wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

I'll have to read the NPRM again. I didn't come to that
conclusion myself.

It's not clear to me - I just assumed that since the Tech requirement
would be Element 2, and since all Tech Pluses are being renewed as
Tech, and the only difference between Tech and Tech Plus is Element 1.


It's not clear at all. However, the appendix shows the proposed new wording
and the privileges sections of Part 97 remain unchanged.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"robert casey" wrote in message
k.net...
John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

Personally, I think they should dump tech.

Either let them study and get general or forget it, hopefully the
newbie's will figure that out on their own...


We should have some entry level test that reasonably smart
8th graders can handle. "Get them when they're young..."

We already do.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"b.b." wrote in message
oups.com...


wrote:
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but
not in name).

- No "refarming" of subbands, nor expansion of license privileges
except the above-mentioned Techs-get-Tech-Plus-privileges change

And now the big one

- "Entry-level-licensd" hams (for lack of a better term that includes
Novices, Technicians and Tech Pluses) will still have
very limited HF privileges. Ironically, they will have only
Morse Code/CW on small segments of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus
SSB and Morse Code/CW on a somewhat bigger slice of 10 meters.

No digital/data/image modes, no FM on HF at all - even though most of
those "entry-level-licensed" hams have all privileges above 50 MHz. No
access to five of the HF/MF bands at all.

Seems FCC went for "minimum change".

Is that the best we can do?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Typical FCC bandaid fix that will leave in it's wake more problems than
the one it solves.


It doesn't create any new problems that I can see.

Take off your eye patches.

As they say in their
discussion, anyone wanting expanded privileges will only have to take the
appropriate written test.

See the discontinuity in exams vs priveleges that Jim/N2EY points out.

an_old_friend wrote:

John Smith wrote:

robert:

Frankly, what about amateur radio do you see as being so difficult. I keep seeing this same idea reflected in others text--I thought them only joking?


If you belive nothing else I ever write John Believe this some hams are
very serious about thinking the test should be some kind of ordel

I'd think that would be something to appeal to a masochist like you, Mark.

Dave K8MN

an_old_friend wrote:
John Smith wrote:
robert:

Frankly, what about amateur radio do you see as being so difficult. I keep seeing this same idea reflected in others text--I thought them only joking?

If you belive nothing else I ever write John Believe this some hams are
very serious about thinking the test should be some kind of ordel

Other than your name and that you are a documented deviate/liar,
what's there to believe about anything YOU say...?!?!?

No one wants to make the tests an "ORDEAL", Mark...

Some of us DO want the tests to (1) be a valid demonstration of
the applicant's comprehension of the required knowledge, and (2)
fulfill the caveat of the Basis and Purpose of Part 97.

Anything else is "Drama Queen" rantings. No more...no less...

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
John Smith wrote:
robert:

Frankly, what about amateur radio do you see as being so difficult. I keep seeing this same idea reflected in others text--I thought them only joking?

If you belive nothing else I ever write John Believe this some hams are
very serious about thinking the test should be some kind of ordel


cuting stevie sexaul reference

No one wants to make the tests an "ORDEAL", Mark...

then you have been lying for years

you want the apliacant to "suffer" to prove his devotion to the ars

Some of us DO want the tests to (1) be a valid demonstration of
the applicant's comprehension of the required knowledge, and (2)
fulfill the caveat of the Basis and Purpose of Part 97.

some folks do you aren't one of them of course you made it plain you
want the apliacant to suffer to prove himself wothy


Anything else is "Drama Queen" rantings. No more...no less...

you are exactly a drama queen not doubt of about it


Steve, K4YZ

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

I'll have to read the NPRM again. I didn't come to that
conclusion myself.

It's not clear to me - I just assumed that since the Tech requirement
would be Element 2, and since all Tech Pluses are being renewed as
Tech, and the only difference between Tech and Tech Plus is Element 1.


It's not clear at all. However, the appendix shows the proposed new
wording
and the privileges sections of Part 97 remain unchanged.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Dee, did I see a post from you--I was just trying to look it up--where you
said it looked to you like the No-Code Techs would have to upgrade
to.......can't remember what class it was that was said? But, at any rate,
it was stated (maybe by you) that some upgrades would have to happen?

Can you direct me to the post? I am curious about what I was reading now.
If it wasn't you, no matter, I'll see if I can come across it again.

Kim W5TIT

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but
not in name).


After re-reading the NPRM, I'm no longer so sure of that as I was. The
appendix shows the new wording of the changed sections and the sections
that
show privileges have not been changed. So it may be that the FCC intends
to
keep the distinction between flavors of Tech and make the codeless
Technicians upgrade to get any HF privileges. Their extensive discussion
sections also seem to support that. Thirty pages including footnotes is a
lot of details to digest.

If approach is true, there are a lot of Technicians in for a shock.

Anyway, I think the FCC needs to clarify that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Ah! Here it is...wouldn't ya know it? OK, so you're thinking the NPRM in
its submitted form, if accepted and passed, would mean that Codeless
Technicians would have to upgrade?

I agree with you--lots of folks in for a shock. I am now intrigued enough
to look through there and see what it says.

