Dee:

You might be right, I think I have a defective crystal ball anyway, never has
worked with 100% accuracy, not even close

However, I have been on CB channel 17--27.165 a lot, informing the truck
drivers, they seem very interested, about 1 out of every five want to know
more. In reality this probably translates to 1 out of every 10 which will
actually do something about it (quite possibly even lower). Still, if word is
gotten out effectively, should produce quite a "bump" in new licenses. Those
guys carry the word to many states.

Also, first time I catch Art Bell on 3.840Mhz, I will try to get him to mention
it on his show (I certainly don't have special influence with the man, but if
enough of us prompt him, hey!), the discontinuance of CW, perhaps even give a
little chat on the benefits of the hobby, that show reaches millions! He
should be able to create quite a "bump" all on his own! Be nice to see him do
an hour or so with a couple of hams "friendly" to these new changes and stoke
the hype up a bit...

Let's make this "bump" as BIG as we can!

I have posted a flyer on all the bulletin boards at the college too, and an EE
professor extra has offered to assist newbies to amateur radio. He has gotten
the ok to use the college facilities and even set up some kind of summer course
(~1 unit) to prepare in obtaining a general ticket.

We will be keeping our fingers crossed here...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
N2EY:

I think at this time, the tech ticket can be dropped, let 'em go general
to start or forget it!!! Just combine tech&gen tests to one...

John


As I've mentioned before, in my classes in the future, I'll be
encouraging
my students to do that extra bit of study and go straight for the
General.
Apparently some of the proposals to the FCC did suggest this but they are
not ready to go this route just yet.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

That is a good idea Dee. With the massive desertion of V/UHF for HF, it
will be a vast wasteland. Yes indeed, standby for the giant sucking
sound.

All us present users of HF will have to make room, we will have phone all
the way down to 14.010. The FCC will be deluged with demands, yes demands
for more spectrum.

Maybe not, Dan.

The license is just the first step. Then comes building a station,
putting up
an effective antenna, getting on the air, learning the characteristics
of the
various bands, etc.

How many folks are actually going to do all that? Particularly during
sunspot minimum?


Yeah I think we won't see any major changes. There will be a noticeable blip
in upgrades but that's about it. Actually the fact that it is being
implemented at the time of a sunspot minimum means we are at risk of losing
hams as they upgrade, find the HF bands difficult and then drop out. We'll
really need to do some exra Elmering to help the new people and keep them in
the hobby.

Even 11 meters will be turned back into a ham band.

A lot of folks are going to be surprised that all of HF isn't like 11
m.

After all that is what all the anti-code is all about, right?

We'll see.

---

One report I read is that in Germany, where the code test was dumped
some time back, there has been an *increased interest* in Morse Code
operation! Apparently a sizable number of newcomers want to use Morse
Code, test or no test, simply because it's different, takes skill, etc.

73 de Jim, N2EY

313

I hope so. Again perhaps the fact that the change in the code requirements
comes as we approach a solar minimum will affect how people view the code.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:

wrote in message
legroups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

wrote in message
oglegroups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

Or perhaps FCC thinks that anybody who really wants HF should just go
for General or Extra.


But what would be the rationale of giving the priveliges of a class that
tehy chose to remove (not test for, and eventually merge with
Technician) earlier?


I'm not sure what you're getting at, Mike.

Somewhere in the bowels of this thread are comments about giving the
Present Technicians the old Technician Plus privileges

05-235 isn't just an NPRM, and it isn't just about Element 1. It's
actually FCC's response to the 18 petitions, and denies most of
what was requested, with explanations of FCC's reasoning.

For example, FCC states that they see a 3-license-class system
as the correct number of license classes to work towards. They
specifically deny four-class and two-class suggestions (sorry, Hans -
FCC obviously read your ideas and disagreed).

Yet at the same time FCC doesn't want free upgrades, giveaways, more
complexity in the license structure, nor anybody to lose privileges.

FCC also doesn't see any need for a new entry level license, nor
changes
in the subband structure, nor big changes in the written test methods.

All this is spelled out in detail in 05-235. It's not speculation nor
interpretation.

One by one, almost all the proposed changes are denied by FCC. All that
is left up for grabs is the one remaining code test, which FCC proposes
to eliminate.

As I've said before, I'm surprised it took FCC this long. When FCC
wrote in the R&O for 98-143 that the only reason Element 1 was being
retained was the treaty, the future was pretty clear.


The only testing difference between a Tech and Tech Plus/Tech- with-HF
is that the latter passed Element 1 and the former did not.
The latter
has some HF privileges and the former has none.

The FCC says that Element 1 is no longer necessary, and
proposes
to remove it completely. If someone accepts that reasoning, it
follows that all Techs should have the same privileges - but that's not what FCC proposes?!

The only explanation I can think of is that FCC is looking for
long-range simplification. Perhaps what FCC wants in the long
term is for all entry-level licensees to be on VHF/UHF only,
and require at least a General for HF.

It is hard to say what the FCC was thinking. However perhaps
they too are
looking at the statistics and interpret it as no need for the
introductory
license to have HF privileges. Afterall the Novice are
declining at a fast
enough pace that it looks like almost none are active and that almost all
are failing to renew. They can easily go into the data as they have it and
see how many Tech Pluses actually upgraded, let themselves
lapse, or simply
renewed. The last indicating a low activity level and/or
interest level since they have not upgraded.


The number of upgrades isn't easily obtained from the database, though.



Also, they may be thinking that this keeps the minimum number
to tests to
get onto HF at least at two. The Novices had to take two and
Techs after
April 2000 had to take two to get on HF. Prior to that, Techs had to take 3
tests to get on HF (Novice written, Tech written, and code).


True enough!

And when you consider that the old, pre-restructuring 20 wpm *Extra*
was earned by at least one third-grader at the age of 8,
it's a bit hard to accept that the written tests are "too hard".

(OTOH, the same can be said about the code tests...)


They also discussed the concept that they do not want Techs to stay at the
Tech level. They consider upgrading as a significant element
in individuals
fulfilling the basis and purpose of ham radio (i.e. self
training, etc).
Allowing the Technicians some HF privileges reduces the
motivation to
upgrade. And the FCC repeately referred to the Techs being
able to get on
HF by taking the simple written test to upgrade to General.


It gets more and more interesting. Sounds like a rebirth of
Incentive Licensing.

THey better call it something else! ;^)


Why? FCC specifically uses the term "incentives" and says the primary
incentive is spectrum space. They say such incentives will not be
removed. In the discussion where FCC denies automatic upgrades and
expansion of privileges for various license classes, FCC says such
things are disincentives to upgrading.

In fact if you read the document carefully, there's a bit of a tone
that says 'how easy do you want us to make it? We're saying we'll
dump the code test. If you want the privs, take the tests!'


Ask Bill and Carl and Fred how easy they want things made.

Care to make a friendly wager on what NCI morphs into? We've already
heard the whining about how difficult the Technician tests are.


Think about it: FCC saying that it's *not OK* to stay a Tech!?!
That upgrading is part of being a good ham and supporting the
Basis and Purpose...

Works for me!


Yup.

It's clear where FCC wants things to go. Start out the beginners on
VHF/UHF, offering HF/MF as the big incentive to get a General. Those who want
those little pieces of HF and a fancy callsign can go for Extra.

They're also clearly saying that anybody with an existing license will
be able to upgrade by just taking a written test, so what's the problem?
Are the tests really so hard, and VE sessions so difficult to access?

You and I don't think so. Others differ.

Eventually the closed-off license classes will disappear from the
database, and the rules governing them will be removed.

Another idea:

Suppose Element 1 is eliminated, but the number of US hams continues to
decline. What will be the fix then?

Make things *even* easier. It is a time proven fact that if you want to
attract technical people, you have to make things *less* technical.
(detect note of sarcasm)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

At this point, amateur is just NOT that technical...

However, it still can fill one of its' directives it was given, and the hams be
ambassadors of goodwill...

Hey, it is a hobby, perfect for the CB'ers. It can be technical--and perfect
for the computer communications people. It can go anywhere from here, and
probably be multiuse without a problem...

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:

wrote in message
glegroups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

wrote in message
ooglegroups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

Or perhaps FCC thinks that anybody who really wants HF should just go
for General or Extra.


But what would be the rationale of giving the priveliges of a class that
tehy chose to remove (not test for, and eventually merge with
Technician) earlier?


I'm not sure what you're getting at, Mike.

Somewhere in the bowels of this thread are comments about giving the Present
Technicians the old Technician Plus privileges

05-235 isn't just an NPRM, and it isn't just about Element 1. It's
actually FCC's response to the 18 petitions, and denies most of
what was requested, with explanations of FCC's reasoning.

For example, FCC states that they see a 3-license-class system
as the correct number of license classes to work towards. They
specifically deny four-class and two-class suggestions (sorry, Hans -
FCC obviously read your ideas and disagreed).

