VECs PROPOSE NEW ENTRY LEVEL COMMUNICATOR LICENCE

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Mar. 16 2004,18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Its no surprise that he's a Tech. I just looked him up on an old QRZ CD from 1996. He's been a Tech since 7/27/93. This is one of those hard-core no-coders that you'd have to drag to a code test at gunpoint.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Now you are getting too personal.

I have a learning disability and no rhyhmn. I have tried and tried to learn code. I can learn the tapes and then when I take the test they have a different sound and I fail the test.

In 1993, I passed both the Novice and Tech sections with 100%.

I also was able in the same session to pass the General and Advance with 90% and the Extra with 80%. I failed the code.

I have tried several times since and can not learn it.

So yes, it is personal. There is a hoop that serve no value that holds me back.

As far as you people who claim we want something for nothing. Maybe we should retest everyone, every time there are new question pool.

As I said, I passed Extra element in 1993. There was very little RF safety questions in any of those elements then.

So all you older Extras got something for nothing.

Philip

BTW
Extra required 20 wpm in 93. So I knew I would NOT get my Extra by passing the written section. I did it for the fun of it. You paid the same fee no matter how many elements you took in the same session.

The code was first and I failed the 5wpm. So it was for my own satisfaction I took the Extra element.
PK

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5HTW @ Mar. 15 2004,13:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Enjoy

I'll be on CW! (Without a keyboard)

Ed
.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm right there with you. Have you noticed an increase in CW activity? I think our little secret is catching on.

Dave

 

Here we go again with this damn automatic upgrade crap. That is totally un-acceptable. Whats wrong with just doing away with the code for General Class and letting them take the written General test.

Why does everyone just want to GIVE it away! New Novice is fine, Techs could stay techs but woul dnot be allowed to renew as a Tech once their 10 yrs is up, they would either have to go to NOVICE or upgrade to General, by taking the written test.

Its really very simple, but for god sake, don't just give it away...even the Techs who think they want to be General won't appreciate it, unless they earn it.

If you give it away, it WILL follow the same paths as CB, and will no longer be a respected hobby.

73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w4lgh @ Mar. 16 2004,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Techs could stay techs but woul dnot be allowed to renew as a Tech once their 10 yrs is up[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That only makes sense if we retest EVERYONE when their licenses come up for renewal.

As I stated earlier, there was very little RF safety questions in 1993.

Go to the ARRL site and read their rational on upgrades. They state that testing standards and requirements have varied throughout the years.

Maybe we can give new people the choice of what test to take from what time period. I would choice 1993 because I learned that materal. Many would choose 1945 because it was much easier than today.

If you don't feel the ARRL or VEC upgrades are fair then -

Require EVERYONE to retake the CURRENT exams for their license class when they renew!

Philip

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0OFZ @ Mar. 15 2004,16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kramrellim @ Mar. 16 2004,15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N5CTI @ Mar. 16 2004,10:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Convert CW spectrum to voice? Whoo-boy! That would be the start of the slippery slope that CW operators fear.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
CW is authrized on all frequencies in the amateur spectrum. What more do you want? This petition does not change that.

73

Mark N5RFX[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A petition to limit CW will most likely come, just give it time[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"Come back again, theres sumthin wrong with yer radio. Every time you drop the maul, I'm hearin all kinds of beeps goin on. You better check yer swerves."

 

Well.....here we go again.....more crap proposals from some bunch of yahoos who presume to speak for all of ham radio. Next year if I buy a new rig is the "license" to operate going to be neatly tucked inside the box? I hold an "advanced" class ticket. Don't "give" me an "extra" class ticket and try to tell me it's worth anything. There is a real sickness in this country. It's caused by producing a couple of generations of "stupid" and dependant people and then "giving" them whatever they want so they won't be unhappy and no one has their "feelings" hurt. Yeasu, Kenwood, Icom.......when it's all over nobody will be bright enough to read your full page adds in the QST.......sign me, DISGUSTED

 

Hello to all,
I studied hard for my upgrade and think that at least a written test should be given. It should also be harder than the general test. You should have to earn your ham license like your drivers license. The more bandwidth the harder the test.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ac3p @ Mar. 16 2004,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To K2TFT: Dittos.

Looks like I'll be retiring from Volunteer Examining soon.

