Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ...


N2EY wrote:

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:



When they drop the morse code test requirement, it's
fairly clear to me they just won't "drop" it all by
itself with a stroke of an administrative pen;

Why not? That's all that most of the anticodetest petitions are asking

for.

Both the NCI and NCVEC petitions simply ask for the dropping of Element

1 and

nothing else.

I don't think it can work by "just" dropping the test. Too many loos
ends. Tech plus, novices, that kind of thing.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually it would work quite easily. Everyone keeps their current
privileges except that all varieties of Techs are combined to one class of
Tech with the privileges of the Tech with HF.

It might be interesting to see if any tech's try out Morse code under
those contitions. Bootstrapping themselves to competence?

However, as you know I think they ought to keep the code test.

Me too, but it's nice to have a discussion that doesn't involve Morse code.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote:

The Tech (no code) has no HF test questions. (as I understand
it). Thus there is no reason a Tech (no code) would, or should
be qualified to operate HF.


Didn't you take the Technician license exam, Dan? If so, you should be
able to remember that it does indeed have questions about HF (bands,
sub-bands, propagation, operating considerations, code use, and so on).
After all, Tech Plus license holders, with limited HF privileges, take the
exact same written exam. Some Novice material (also limited HF privileges)
was added to the Tech license exam. Remember any of this? Now, what were
your reasons again for no-code Techs not being qualified to operate HF?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , "Clint" rattlehead
at computron dot net writes:

When they drop the morse code test requirement, it's
fairly clear to me they just won't "drop" it all by itself with a
stroke of an administrative pen;

Why not? That's all that most of the anticodetest petitions are
asking for. Both the NCI and NCVEC petitions simply ask for the
dropping of Element 1 and nothing else.

I imagine it
will accompany other changes in the license structure...

Only if somebody asks for them.

The FCC considered all sorts of proposals 4 years ago and we got what
we have now.

what do you think will also change in the licensing system when the
drop the morse code test?

I think you're right, Jim. My guess is that Element 1 will be dropped
and all Techs will be given Tech+ priviledges. I don't expect anything
else to happen.

It's been almost 3 months. I'm convinced FCC had the authority to dump
Element 1 soon after WRC 2003 ended.

Of course it's not a high priority for them.

That's not to say that some reform of the licence classes isn't
overdue, but the FCC position is that until there is some sort of
consensus they won't do anything about it.

See my post to KB3EIA. I doubt we'll ever get consensus due to the
"nobody loses/no giveaways" mindset.

73 de Jim, N2EY



LOL! Nobody Loses + No Giveaways = No Change!

Dan/W4NTI wrote:




Why should the FCC simply grandfather the Tech (no code) to Tech plus (code
and Novice test) ??

The Tech (no code) has no HF test questions. (as I understand it). Thus
there is no reason a Tech (no code) would, or should be qualified to operate
HF.



As things are now, a no code tech can take the 5WPM element 1 test, and
gain access
to HF as a novice. Besides, what's *that* different about HF vs VHF
(aside from
propagation)? One viewpoint would say that all a ham really needs to
know a
rules and regs, electrical and RF safety issues, some knowledge to
judge if a
rig is in band and on a desired legal frequency and is not emitting
excessive
harmonics, and how to handle RFI problems. This because the FCC allows
all hams
to build, repair and adjust our transmitters. Even novices. I haven't
heard of
any FCC enforcement actions because of deficient equipment lately.
Today it's
mostly bozos acting up.

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote:


The Tech (no code) has no HF test questions. (as I understand
it). Thus there is no reason a Tech (no code) would, or should
be qualified to operate HF.




Didn't you take the Technician license exam, Dan? If so, you should be
able to remember that it does indeed have questions about HF (bands,
sub-bands, propagation, operating considerations, code use, and so on).
After all, Tech Plus license holders, with limited HF privileges, take the
exact same written exam. Some Novice material (also limited HF privileges)
was added to the Tech license exam. Remember any of this? Now, what were
your reasons again for no-code Techs not being qualified to operate HF?



My pre '87 tech license was the General written test. Which obviously
had to ask
about HF. Aside from propagation, there really is nothing different
about HF vs.
VHF or UHF. Oh, okay, you don't get to build a 20 element rotatable
beam for
80m. Unless you can borrow an aircraft carrier.....

