[AMPS] Fwd: [Hallicrafters] FCC releases restructuring proposal

Alan D. Gray agray@VOICENET.COM
Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:54:08 -0400


CW never stopped anyone from getting on HF.  The FCC's proposal makes much
more sense than the League's give away program.  Way to go FCC!

Alan, W3BV


At 02:11 PM 8/11/1998 -0500, Jon Ogden wrote:
>
>Well, here's the latest license restructuring posed by the FCC.
>
>I don't like it.  Even though I am a fan of morse code and feel it should 
>be required for HF, under the new proposal GENERAL class would be the 
>entry level to HF.  In other words, you'd now have to pass 13 wpm code to 
>get on HF.  This is silly and blocks far too many people from getting HF 
>priviledges.
>
>I was hoping for better.  The ARRL proposal sounded good.  Hopefully, the 
>FCC will modify it's proposal based on public comments.
>
>73,
>
>Jon
>KE9NA
>
>---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
>
>______________________________ Forward Header 
>__________________________________
>Subject: FCC releases restructuring proposal
>Author:  vec@arrl.org at Internet
>Date:    08/11/1998 13:12
>
>
>
>Dear VE:
>
>The following was just released from FCC.  FCC invites your comments by 
>December 1, 1998.
>
>73,
>
>Bart J. Jahnke, W9JJ
>Manager
>ARRL/VEC
>
>bjahnke@arrl.org
>
>==========================
>
>This is the text of a W1AW Bulletin being run today...
>
>Subject: FCC restructuring proposal
>Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 12:06PM
>
>FCC proposes to streamline amateur rules
>
>The FCC has proposed to phase out the Novice and Technician Plus class 
>licenses, leaving just four amateur license classes in place--Technician, 
>General, Advanced, and Extra. The Commission also has asked the amateur 
>community to express its opinions on Morse code requirements for 
>licensing 
>and testing, but offered no specific changes. And the FCC proposed to 
>permit 
>Advanced class licensees to administer amateur exams up through General 
>class. The proposals were among several suggested rules changes and 
>invitations to comment contained in an FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
>WT 
>Docket 98-143, made public August 10.
>
>In proposing to phase out the Novice and Tech Plus tickets, the FCC said 
>"there appears to be an unnecessary overlap between the Novice, 
>Technician, 
>and Technician Plus license classes." The FCC also said that Technician 
>and 
>Tech Plus operators "predominantly" use FM and packet on VHF and UHF. In 
>addition, the FCC said Novice applicants last year numbered fewer than 
>1000, 
>while there were nearly 21,500 Technician applications.
>
>Under the FCC plan, Novice and Tech Plus licensees would retain current 
>operating privileges, but no new Novice or Tech Plus licenses would be 
>granted. For examination purposes, current examination elements 2 and 3A 
>would be combined into a new element 3A. For administrative purposes, the 
>FCC would combine the current Technician and Tech Plus databases into a 
>single Technician database. The proposal would eliminate the 5 WPM code 
>test, Element 1A, as a required element for any class of license.
>
>The elimination of the Novice and Tech Plus license classes would 
>effectively raise the bar for future applicants desiring to gain HF 
>operating privileges, unless the FCC ultimately reduces Morse code 
>testing 
>requirements. Since the General class license would become the 
>entry-level 
>HF ticket under the FCC's proposed rules, applicants would have to pass 
>at 
>least the 13 WPM code test.
>
>The FCC did not propose to change any operating frequencies or license 
>privileges for amateurs. However, the FCC does seeks comment on the 
>disposition of the current Novice HF bands, which carry a 200-W output 
>power 
>limit for all licensees. The FCC invited comment on whether it would be 
>"appropriate" to delete the Novice bands and the power restrictions on 
>higher-class licensees and permit Novices to operate CW anywhere on 80, 
>40, 
>15, and 10 meters at 200 W output.
>
>The FCC opened the door to comments on all aspects of Morse code testing 
>from the amateur community. In particular, the Commission said it wants 
>to 
>know if hams prefer the current three-level system or would like to see 
>it 
>reduced to a one or two-tier system--and, if so, at what required speeds. 
>The FCC asked whether hams would be willing to trade a reduction in Morse 
>code requirements for additional written elements on newer digital 
>technologies "which, in part, are replacing the Morse code." And, the 
>Commission asked whether it should consider specifying Morse code 
>examination methods, such as fill-in-the-blank or one minute of solid 
>copy, 
>instead of allowing VEs to determine the testing method.
>
>In a related issue, the FCC also seeks comments on how to deal with 
>potential abuses of the current disability waiver for higher-speed Morse 
>code tests. In RM-9196, the ARRL had asked the FCC to require anyone 
>applying for an exemption pursuant to a doctor's certification to first 
>attempt the higher-speed test before examination credit could be given. 
>The 
>League also asked that VECs have access to relevant medical information 
>from 
>the certifying physician. The FCC said the ARRL's proposal would place 
>"an 
>unfair burden on examinees" and raised serious privacy and 
>confidentiality 
>issues.
>
>The FCC went along with an ARRL petition and proposed allowing Advanced 
>class hams to be eligible to prepare and administer license examinations 
>up 
>through General class under the VE program. The Commission said the 
>change 
>would permit greater testing opportunities for hams. The FCC also invited 
>comments on whether it should change written examination requirements "to 
>provide VEs and VECs additional flexibility in determining the specific 
>contents of written examinations."
>
>Referring to yet another ARRL petition, RM-9150, the FCC invited comments 
>on 
>how it can improve its Amateur Radio enforcement processes. The FCC 
>applauded the ARRL "for its creative thinking" in that petition, but said 
>the specific proposal was "inconsistent" with the current statutory role 
>of 
>administrative law judges. The FCC raised the possibility of encouraging 
>complainants to include a draft order "to show cause to initiate a 
>revocation or cease and desist hearing proceeding." The FCC said it also 
>wants to hear how it can better use the services of the Amateur Auxiliary 
>in 
>beefing up enforcement.
>
>The FCC proposed to phase out Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service, or 
>RACES, stations by not renewing their licenses. No new RACES licenses 
>have 
>been issued since 1980, and only 249 valid licenses remain. The FCC said 
>RACES stations no longer are needed because any amateur station that has 
>been properly registered with a civil defense organization has the same 
>privileges as a RACES station.
>
>The FCC also took the occasion to clarify the definition of "power" as 
>used 
>in the RF exposure table in Section 97.13(c)(1). The FCC said it refers 
>to 
>peak envelope power (PEP) input to the antenna. It also made clear that 
>no 
>one holding an FCC-issued ham ticket may apply for a reciprocal permit 
>for 
>alien amateur license.
>
>The FCC set a longer-than-normal comment period. The deadline for 
>comments 
>is December 1, 1998. The deadline for reply comments is January 15, 1999. 
>The FCC will accept electronic comments via the Internet at 
>http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.
>
>A copy of the complete NPRM will be posted on the ARRLWeb page, 
>http://www.arrl.org, as soon as it is available.
>
>
>---
>Submissions hallicrafters@qth.net
>
>
>----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jon Ogden
>
>jono@enteract.com
>www.qsl.net/ke9na
>
>"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
>Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
>Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
>Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
>
>

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm