On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB" wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

John Kasupski, Tonawanda, New York
Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), SWL/Scanner Monitoring (KNY2VS)
zIRC #monitor Admin

John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB" wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

We're in agreement on the first part, anyway.

But I doubt it will make any difference. Many of the 18 petitions
included
various changes to entry-level license privileges, including the very
obvious one of giving Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges to all Techs. Yet
FCC
repeatedly denied all of them.

In the NPRM, FCC makes it clear that their vision of the future looks
like this:

Technician: Entry-level license. All VHF/UHF, no HF

General: Mid-level license. All VHF/UHF, most HF/MF

Extra: Top license, all privileges.

Novice, Tech Plus, Advanced: Old license classes that will disappear
with attrition.

No free or automatic upgrades. No HF for Technicians who haven't passed
a code test.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB" wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

We're in agreement on the first part, anyway.

But I doubt it will make any difference. Many of the 18 petitions
included
various changes to entry-level license privileges, including the very
obvious one of giving Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges to all Techs. Yet
FCC
repeatedly denied all of them.

In the NPRM, FCC makes it clear that their vision of the future looks
like this:

wrong again

Technician: Entry-level license. All VHF/UHF, no HF

General: Mid-level license. All VHF/UHF, most HF/MF

Extra: Top license, all privileges.

Novice, Tech Plus, Advanced: Old license classes that will disappear
with attrition.

No free or automatic upgrades.

No HF for Technicians who haven't passed
a code test.


73 de Jim, N2EY

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB" wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

We're in agreement on the first part, anyway.

But I doubt it will make any difference. Many of the 18 petitions
included
various changes to entry-level license privileges, including the very
obvious one of giving Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges to all Techs. Yet
FCC
repeatedly denied all of them.

In the NPRM, FCC makes it clear that their vision of the future looks
like this:

wrong again

How is it wrong, Mark?

All the FCC proposes to do in the NPRM is to drop Element 1 from the
requirements.
Nothing else - in fact, other changes have been specifically denied.

If that is done, the following will be the inevitable result:

Technician: Entry-level license. All VHF/UHF, no HF

With no Element 1, the only way for new hams or existing noncodetested
Techs
to get any HF will be to go for General.

General: Mid-level license. All VHF/UHF, most HF/MF

As it is today, without Element 1

Extra: Top license, all privileges.

As it is today, without Element 1

Novice, Tech Plus, Advanced: Old license classes that will disappear
with attrition.

Which has been going on for the past 5-1/2 years.

No free or automatic upgrades.

Specifically denied by FCC. Nobody loses privileges and nobody gains
privileges.

No HF for Technicians who haven't passed
a code test.

That's what Hans is trying to fix.

Unfortunately FCC doesn't seem to see that as a problem.

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB" wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

We're in agreement on the first part, anyway.

But I doubt it will make any difference. Many of the 18 petitions
included
various changes to entry-level license privileges, including the very
obvious one of giving Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges to all Techs. Yet
FCC
repeatedly denied all of them.

In the NPRM, FCC makes it clear that their vision of the future looks
like this:

wrong again

How is it wrong, Mark?

by not being right

first proble is in asuming the FCC has a vision of the future

second that saying such a vision is clear

All the FCC proposes to do in the NPRM is to drop Element 1 from the
requirements.
Nothing else - in fact, other changes have been specifically denied.

If that is done, the following will be the inevitable result:

Technician: Entry-level license. All VHF/UHF, no HF

With no Element 1, the only way for new hams or existing noncodetested
Techs
to get any HF will be to go for General.

the NPRM is anything but clear that is the result they intend. inddeed
for the sake the ARS I hope it is what they end up doing.

amusingly so Does Jim Heaney (sp?) of the ARRL

General: Mid-level license. All VHF/UHF, most HF/MF

As it is today, without Element 1

Extra: Top license, all privileges.

As it is today, without Element 1

Novice, Tech Plus, Advanced: Old license classes that will disappear
with attrition.

Which has been going on for the past 5-1/2 years.

No free or automatic upgrades.

Specifically denied by FCC. Nobody loses privileges and nobody gains
privileges.

No HF for Technicians who haven't passed
a code test.

That's what Hans is trying to fix.

Unfortunately FCC doesn't seem to see that as a problem.

wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

We're in agreement on the first part, anyway.

But I doubt it will make any difference. Many of the 18 petitions
included
various changes to entry-level license privileges, including the very
obvious one of giving Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges to all Techs. Yet
FCC
repeatedly denied all of them.

In the NPRM, FCC makes it clear that their vision of the future looks
like this:

wrong again

How is it wrong, Mark?

All the FCC proposes to do in the NPRM is to drop Element 1 from the
requirements.
Nothing else - in fact, other changes have been specifically denied.

If that is done, the following will be the inevitable result:

Technician: Entry-level license. All VHF/UHF, no HF

With no Element 1, the only way for new hams or existing noncodetested
Techs
to get any HF will be to go for General.

General: Mid-level license. All VHF/UHF, most HF/MF

As it is today, without Element 1

Extra: Top license, all privileges.

