. Perhaps I read that post wrong. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Using Existing Law Against BPL | General | |||
BPL - Comments on the original Inquiry document | General | |||
jury-rigging radio antenna for HDTV use? | Antenna | |||
Whaddya think folks? | Policy | |||
existing plc qrn?? or something else? | Policy |