Dee D. Flint wrote:





Actually it would work quite easily. Everyone keeps their current
privileges except that all varieties of Techs are combined to one class of
Tech with the privileges of the Tech with HF.



The FCC might require no code techs to do a "paper" upgrade to tech
plus, like they
made pre'87 tech plussers do a paper upgrade to get a general license.
I was one of
these, and decided that I should also upgrade my license to "extra". So
we may see
more new generals happening if the FCC does it this way.

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Further, the fact has recently surfaced that the UK did exactly this
instead of completely dropping code testing, as was so widely
and loudly stated by NCI members.

UK issues issue code-tested licenses, and the word is that a majority
of UK hams prefer to take those tests, and qualify as code-licensed hams
with a callsign issued that indicates that fact.

I think you are wrong .... in the UK, if you pass the amateur exam now
you will be issued an "M0" call which in itself does not say you have
or have not passed the code test. My call is an old VHF-only and I prefer
to keep it, whether I am called "lazy" for not obtaining the code test or
not. It's my call since 1994 and I like it!
If you wish you can take a code test here and get a pass certificate which
you can present in countries that still have the code requirement.
To obtain the Foundation Licence (M3 calls) you attend a "Morse appreciation"
session - it is not a test.
73 Klaus G7RTI

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:





Actually it would work quite easily. Everyone keeps their current
privileges except that all varieties of Techs are combined to one class
of
Tech with the privileges of the Tech with HF.



The FCC might require no code techs to do a "paper" upgrade to tech
plus, like they
made pre'87 tech plussers do a paper upgrade to get a general license.
I was one of
these, and decided that I should also upgrade my license to "extra". So
we may see
more new generals happening if the FCC does it this way.


Even a paper upgrade would be unnecessary since the category of Tech Plus
does not exist anymore. These days Techs who pass the code must keep a copy
of their code CSCE to prove it in case they are ever questioned. Currently
when Tech Plus licensees renew, their license simply says Tech and they
should keep a copy of their expired Tech Plus to show they passed the code.
All that the FCC would need to do is issue a ruling that all Techs have the
same privileges as the old Tech Plus or Tech with code. The result is that
they would no longer need to keep a copy of their code CSCE or old Tech Plus
license.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[snip]

One of the big problems is the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall"
paradigm.

The NCI and NCVEC Petitions are "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall"
propositions ... since a tech now gets HF privs if he/she passes a 5 wpm
code test, the elimination of the test would not be a "windfall" if all
techs
got the same privs as the old "TechPlus" ...

Everything else stays the same.

Note there is NOTHING in the NCI (or NCVEC) petition about any form
of restriction of Morse use, any expansion of the phone bands at the expense
of Morse (or other digital mode) use, etc.

I think these proposals fully meet the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall"
paradigm.

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Even a paper upgrade would be unnecessary since the category of Tech Plus
does not exist anymore. These days Techs who pass the code must keep a copy
of their code CSCE to prove it in case they are ever questioned. Currently
when Tech Plus licensees renew, their license simply says Tech and they
should keep a copy of their expired Tech Plus to show they passed the code.
All that the FCC would need to do is issue a ruling that all Techs have the
same privileges as the old Tech Plus or Tech with code. The result is that
they would no longer need to keep a copy of their code CSCE or old Tech Plus
license.

Yep, they could do that easily.

But it would be almost exactly what ARRL asked for 5 years ago, when they
proposed that Techs get HF CW privs.

The "Tech-with-HF" semi-class is a classic designed-by-a-committee confuser. If
a Tech passes 5 wpm code, but doesn't upgrade, he/she gets HF Novice privs for
as long as he/she holds onto the Element 1 CSCE. But said CSCE can't be used
for Element 1 credit after 365 days.

OTOH, an expired Novice or Tech-with-code license document of any vintage is
good for Element 1 credit. Pre-March-21-1987 expired Tech licenses are also
good for Element 3 credit.

So someone who passed the 5 wpm code test in front of a single volunteer
examiner 50+ years ago and got a Novice or Tech license as a result gets credit
for Element 1, but someone who took the test 366 days ago gets no credit ofr
their CSCE.

And an expired-beyond-grace-period General, Advanced or Extra license gets no
credit at all.

Anyone think having the amateur license test/class regs make sense is a
priority to FCC?

73 de Jim, N2EY