My initial thoughts are that, to do so, would seem to open up a whole can of
worms from a administration perspective. I mean, as it is, I have to
produce the actual piece of paper to prove that I have the 5wpm endorsement
(if I wanted to upgrade to General under the current licensing structure).
That is, if I understand the "way it works." LOL

So, there'd be more affected than just the No-Code techs, I think. For
instance, I couldn't begin to even find my endorsement and I am not sure
I'll ever be able to. That would mean, essentially, I am a Codeless Tech?

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

"That would mean, essentially, I am a Codeless Tech?"

Or, from your question, maybe, "A clueless tech?"

Warmest regards,
John


"Kim" wrote in message
. ..
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but
not in name).


After re-reading the NPRM, I'm no longer so sure of that as I was. The
appendix shows the new wording of the changed sections and the sections
that
show privileges have not been changed. So it may be that the FCC intends
to
keep the distinction between flavors of Tech and make the codeless
Technicians upgrade to get any HF privileges. Their extensive discussion
sections also seem to support that. Thirty pages including footnotes is a
lot of details to digest.

If approach is true, there are a lot of Technicians in for a shock.

Anyway, I think the FCC needs to clarify that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Ah! Here it is...wouldn't ya know it? OK, so you're thinking the NPRM in
its submitted form, if accepted and passed, would mean that Codeless
Technicians would have to upgrade?

I agree with you--lots of folks in for a shock. I am now intrigued enough
to look through there and see what it says.

My initial thoughts are that, to do so, would seem to open up a whole can of
worms from a administration perspective. I mean, as it is, I have to
produce the actual piece of paper to prove that I have the 5wpm endorsement
(if I wanted to upgrade to General under the current licensing structure).
That is, if I understand the "way it works." LOL

So, there'd be more affected than just the No-Code techs, I think. For
instance, I couldn't begin to even find my endorsement and I am not sure
I'll ever be able to. That would mean, essentially, I am a Codeless Tech?

Kim W5TIT

"Kim" wrote in message
. ..
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I find it interesting to note what is *not* part of the NPRM, despite a
bunch of proposals that asked for changes beyond code testing:

- No change to the written tests at all

- No new entry-level license class

- No free upgrades or consolidations of existing licenses, except that
all Technicians will essentially become Tech Pluses (in privileges but
not in name).


After re-reading the NPRM, I'm no longer so sure of that as I was. The
appendix shows the new wording of the changed sections and the sections
that
show privileges have not been changed. So it may be that the FCC intends
to
keep the distinction between flavors of Tech and make the codeless
Technicians upgrade to get any HF privileges. Their extensive discussion
sections also seem to support that. Thirty pages including footnotes is
a
lot of details to digest.

If approach is true, there are a lot of Technicians in for a shock.

Anyway, I think the FCC needs to clarify that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Ah! Here it is...wouldn't ya know it? OK, so you're thinking the NPRM in
its submitted form, if accepted and passed, would mean that Codeless
Technicians would have to upgrade?

They would have to upgrade to get HF privileges. Unless of course they take
the code in the near future and become Techs with code and thus gain the
Tech Plus privileges. I've read it a couple of more times and it seems to
say that no one gets any changes in privileges. No code Techs will continue
to be VHF only unless they upgrade to General. Techs with code will
continue with their current VHF + very limited HF unless they upgrade to
General. Any one wanting more privileges than they currently have will be
required to upgrade. Basically the FCC has chosen to fully support those
who wanted no automatic upgrades.


I agree with you--lots of folks in for a shock. I am now intrigued enough
to look through there and see what it says.


I'd suggest reading it several times. As I said it's a lot to digest at
once and it's not as clearly written as one would hope. However, I found
it was much clearer on the second and third readings.

My initial thoughts are that, to do so, would seem to open up a whole can
of
worms from a administration perspective. I mean, as it is, I have to
produce the actual piece of paper to prove that I have the 5wpm
endorsement
(if I wanted to upgrade to General under the current licensing structure).
That is, if I understand the "way it works." LOL


Yes, under they system now in place, you would have to produce your Tech
Plus license to upgrade. Other proof is an old Novice license even if
expired. Everyone else would have to produce a CSCE not more than 365 days
old.

Under the new system, one would not have to have anything other than credit
for Element 2 (the Tech written), i.e. a Technician license of any type.

So, there'd be more affected than just the No-Code techs, I think. For
instance, I couldn't begin to even find my endorsement and I am not sure
I'll ever be able to. That would mean, essentially, I am a Codeless Tech?

Kim W5TIT


You will still have your current Tech Plus privileges if and when the NPRM
goes through. Just keep a copy of your license that says Tech Plus when you
renew. The FCC database will show your "Previous Class" as Tech Plus so that
should be sufficient should there be an issue. Other things you can do are
get copies of old callbook pages or even records from the FCC archives. The
FCC does charge a fee for the latter but it can be worth it.

Again, it looks like the NPRM was crafted in such a manner that no one loses
any privileges that they now have and that they will not gain any privileges
that they don't already have unless they take the appropriate test. It
looks like the FCC took great care in this regard as there is lingering "ill
will" about lost privileges from various earlier changes and a lot of
negative comments in this go round about "automatic upgrades".

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE