In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,

ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some
sense.

The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures
of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and
the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is
just the creation of another group of "great unwashed"

We DON'T learn do we?

Apparently there's NO reading, either. The only power limitation of
the NECVEC petition-proposal is in a 400 KHz low sub-band on 10m
for the three lower classes.

Re-read the NECVEC petition-proposal and report back.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

Proposed entry level transmitter power is proposed to be 100
watts
when the operation takes place below 24 MHz; 50 watts above. This is the
same as the ARRL proposal.

I still want to see the people (tech's specifically) that have been
harmed by RF.

It makes sense in light of the present rf hazard calcs that we have to
perform.

But I've not seen anyone claimed to have been harmed by rf.

It might have been Mike or Bill in writing the limits of emission
power in the NECVEC petition.

I just read it through and the ONLY limitation is the NECVEC
modification of 97.313 (c) which states "no station may transmit
with a transmitter power exceeding 200 W PEP on -(2)- the
28.1 - 28.5 MHz segment when the control operator is a Novice
Class operator, a Technician Class operator or a Technician Plus
Class."

If those folks are going to argue about things, they ought to get
their sources in order. The way I see it, Mike Coslo hasn't seen
the NECVEC petition. It's only 9 pages.. They must be arguing
the ARRL petition in the wrong thread. ?

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

I think that NCVEC and ARRL and others are missing the boat here. With
the likely disappearance of Morse as a requirement, they are simply
proposing *another* caste system, in which there is an elite, and an
underclass ghetto of people with what to me seem to be radically reduced
privileges. I don't have anything against different levels, but this
seems like too much discrimination.

It doesn't sit well with you that you are cast with the pro-code caste?

Some hams NEED a caste system just to prove they are "better"
than others, thus fulfilling a self-deficiency.

For a very long time morse code ability was the caste marker,
having no reasonable value except for some to brag that they
were "better" than no-coders.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...all the pro-coders beginning to cry and whine...?

I have a caste system for you, Len: Everyone who has an amateur radio
license is "in". You're "out".

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

That was for a Novice!

Good questions! And actually not all that hard. Sounds like an
enjoyable test to take.

Easy to say when you've taken all your tests and never have to
take another test (if you renew within time bounds).

Put yourself in the newcomer's place and look at it from their
vantage point -and- that of the FCC.

But, I don't think you will. You will, like way too many others,
look at it from your own personal viewpoint and experience and
desires and by default try to make all newcomers think as you do.

You, Len, like way too many others, look at things from your own
personal viewpoint and experience and desires and attempt to dictate
regulation of amateur radio from that perspective. You'd have all the
newcomers think of a five word per minute code test as an insurmountable
obstacle.

You can't freeze testing as it was in 1976...or 1986, 1966, 1956,
1946, or 1936. The overall environment is constantly changing
even if your personal activities isn't changing.

"Activities isn't"?

Testing was changed again just a few years back. You know, around the
time you were going to get an "Extra right out of the box". You really
mustn't rush into these things. Take a few decades. Try to decide
about GETTING INTO AMATEUR RADIO. Then all you have to do is wait and
hope that the requirements will be lowered enough so that you can get
in.

Dave K8MN

Dee D. Flint wrote:


The actual problem is stems from several elements. 1) Most people outside
of amateur radio have never heard of it. So even if they might be inclined
to pursue this hobby, they will never be involved. 2) Amateur radio, as
with any specialized activity, is only going to appeal to a limited number
of people in the first place. 3) There is a greater multitude of hobbies
and activities available today than ever before. People have to make
choices on how to spend their time and money.



Some people probably will choose a hobby that doesn't require taking a test
to get a license to do it. So we have to get a prospective ham person past
that chore. Not a big chore, but still a chore.

William wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,
ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some
sense.

The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive measures
of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on homebrewing and
the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class of operation is
just the creation of another group of "great unwashed"

We DON'T learn do we?


- Mike KB3EIA -


I can hear Larry now, "I'm a Superior Ham because I have higher voltage finals..."

Or Bruce, "Know Ham = Know Voltage."

You've been on a roll lately, Brian. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun wrote in message . ..
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

(quoting the NCVEC proposal)

In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final
transmitter amplifier stage

What about the 110 AC line?

and that only commercially
manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees.

Might as well call it "Appliance Class" and be done with it.

Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question
multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read and
certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules.

This is the worst part. We must fight this like the plague. What it
*really" means is that there will be *no* rules and regs questions on
the 20 question test!

Agreed

It is precisely this sort of thing that messed up cb.

The VECs Question Pool
Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in what
would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25 examination
questions.

The old Novice I took was 20 questions, and we could homebrew. Which I
did from Day One. If a 13 year old kid with books for Elmers could
safely build transmitters in the hollowstate era, why all these
additional limits today?

This petition was reviewed prior to submission by all 14 of the
VEC's around the country, and was approved by a 2 to 1 margin.

Which means a third of them disapproved. Were the individual VEs
polled?

No, I wasn't

Do you get to vote on who represents your VEC at NCVEC? Do individual
VEs have any say at all?

It seems to me that NCVEC wants to get into the regulatory side of
things without having to get input of *any* kind from the VEs
themselves.

This NCVEC thing is very similar to the "Amateur Radio in the 21st
Century" paper by KL7CC. I wrote a detailed commentary on it some time
back.

NCVEC's proposal makes the ARRL one look good. Which isn't saying
much...


It has some improvements over the League's plan, but that all depends on
your perspective.

I don't see *any* improvements over the ARRL proposal. What do you
see, besides no code test for Extra (ARRL proposal drops all code
testing except 5 wpm for Extra)?

I'm not in favour of making the theory requirements easier.

But that's exactly what the NCVEC proposal does - to an extent even
greater than the ARRL proposal.

Both of these
plans upgrade all the Techs to General just to add a lower class licence
without increasing the number of classes. This is because they know the FCC
won't accept anything that makes the end result more complicated.

They also upgrade Advanceds to Extra.

I don't think we need an easier theory test to attract people. If someone
is genuinely interested they will learn the theory.

I agree 100%. NCVEC doesn't - where is the "improvement"?

What we need is simply
publicity. Most people are scarcely aware that ham radio even exists.

Too true.

But we also have to accept that only a small percentage of those who
become aware will be interested, and that of those who are interested
only some will actually become active licensed amateurs regardless of
what is done to the requirements.

The code test does need to be dumped to get over the hurdle of potential
recruits who immediately lose interest when it is mentioned.

I disagree. People who are *really* interested will learn 5 wpm. That
has been demonstrated over and over again.

No-code
licencing for VHF+ did not eliminate that problem, no matter what anyone
says to the contrary. Any intelligent person knew that code testing was
only postponed if they wanted HF.

Sure - but not all want HF, or can get on HF effectively.

However, most people don't even get that
far. Our visibility is zero.

Not zero, but not as high as it needs to be.

Besides, I am sure that the FCC will eliminate
Element 1 anyway.

Let's say for a moment that you're right, and Element 1 is simply
dropped for all license classes. Which proposal do you think is better
- ARRL's or NCVEC's, and why?

By all means restructure, but these petitions are misguided.

I agree that NCVEC's is very misguided.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

(quoting the NCVEC proposal)

In addition, the NCVEC proposed mandatory low voltage to the final
transmitter amplifier stage

What about the 110 AC line?

and that only commercially
manufactured transmitters be used by Communicator Class licensees.

Might as well call it "Appliance Class" and be done with it.

Communicator Class licensees must pass a simple 20 question
multiple-choice written exam and will be required to obtain, read
and certify their understanding of the Part 97 rules.

This is the worst part. We must fight this like the plague. What it
*really" means is that there will be *no* rules and regs questions
on the 20 question test!

Agreed

It is precisely this sort of thing that messed up cb.

The VECs Question Pool
Committee feels that it is impossible to cover the FCC rules in
what would be a relatively few questions. The ARRL proposed 25
examination questions.

The old Novice I took was 20 questions, and we could homebrew. Which
I did from Day One. If a 13 year old kid with books for Elmers could
safely build transmitters in the hollowstate era, why all these
additional limits today?