73

Frank[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Retiring? Ha! You won't be needed. If everyone has their way, we'll just be sending in $10 for a license.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8ZTY @ Mar. 16 2004,20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe we can give new people the choice of what test to take from what time period. I would choice 1993 because I learned that materal. Many would choose 1945 because it was much easier than today.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And maybe they could have the choice to walk uphill (both ways) in the snow to the FCC office.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4KNH @ Mar. 16 2004,21:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ac3p @ Mar. 16 2004,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To K2TFT: Dittos.

Looks like I'll be retiring from Volunteer Examining soon.

73

Frank[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Retiring? Ha!  You won't be needed.  If everyone has their way, we'll just be sending in $10 for a license.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There won't be any need for that. Licenses will be included in boxes of General Mills and Kellogg's cereals. We will have Raisin Bran Techs, Rice Krispies Generals and Captain Crunch Extras.

 

I just had a wonderful thought that only K3SY can fully
appreciate. (Not everyone here is demented enough! )
We have all noticed how the FCC pendulum on obscenity has
swung ever so slowly to the 1950's outlook. Just imagine in
a few years that the anthropomorphic FCC pendulum were to
swing back on ham tests. Just think of the fun! People would
have to learn code, learn some real electronics, a few FCC
regulations, and of course, operating procedures.
Wow! Talk about K3SY needing to call everybody into a big
group hug! Let your minds run loose with that thought for
a while. The testing, not the hug!
Bye, Y'all! Cal K4JSR

 

My response to this proposal will be the same or similar as to the arrl's proposal...It is a mistake to combine the existing technicians with the general class.  They should be combined with the communicator class as you call it,  then they can have the time and opportunity to operate under hf conditions, which is vastly different than vhf/uhf operations of today.  The technician with code has had some hf operating experience with 10m and has a greater understanding of hf operation and could be blended more easily, as it is not considered an "entry level class".

We will always have change.  Sometimes when the change is to big, more problems will be created.  I'll use the quote "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" to illustrate my point.  When it all over said and done we will all be looking around  for the baby to enjoy and it will be long gone in all the changes happening.  

Think about it, even still today, anything worth having is worth working for.  That is the american way, unless we want to see that changed also.  

I'm not one who is hard core about losing code (i dont even think code is the issue here).  I simply think that giving the privilegies without having to work for them will set the wrong direction.  The communicator class should consist of all the entry level classes available today, the only exception is the "technician class with code" because they have had some of the hf operating experience, then the incentive to upgrade will be there and the "working for the upgrade" will happen.

W4FED

 

I'm just glad that the 100 or so on this board are the VOICE of Amateur Radio in America! Now if we can get you all jobs at the FCC, we can go back to spark gaps, which should not be affected by BPL at least.

The 3 VEC groups are trying to get a system out that will work without ANYONE losing privileges.

Code as a mode is not going away, as a test factor it will. If you want to test for code, lets do a practical test on how to set up your AMP, or use oh...... 25 watts on hf. that would clear up alot of your supposed interferance from 350,000 new hams on hf, and from the 1000's Extras/Advanced/Generals that can't tune the one they are currently using.

Why automatic upgrades, because there is no other way to do it. It's not something for nothing, its not someone losing privileges because he/she can't pass a code test. I know very good hams that have learning disabilites and for them to learn the code is if not beyond the scope totally, it would be extreme time commitment.

hold over the advance class license, just give them the same privileges at the extras.

 

Hey, guys. The whole debate over code/no code goes on. Well, I have an idea. Don't do away with the code. Let's test to see if you can tune up an amplifier. Let's test to see if you can talk on an HF radio. Let's test to see if you can do digital modes. Let's test for all of it.
While testing for CW, they should make you send and receive. That way, they could be certain that you know both sides of CW.

Maybe they should revoke licenses of anybody who fails to pass these tests. Don't you think this is an excellent idea?

My point is: There are no test requirements for the other modes. Why test for CW?

Thanks for letting me express my opinion.

W0DSF
Deb

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ag4rq @ Mar. 16 2004,23:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4KNH @ Mar. 16 2004,21:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ac3p @ Mar. 16 2004,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To K2TFT: Dittos.

Looks like I'll be retiring from Volunteer Examining soon.

73

Frank[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Retiring? Ha!  You won't be needed.  If everyone has their way, we'll just be sending in $10 for a license.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There won't be any need for that. Licenses will be included in boxes of General Mills and Kellogg's cereals. We will have Raisin Bran Techs, Rice Krispies Generals and Captain Crunch Extras.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Where can I find out more about "Radio Amateur Foundation"