Yet at the same time FCC doesn't want free upgrades, giveaways, more
complexity in the license structure, nor anybody to lose privileges.

FCC also doesn't see any need for a new entry level license, nor
changes
in the subband structure, nor big changes in the written test methods.

All this is spelled out in detail in 05-235. It's not speculation nor
interpretation.

One by one, almost all the proposed changes are denied by FCC. All that
is left up for grabs is the one remaining code test, which FCC proposes
to eliminate.

As I've said before, I'm surprised it took FCC this long. When FCC
wrote in the R&O for 98-143 that the only reason Element 1 was being
retained was the treaty, the future was pretty clear.


The only testing difference between a Tech and Tech Plus/Tech- with-HF
is that the latter passed Element 1 and the former did not.
The latter
has some HF privileges and the former has none.

The FCC says that Element 1 is no longer necessary, and
proposes
to remove it completely. If someone accepts that reasoning, it
follows that all Techs should have the same privileges - but that's
not what FCC proposes?!

The only explanation I can think of is that FCC is looking for
long-range simplification. Perhaps what FCC wants in the long
term is for all entry-level licensees to be on VHF/UHF only,
and require at least a General for HF.

It is hard to say what the FCC was thinking. However perhaps
they too are
looking at the statistics and interpret it as no need for the
introductory
license to have HF privileges. Afterall the Novice are
declining at a fast
enough pace that it looks like almost none are active and that almost
all
are failing to renew. They can easily go into the data as they have it
and
see how many Tech Pluses actually upgraded, let themselves
lapse, or simply
renewed. The last indicating a low activity level and/or
interest level since they have not upgraded.


The number of upgrades isn't easily obtained from the database, though.



Also, they may be thinking that this keeps the minimum number
to tests to
get onto HF at least at two. The Novices had to take two and
Techs after
April 2000 had to take two to get on HF. Prior to that, Techs had to
take 3
tests to get on HF (Novice written, Tech written, and code).


True enough!

And when you consider that the old, pre-restructuring 20 wpm *Extra*
was earned by at least one third-grader at the age of 8,
it's a bit hard to accept that the written tests are "too hard".

(OTOH, the same can be said about the code tests...)


They also discussed the concept that they do not want Techs to stay at
the
Tech level. They consider upgrading as a significant element
in individuals
fulfilling the basis and purpose of ham radio (i.e. self
training, etc).
Allowing the Technicians some HF privileges reduces the
motivation to
upgrade. And the FCC repeately referred to the Techs being
able to get on
HF by taking the simple written test to upgrade to General.


It gets more and more interesting. Sounds like a rebirth of
Incentive Licensing.

THey better call it something else! ;^)


Why? FCC specifically uses the term "incentives" and says the primary
incentive is spectrum space. They say such incentives will not be
removed. In the discussion where FCC denies automatic upgrades and
expansion of privileges for various license classes, FCC says such
things are disincentives to upgrading.

In fact if you read the document carefully, there's a bit of a tone
that says 'how easy do you want us to make it? We're saying we'll
dump the code test. If you want the privs, take the tests!'


Ask Bill and Carl and Fred how easy they want things made.

Care to make a friendly wager on what NCI morphs into? We've already heard
the whining about how difficult the Technician tests are.


Think about it: FCC saying that it's *not OK* to stay a Tech!?!
That upgrading is part of being a good ham and supporting the
Basis and Purpose...

Works for me!


Yup.

It's clear where FCC wants things to go. Start out the beginners on
VHF/UHF, offering HF/MF as the big incentive to get a General. Those who
want
those little pieces of HF and a fancy callsign can go for Extra.

They're also clearly saying that anybody with an existing license will
be able to upgrade by just taking a written test, so what's the problem?
Are the tests really so hard, and VE sessions so difficult to access?

You and I don't think so. Others differ.

Eventually the closed-off license classes will disappear from the
database, and the rules governing them will be removed.

Another idea:

Suppose Element 1 is eliminated, but the number of US hams continues to
decline. What will be the fix then?

Make things *even* easier. It is a time proven fact that if you want to
attract technical people, you have to make things *less* technical. (detect
note of sarcasm)

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote

FCC agreed with some of what you wrote....

Even though Len took 6 pages to advise the FCC that my remarks were "out of
place", and "inappropriate as well as misdirected".

beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

John Smith wrote:
Mike:

At this point, amateur is just NOT that technical...