This petition was reviewed prior to submission by all 14 of
the
VEC's around the country, and was approved by a 2 to 1 margin.

Which means a third of them disapproved. Were the individual VEs
polled?

No, I wasn't

Do you get to vote on who represents your VEC at NCVEC?

No

Do individual
VEs have any say at all?

Apparently not


It seems to me that NCVEC wants to get into the regulatory side of
things without having to get input of *any* kind from the VEs
themselves.

Probably our contact person might have some input into the ARRL VEC. Maybe
I should ask him.


This NCVEC thing is very similar to the "Amateur Radio in the 21st
Century" paper by KL7CC. I wrote a detailed commentary on it some
time back.

NCVEC's proposal makes the ARRL one look good. Which isn't saying
much...


It has some improvements over the League's plan, but that all depends
on your perspective.

I don't see *any* improvements over the ARRL proposal. What do you
see, besides no code test for Extra (ARRL proposal drops all code
testing except 5 wpm for Extra)?

More phone spectrum - but that's what I meant when I said that it depends
on your perspective


I'm not in favour of making the theory requirements easier.

But that's exactly what the NCVEC proposal does - to an extent even
greater than the ARRL proposal.


Not that the ARRL petition is much better on that point

Both of these
plans upgrade all the Techs to General just to add a lower class
licence without increasing the number of classes. This is because they
know the FCC won't accept anything that makes the end result more
complicated.

They also upgrade Advanceds to Extra.


I have nothing against that

I don't think we need an easier theory test to attract people. If
someone is genuinely interested they will learn the theory.

I agree 100%. NCVEC doesn't - where is the "improvement"?

What we need is simply
publicity. Most people are scarcely aware that ham radio even exists.

Too true.

But we also have to accept that only a small percentage of those who
become aware will be interested, and that of those who are interested
only some will actually become active licensed amateurs regardless of
what is done to the requirements.

True


The code test does need to be dumped to get over the hurdle of
potential recruits who immediately lose interest when it is mentioned.

I disagree. People who are *really* interested will learn 5 wpm. That
has been demonstrated over and over again.


At that point our opinions diverge

No-code
licencing for VHF+ did not eliminate that problem, no matter what
anyone says to the contrary. Any intelligent person knew that code
testing was only postponed if they wanted HF.

Sure - but not all want HF, or can get on HF effectively.

True


However, most people don't even get that far. Our visibility is zero.

Not zero, but not as high as it needs to be.

Besides, I am sure that the FCC will eliminate
Element 1 anyway.

Let's say for a moment that you're right, and Element 1 is simply
dropped for all license classes. Which proposal do you think is better
- ARRL's or NCVEC's, and why?

I don't like either very much, but the latter would give me more spectrum
for phone


By all means restructure, but these petitions are misguided.

I agree that NCVEC's is very misguided.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Mike Coslo wrote:



The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive
measures of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on
homebrewing and the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class
of operation is just the creation of another group of "great unwashed"

A few questions on electrical safety on the test should solve the
problem that the
final voltage restriction is trying to address. How would you enforce
it anyway?
The frequency of your carrier is easily enforced (by someone tuning a
receiver
at a remote FCC field office), power level less so, and the B+ on the finals
can't be except by a visit from the FCC. They don't have the budget for
that.

Robert Casey wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:

The only logical argument that I can accept for the punitive
measures of power limitations and the ridiculous restrictions on
homebrewing and the "final voltage restrictions for the lowest class
of operation is just the creation of another group of "great unwashed"

A few questions on electrical safety on the test should solve the
problem that the
final voltage restriction is trying to address. How would you enforce
it anyway?
The frequency of your carrier is easily enforced (by someone tuning a
receiver
at a remote FCC field office), power level less so, and the B+ on the finals
can't be except by a visit from the FCC. They don't have the budget for
that.


Agreed. I have never been in favor of unenforceable rules.

Can anyone come up with a good rationale for not teaching RF safety in
some depth at the lowest level of license class? Are these newbies worth
less to us?

- Mike KB3EIA -