It seems that the South African authorities have dropped their recent
licencing proposal and replaced it with a new one.

Their existing licencing scheme in South Africa has a Full (ZS call)
licence and a Restricted (ZR call) licence, the latter having privileges
above 30 MHz only, both taking the same theory test, but the ZS calls
having to pass a 12wpm code test. IOW, exactly as the UK A and B licences
were back when I first got a UK licence.

The authorities in South Africa reacted to the demise of the ITU code
test requirement in a truly bizarre way, by suggesting a third class of
licence with a ZT call, with a 5wpm code test and limited HF privileges.
This has been shelved, due to what they say were a large number of
comments. No such licence will now be implemented, so don't expect to
hear any ZT calls anytime soon.

Instead, they are proposing a dual route to a full licence, offering a
choice between either an advanced theory test or a code test for each
candidate. This was proposed by many people in many countries whilst
there still was an ITU requirement for a code test, but this is the first
time I have seen it resurface since it ended. If South Africa does
implement it, they will be the first and probably only country to do so.

They are also proposing to give the same limited HF privileges that they
would have given to the new licence, to the existing restricted licence
instead, without any addtional testing.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

In article , Alun
writes:

The authorities in South Africa reacted to the demise of the ITU code
test requirement in a truly bizarre way, by suggesting a third class of
licence with a ZT call, with a 5wpm code test and limited HF privileges.

Why was this a "truly bizarre way"?

This has been shelved, due to what they say were a large number of
comments.

Democracy in action.

No such licence will now be implemented, so don't expect to
hear any ZT calls anytime soon.

Instead, they are proposing a dual route to a full licence, offering a
choice between either an advanced theory test or a code test for each
candidate. This was proposed by many people in many countries whilst
there still was an ITU requirement for a code test, but this is the first
time I have seen it resurface since it ended.

Sounds like a very reasonable compromise.

If South Africa does
implement it, they will be the first and probably only country to do so.

Why? Perhaps it could be a way out of the constant arguments. It wasn't
possible before, due to the treaty.

They are also proposing to give the same limited HF privileges that they
would have given to the new licence, to the existing restricted licence
instead, without any addtional testing.

How many has in South Africa, anyway?

73 de Jim, N2EY

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Alun
writes:

The authorities in South Africa reacted to the demise of the ITU code
test requirement in a truly bizarre way, by suggesting a third class of
licence with a ZT call, with a 5wpm code test and limited HF privileges.

Why was this a "truly bizarre way"?

TAFKA Rev Jim, I'll explain it to you. SA has two existing coded HF
licenses. ITU says you can drop code, so they come out with a third
coded license. Bizarre.

This has been shelved, due to what they say were a large number of
comments.

Democracy in action.

You almost got it right. Should be "Democracy inaction."

No such licence will now be implemented, so don't expect to
hear any ZT calls anytime soon.

Instead, they are proposing a dual route to a full licence, offering a
choice between either an advanced theory test or a code test for each
candidate. This was proposed by many people in many countries whilst
there still was an ITU requirement for a code test, but this is the first
time I have seen it resurface since it ended.

Sounds like a very reasonable compromise.

Then why did they initially suggest a third coded license? Why did
that generate a "large number of comments?"

If South Africa does
implement it, they will be the first and probably only country to do so.

Why? Perhaps it could be a way out of the constant arguments. It wasn't
possible before, due to the treaty.

TAFKA Rev Jim, the constant arguments can be gotten out of by letting
go.

They are also proposing to give the same limited HF privileges that they
would have given to the new licence, to the existing restricted licence
instead, without any addtional testing.

How many has in South Africa, anyway?

huh?

(William) wrote in
om:

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

The authorities in South Africa reacted to the demise of the ITU code
test requirement in a truly bizarre way, by suggesting a third class
of licence with a ZT call, with a 5wpm code test and limited HF
privileges.

Why was this a "truly bizarre way"?

TAFKA Rev Jim, I'll explain it to you. SA has two existing coded HF
licenses. ITU says you can drop code, so they come out with a third
coded license. Bizarre.

This has been shelved, due to what they say were a large number of
comments.

Democracy in action.

You almost got it right. Should be "Democracy inaction."

No such licence will now be implemented, so don't expect to
hear any ZT calls anytime soon.

Instead, they are proposing a dual route to a full licence, offering
a choice between either an advanced theory test or a code test for
each candidate. This was proposed by many people in many countries
whilst there still was an ITU requirement for a code test, but this
is the first time I have seen it resurface since it ended.