However, it still can fill one of its' directives it was given, and the hams be
ambassadors of goodwill...

Hey, it is a hobby, perfect for the CB'ers. It can be technical--and perfect
for the computer communications people. It can go anywhere from here, and
probably be multiuse without a problem...

My whole beef is not exactly how technical the hobby is or isn't. I have
problems with the idea that is trotted out from time to time, about how
relaxation or elimination, or whatever, of some technical aspect of
licensing is going to attract technical people.

I'd give them a lot more credibility if they said:
We're tired of all the whining about the Morse code test. So Element one
goes away. Now would you people get on with your life?"

That would be intellectually honest.

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:
wrote


FCC agreed with some of what you wrote....


Even though Len took 6 pages to advise the FCC that my remarks were "out of
place", and "inappropriate as well as misdirected".

Do you mean the Len who told us that he wasn't attempting to dictate how
amateur radio should be regulated?

Dave K8MN

Mike:

Building antennas of their own will attract people. Building linears of their
own will attract people. Fiddling with feedlines, etc...

Building radios is going bye, bye... the new ones will be PCI cards, USB
external devices, etc... your new rig will be a computer with external
components...

Human hands, in most cases, are just not designed to create computer cards...

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Mike:

At this point, amateur is just NOT that technical...

However, it still can fill one of its' directives it was given, and the hams
be ambassadors of goodwill...

Hey, it is a hobby, perfect for the CB'ers. It can be technical--and
perfect for the computer communications people. It can go anywhere from
here, and probably be multiuse without a problem...

My whole beef is not exactly how technical the hobby is or isn't. I have
problems with the idea that is trotted out from time to time, about how
relaxation or elimination, or whatever, of some technical aspect of licensing
is going to attract technical people.

I'd give them a lot more credibility if they said:
We're tired of all the whining about the Morse code test. So Element one goes
away. Now would you people get on with your life?"

That would be intellectually honest.

- Mike KB3EIA -

From: John Smith on Aug 2, 3:59 pm

Len:

My gawd, get out the antacid, laxatives, etc and pass them out freely!!!!

I need them not...but what IS needed for some of these beeping
bleeping PCTA extras is SMART PILLS. Geez, what a group of
conspiracy thinkers and those who SEE things that aren't there!

This belly-aching is going to go on forever, fact is CW looks almost certain to
fall. And, the CB'ers are on the march to get their "KeenWoods" and "davemade"
products now, in anticipation...

shrug

... amateur radio is about to take on a new personality.

Damn good! The OLD personality was getting terminally
geriatric what with all the "pioneering by morsemanship"
triumphed as the Second Coming in radio...in 2005.

Truckers with extra licenses, house wife's as generals, kiddie techs, the
possibilities are endless...

John, ANYONE can get a ham license if they want one.

Some PCTA extras have blabbed that over and over and over
again to me.

"TRUCKERS!?" Hell no, they can't go! They used evil,
wicked, mean, nasty, and HIGHLY ILLEGAL CB!!!

cry bye

From: interpreter for da masses on Aug 2, 4:02 pm

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
legroups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:

Or perhaps FCC thinks that anybody who really wants HF should just go
for General or Extra.

But what would be the rationale of giving the priveliges of a class that
tehy chose to remove (not test for, and eventually merge with
Technician) earlier?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Mike.

05-235 isn't just an NPRM, and it isn't just about Element 1.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...the FCC says WT Docket 05-325 is an
NPRM and only intends to do something with Test Element 1.
They are the LAW in regards to U.S. civil radio. Are you
being a LAW-BREAKER?

It's
actually FCC's response to the 18 petitions, and denies most of
what was requested, with explanations of FCC's reasoning.

Tsk. After two years of very NON-consensus-viewpoint
petitioning on a "mere" EIGHTEEN Petitions, you are
now going to give everyone the "real reasons?!?"

Do we congratulate you on your new LAW degree?

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making is quite clear to me.
They provide a lot of material THEY used to reach THEIR
decisions. But, you have the "real reason" perhaps from
the legendary Sylvia Browne's channeling? :-)

For example, FCC states that they see a 3-license-class system
as the correct number of license classes to work towards. They
specifically deny four-class and two-class suggestions (sorry, Hans -
FCC obviously read your ideas and disagreed).

Tsk. The FCC listed all 18 Petition numbers in the NPRM
heading, throughout the body of the text, and at the end
where they had bold-faced type saying in part either
"...IS DENIED" or "...IS GRANTED, to the exten indicated
herein."