As it is today, without Element 1

Novice, Tech Plus, Advanced: Old license classes that will disappear
with attrition.

Which has been going on for the past 5-1/2 years.

No free or automatic upgrades.

Specifically denied by FCC. Nobody loses privileges and nobody gains
privileges.

No HF for Technicians who haven't passed
a code test.

That's what Hans is trying to fix.

Unfortunately FCC doesn't seem to see that as a problem.
__________________________________________________ _______________________


I don't see it as a problem either. Afterall it will only require that they
take the General written test to get on HF. The General test is no harder
than the Tech. It just covers some different material as well as repeating
some material from the Tech. The new material is no harder just different.

The result of the FCC's approach is that everyone on HF will have taken two
or more tests of some kind whether they be written or written and code.
This is not unreasonable.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

We're in agreement on the first part, anyway.

But I doubt it will make any difference. Many of the 18 petitions
included
various changes to entry-level license privileges, including the very
obvious one of giving Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges to all Techs. Yet
FCC
repeatedly denied all of them.

In the NPRM, FCC makes it clear that their vision of the future looks
like this:

wrong again

How is it wrong, Mark?

one so much your honesty

two,the rest I have adressed with jim
flush

BEGIN QUOTE

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

We're in agreement on the first part, anyway.

But I doubt it will make any difference. Many of the 18 petitions
included
various changes to entry-level license privileges, including the very
obvious one of giving Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges to all Techs. Yet
FCC
repeatedly denied all of them.

In the NPRM, FCC makes it clear that their vision of the future looks
like this:

wrong again

How is it wrong, Mark?

one so much your honesty

two,the rest I have adressed with jim
flush

END QUOTE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must momentarily put aside my choice to not respond. You are attributing
Jim's statements as if I had written them. This is incorrect. You have cut
all my statements. If you will READ Jim's post, you will find that the
sentence with the single "" is his. For whatever reason, some postings
don't end up marked correctly and that is why I set my comments off with a
LINE marking the difference between my comments and Jim's. Please be more
careful with your attributions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
BEGIN QUOTE

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

We're in agreement on the first part, anyway.

But I doubt it will make any difference. Many of the 18 petitions
included
various changes to entry-level license privileges, including the very
obvious one of giving Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges to all Techs. Yet
FCC
repeatedly denied all of them.

In the NPRM, FCC makes it clear that their vision of the future looks
like this:

wrong again

How is it wrong, Mark?

one so much your honesty

two,the rest I have adressed with jim
flush

END QUOTE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must momentarily put aside my choice to not respond.

no you don't have to you choose to do so as is your right but it makes
your stament you shun my posts etc a lie plain and simple

You are attributing
Jim's statements as if I had written them. This is incorrect. You have cut
all my statements. If you will READ Jim's post, you will find that the
sentence with the single "" is his. For whatever reason, some postings
don't end up marked correctly and that is why I set my comments off with a
LINE marking the difference between my comments and Jim's.

If you are going to use a non standard sysem for attributions then you
NEED to make that clear, esp after your coments/demands/insistance that
I need to make that clear

Please be more
careful with your attributions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB" wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

We're in agreement on the first part, anyway.

But I doubt it will make any difference. Many of the 18 petitions
included
various changes to entry-level license privileges, including the very
obvious one of giving Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges to all Techs. Yet
FCC
repeatedly denied all of them.

In the NPRM, FCC makes it clear that their vision of the future looks
like this:

wrong again

How is it wrong, Mark?

by not being right

Why isn't it right?

first proble is in asuming the FCC has a vision of the future

The NPRM makes it clear the FCC does have a vision of the
future.

second that saying such a vision is clear

Have you read the NPRM? FCC makes it clear they think
a three-level license system is best for the ARS. They also
think that the Technician - with no HF privileges - is the
right entry-level license.

Read the parts where FCC turns down all the proposals for
a new entry-level license class. And the parts where FCC
turns down expanded privileges for Techs.

All the FCC proposes to do in the NPRM is to drop Element 1 from the
requirements.
Nothing else - in fact, other changes have been specifically denied.

If that is done, the following will be the inevitable result:

Technician: Entry-level license. All VHF/UHF, no HF

With no Element 1, the only way for new hams or existing noncodetested
Techs
to get any HF will be to go for General.

the NPRM is anything but clear that is the result they intend.

It's clear what FCC intends.

inddeed
for the sake the ARS I hope it is what they end up doing.

So you agree that the Tech should have no HF privileges? I don't.

amusingly so Does Jim Heaney (sp?) of the ARRL

Wrong! ARRL has petitioned for more privileges for the entry-level
license.

General: Mid-level license. All VHF/UHF, most HF/MF

As it is today, without Element 1

Extra: Top license, all privileges.

As it is today, without Element 1

Novice, Tech Plus, Advanced: Old license classes that will disappear
with attrition.

Which has been going on for the past 5-1/2 years.

No free or automatic upgrades.

Specifically denied by FCC. Nobody loses privileges and nobody gains
privileges.

No HF for Technicians who haven't passed
a code test.

That's what Hans is trying to fix.

Unfortunately FCC doesn't seem to see that as a problem.