Sounds like a very reasonable compromise.

Then why did they initially suggest a third coded license? Why did
that generate a "large number of comments?"

If South Africa does
implement it, they will be the first and probably only country to do
so.

Why? Perhaps it could be a way out of the constant arguments. It
wasn't possible before, due to the treaty.

TAFKA Rev Jim, the constant arguments can be gotten out of by letting
go.

They are also proposing to give the same limited HF privileges that
they would have given to the new licence, to the existing restricted
licence instead, without any addtional testing.

How many has in South Africa, anyway?

huh?


Not quite right, the ZR licence is no-code, but yes, it is bizarre to greet
the end of the code requirement by suggesting a new licence with a code
test.

And Jim, I didn't say it was a bad idea to have a dual track system with
code and theory alternatives. It's actually quite a good one. No doubt now
someone will put that in petition number 18, or whatever number we are up
to now.

I won't though, because it isn't going to happen. We don't know exactly
what the FCC will do, but we do know two things that they are on record as
saying:-

1) They don't beleive that the code test serves a useful purpose;

2) They won't rearrange subbands until a consensus emerges amongst us.

So, we do know really (although some are in denial) that the NPRM will dump
Element 1 completely.

We can be rather less sure what it will do to reform the unnecessary
proliferation of licence classes, and the equally unneccessary slicing and
dicing of the ham bands that goes with it. I hope it might do something in
this regard, but it is perhaps more likely that it will do nothing, or at
least as little as possible, as they probably will decide that we still
don't agree with oneanother.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

In article , Alun
writes:

it is bizarre to greet
the end of the code requirement by suggesting a new licence with a code
test.

Why?

The revised treaty says that each country shall determine for itself what the
code test requirements for an amateur license will be. It appears that South
Africa is in the process of determining what it shall be for South Africa.
Perhaps there will be no test, or no change, or something in between.

And Jim, I didn't say it was a bad idea to have a dual track system with
code and theory alternatives. It's actually quite a good one. No doubt now
someone will put that in petition number 18, or whatever number we are up
to now.

I first suggested such a thing several years ago in my "Chinese Menu" license
concept. The idea was that there would be a "core" test requirement for the
lowest level of license, and upgrading could be accomplished by accumulating
credits in a variety of ways, such as specialized written tests, and code
tests.

I won't though, because it isn't going to happen.

Why not? Nobody has suggested it yet in the USA because in the past it would
have violated the treaty to have an HF license with no code test. Now it could
be done.

We don't know exactly
what the FCC will do, but we do know two things that they are on record as
saying:-

1) They don't beleive that the code test serves a useful purpose;

Not true!

They said it "serves no *regulatory* purpose"

2) They won't rearrange subbands until a consensus emerges amongst us.

I sure hope they don't!

So, we do know really (although some are in denial) that the NPRM will dump
Element 1 completely.

It ain't over until it's over, and even then it ain't over.

We can be rather less sure what it will do to reform the unnecessary
proliferation of licence classes,

What "proliferation"? We have 6 right now, with one scheduled to disappear in a
little over six years even if no rules changes at all are made. Two others are
disappearing by attrition.

and the equally unneccessary slicing and
dicing of the ham bands that goes with it.

Would you have only one class of license and no subbands by mode?

I hope it might do something in
this regard, but it is perhaps more likely that it will do nothing, or at
least as little as possible, as they probably will decide that we still
don't agree with oneanother.

And we don't.

73 de Jim, N2EY

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Alun
writes:

it is bizarre to greet
the end of the code requirement by suggesting a new licence with a code
test.

Why?

Because, TAFKARJ, the country already has coded licenses. And they've
had since 1912 to perfect them. Now its time for them to try
something new and different, but instead they get more of the same.
Can't think outside the box.

(William) wrote in
om:

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

it is bizarre to greet
the end of the code requirement by suggesting a new licence with a
code test.

Why?

Because, TAFKARJ, the country already has coded licenses. And they've
had since 1912 to perfect them. Now its time for them to try
something new and different, but instead they get more of the same.
Can't think outside the box.


I agree that Jim is being a little obdurate, but don't lose sight of the
fact that South Africa have dropped that plan. They at least are somewhat
open to persuasion.

(William) wrote in message . com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Alun
writes:

The authorities in South Africa reacted to the demise of the ITU code
test requirement in a truly bizarre way, by suggesting a third class of
licence with a ZT call, with a 5wpm code test and limited HF privileges.