Is that somehow too complicated or are you reading someone's
tea leaves that threaten a deep dark conspiracy?

Yet at the same time FCC doesn't want free upgrades, giveaways, more
complexity in the license structure, nor anybody to lose privileges.

Did they ever? [except for the creation of CB which all
God-fearing Hams thought was the armageddon of radio to allow
ordinary non-code-tested civilians to actually transmit on
the sacred HF]

Is ANYONE "losing privileges" if the subsequent R&O reflects
the NPRM?

What IS your beef, little ham?


FCC also doesn't see any need for a new entry level license, nor changes
in the subband structure, nor big changes in the written test methods.

All this is spelled out in detail in 05-235. It's not speculation nor
interpretation.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are INTEPRETING all over the place, Jimmie.

One by one, almost all the proposed changes are denied by FCC.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...read those later pages again, Jimmie.

Only EIGHT Petitions were denied. TEN were granted to the
extent indicated therein. There is NO WAY CLOSE to "almost
all denied" that you state.

All that
is left up for grabs is the one remaining code test, which FCC proposes
to eliminate.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The FCC still has all those Petitions and
still has roughly six thousand Comments on them. They CAN,
and sometimes HAVE resurrected matters that were once denied
and then granted them at a later time. I don't claim to be
a legal beagle but the HISTORY of many, many decisions is
easily readable by ordinary literate people.

As I've said before, I'm surprised it took FCC this long. When FCC
wrote in the R&O for 98-143 that the only reason Element 1 was being
retained was the treaty, the future was pretty clear.

Jimmie, you have ASTOUNDING retrovision, at least 20-10 in
Hindsight!!! :-)

Tsk, tsk. Turn back the clock just a little ways to 1998 and
check on your own postings in regard to FCC 90-53. Recall
that one? That was about the creation of the NO-CODE-TEST
Technician class. In the year 1990, the FCC said (essentially)
that morse code ability was NO indicator to them insofar as
being licensed. Imagine, a mere 15 years ago.



It's clear where FCC wants things to go. Start out the beginners on VHF/UHF,
offering HF/MF as the big incentive to get a General. Those who want those
little pieces of HF and a fancy callsign can go for Extra.

Tsk, it's NOT CLEAR in WT Docket 05-235. That NPRM is ONLY about
deletion of the morse code test. There is NO "treaty" thing
[ITU-T S25] that says all administrations MUST give morse code
tests to license applicants who with below-30-MHz privilege
licenses.

"Beginners" (what you PCTA extras call your "lower classes")
were once the NOVICE class licensee. Remember them? That's
what the "Novice" name means, isn't it? Novices had some HF
privileges. But, long after their creation, the Novices were
DROPPING OUT. Those Novices MAY have upgraded, but it's
obvious not all were doing so...and NEWCOMERS were NOT getting
in via that Novice route! Then, in 1991, the "no-code" Tech
license got granted. But, under that "treaty" (the OLD S25)
they could NOT OPERATE BELOW 30 MHz! S25.5 was not changed
until 12 years LATER. [amazing but true...it is history]

The "no-code" Tech class license proved to be IMMENSELY
POPULAR to "beginners" and even those with years of radio
experience in OTHER radio services because there was NO code
test! [that may be hard to believe for you but it is true
and IS history in the FCC databases] Popular enough that
(roughly) 200 THOUSAND no-code-test Technicians joined the
"amateur community" (on the outskirts in the ghettos where
you PCTAs think they belong). The Novices (the original
beginners) kept on dropping in numbers, dropping, dropping
until - finally - an Epiphany of Reality dawned on the
Newington gods of radio and they "officially" dubbed the
no-code-test Technician class the ENTRY CLASS! [not as
a "beginner" or other lowly term you elitists love, but
ENTRY CLASS]

The NPRM does NOT change/alter/modify ANY OTHER regulations as
to class, nothing at all but the regulations about the MORSE
CODE TEST. That is ALL that WT Docket 05-235 is about.

Try, please TRY to understand that. Others do, why can't
you?

try cry

From: "K=D8=88B" on Wed 3 Aug 2005 01:13


wrote

FCC agreed with some of what you wrote....

Even though Len took 6 pages to advise the FCC that my remarks were "out of
place", and "inappropriate as well as misdirected".

Poor BAWA, all upset is he? :-)

shrug...you were out of place and inappropriate.

Try taking criticsm like a man, BAWA. Tuck in your vonnegut.


bad ass