Why was this a "truly bizarre way"?

TAFKA Rev Jim, I'll explain it to you. SA has two existing coded HF
licenses. ITU says you can drop code, so they come out with a third
coded license. Bizarre.

Question, Brain...

I have never seen Jim Miccolis refer to you as anything but
"Brian"...

So WHY do YOU inisist on following the insulting and demeaning
example of a known pathological liar and antagonist in engaging in any
interaction with him...?!?!

Are you, after all, as shallow and immature as I thought you
really are?

Please give some specific example of how Jim has belittled or
demeaned YOU in a like manner...

This has been shelved, due to what they say were a large number of
comments.

Democracy in action.

You almost got it right. Should be "Democracy inaction."

As the otehr post suggested...You can either get to the higher
class license by progressing up a Code ladder or a theory ladder.

Why is that "inaction"...?!?!

Sounds like a very reasonable compromise.

Then why did they initially suggest a third coded license? Why did
that generate a "large number of comments?"

To introduce a pathway to the higher license. Shall I draw you a
map?

If South Africa does
implement it, they will be the first and probably only country to do so.

Why? Perhaps it could be a way out of the constant arguments. It wasn't
possible before, due to the treaty.

TAFKA Rev Jim, the constant arguments can be gotten out of by letting
go.

Ahhhhh...so, if we all just agree with you, then we don't need to
"discuss" anything any more, eh?

How Lenniesque.

They are also proposing to give the same limited HF privileges that they
would have given to the new licence, to the existing restricted licence
instead, without any addtional testing.

How many has in South Africa, anyway?

huh?

Even a gradeschooler can see he just dropped the "m" out of
"hams", BRAIN...

I can see how you'll wind up a loser if you ever got on "Wheel of
Fortune"...

OOOOOOPS! YOU'RE ALREADY A LOSER!

EXXXXXXXXXCCCCCUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEE MEEEEEEEEEEEEE ! ! !
! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

(William) wrote in message . com...

Because, TAFKARJ, the country already has coded licenses. And they've
had since 1912 to perfect them. Now its time for them to try
something new and different, but instead they get more of the same.
Can't think outside the box.

Again with teh belittlements where no belittlement in kind existed.

And you mean can't think outside YOUR box...

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in
m:

(William) wrote in message
. com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

The authorities in South Africa reacted to the demise of the ITU
code test requirement in a truly bizarre way, by suggesting a third
class of licence with a ZT call, with a 5wpm code test and limited
HF privileges.

Why was this a "truly bizarre way"?

TAFKA Rev Jim, I'll explain it to you. SA has two existing coded HF
licenses. ITU says you can drop code, so they come out with a third
coded license. Bizarre.

Question, Brain...

I have never seen Jim Miccolis refer to you as anything but
"Brian"...

So WHY do YOU inisist on following the insulting and demeaning
example of a known pathological liar and antagonist in engaging in any
interaction with him...?!?!

Are you, after all, as shallow and immature as I thought you
really are?

Please give some specific example of how Jim has belittled or
demeaned YOU in a like manner...

This has been shelved, due to what they say were a large number of
comments.

Democracy in action.

You almost got it right. Should be "Democracy inaction."

As the otehr post suggested...You can either get to the higher
class license by progressing up a Code ladder or a theory ladder.

Why is that "inaction"...?!?!

Sounds like a very reasonable compromise.

Then why did they initially suggest a third coded license? Why did
that generate a "large number of comments?"

To introduce a pathway to the higher license. Shall I draw you a
map?

If South Africa does
implement it, they will be the first and probably only country to
do so.

Why? Perhaps it could be a way out of the constant arguments. It
wasn't possible before, due to the treaty.

TAFKA Rev Jim, the constant arguments can be gotten out of by letting
go.

Ahhhhh...so, if we all just agree with you, then we don't need to
"discuss" anything any more, eh?

How Lenniesque.

They are also proposing to give the same limited HF privileges that
they would have given to the new licence, to the existing
restricted licence instead, without any addtional testing.

How many has in South Africa, anyway?

huh?

Even a gradeschooler can see he just dropped the "m" out of
"hams", BRAIN...

I can see how you'll wind up a loser if you ever got on "Wheel of
Fortune"...

OOOOOOPS! YOU'RE ALREADY A LOSER!

EXXXXXXXXXCCCCCUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEE MEEEEEEEEEEEEE ! ! !
! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

I think when he spoke of inaction he meant the earlier ZS proposal, not the
one they are now considering