Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 04:30:12 PDT From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Policy-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Policy@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #384 To: Ham-Policy Ham-Policy Digest Sun, 21 Aug 94 Volume 94 : Issue 384 Today's Topics: Code Must GO! or sta CW ...IS NOW! Upgrading from Tech Plus to General (3 msgs) Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 02:57:00 -0400 From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!udel!news.sprintlink.net!coyote.channel1.com!channel1!alan.wilensky@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Code Must GO! or sta To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu LW>>Do you pay union scale for air time? What is the format of the LW>discussion? NOBODY gets paid to do the show, Clay, NOT even me! The LW>show is to advance the hobby/service of amateur radio, as far as I'm LW>concerned. I have received many replies PRO-CODE, but I haven't even LW>received one reply from a person willing to be on the show against LW>the CODE. How verrrry interesting! LW>73, Len, LW>KB7LPW I will take up the topic of removal of the cw test. I have a very complete folder of research from several services that have dropped the code altogether. Name the time and place. Alan Wilensky, N1SSO abm@world.std.com --- þ CmpQwk #UNREGþ UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 1994 04:48:23 GMT From: george.inhouse.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!compuserve.com!news@uunet.uu.net Subject: CW ...IS NOW! To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu My copy of 97.1(a) cites "recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications." My Webster's Collegiate defines "emergency" as "an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action." My personal definition of "emergency communications," consistent with Webster, includes one or more of (i) backup power (ii) backup equipment and (iii) backup antenna systems, any of which will markedly reduce signal/noise ratios and worsen the separation of signals. An amateur service that can run emergency drills on packet via repeaters is real nice. A service that can handle the real thing on anything that can switch a carrier on and off is a good deal more robust. But I don't think I'm going to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 23:46:26 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!F180-137.net.wisc.edu!bmicales@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Upgrading from Tech Plus to General To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Hello all, I was just looking through QST ( Sept. 1994, pg. 75) and noticed under the EXAM INFO section that as of July 1 the General written exam ( Element 3B) uses a new question pool. My question is, since I got my Tech in 1976 and when I upgrade to a General ( soon I hope :-) ), will I be tested on this new General exam? According to the rules (1991 - a new book is on order), Techs before 1986, receive create for element 3B. Is this still in effect? Personally, I beleive it still is , however, I would like to hear from some of the VEs (or anyone who knows) out there. Respond either here or E-Mail me at : bmicales@facstaff.wisc.edu Thank you for taking the time to read this post and responding to it. 73 de WA2DEU Bruce Micales P.S. I looked this post over for mistakes, but if I missed something or offended anyone, I apologize. Bruce Micales ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 00:30:10 GMT From: world!drt@uunet.uu.net Subject: Upgrading from Tech Plus to General To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Bruce Micales (bmicales@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote: : Hello all, : I was just looking through QST ( Sept. 1994, pg. 75) and noticed : under the EXAM INFO section that as of July 1 the General written exam ( : Element 3B) uses a new question pool. : My question is, since I got my Tech in 1976 and when I upgrade to a General ( : soon I hope :-) ), will I be tested on this new General exam? According : to the rules (1991 - a new book is on order), Techs before 1986, receive : create for element 3B. You're all set. Your credit is for 3B, not any particular question pool. -drt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |David R. Tucker KG2S 8P9CL drt@world.std.com| ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 02:30:53 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!F180-156.net.wisc.edu!bmicales@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Upgrading from Tech Plus to General To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu >Bruce Micales (bmicales@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote: >: Hello all, >: I was just looking through QST ( Sept. 1994, pg. 75) and noticed >: under the EXAM INFO section that as of July 1 the General written exam ( >: Element 3B) uses a new question pool. >: My question is, since I got my Tech in 1976 and when I upgrade to a General ( >: soon I hope :-) ), will I be tested on this new General exam? According >: to the rules (1991 - a new book is on order), Techs before 1986, receive >: create for element 3B. >You're all set. Your credit is for 3B, not any particular question >pool. >-drt >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >|David R. Tucker KG2S 8P9CL drt@world.std.com| >------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks David....like I said this what I thought, but it is nice to get confirmation BEFORE going for an upgrade! :-) 73 de WA2DEU Bruce Micales ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 01:18:30 GMT From: walter!dancer.cc.bellcore.com!not-for-mail@uunet.uu.net To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References , , lyo Subject : Re: Code Must GO! or stay!? In article , Len Winkler wrote: >>Do you pay union scale for air time? What is the format of the discussion? >NOBODY gets paid to do the show, Clay, NOT even me! The show is to >advance the hobby/service of amateur radio, as far as I'm concerned. >I have received many replies PRO-CODE, but I haven't even received >one reply from a person willing to be on the show against the CODE. >How verrrry interesting! >73, Len, >KB7LPW I am opposed to the high speed code requirements as they relate to spectrum use. That is...I see no reason to test beyond what is required for international treaty purposes (5wpm) to gain HF use for non-CW modes. Bill Sohl K2UNK - Advanced Class 29 Netcong Road Budd Lake, NJ 07828 Home 201-691-8116, Office (see below) Additional background: I was one of the hams who worked towards and succeeded in changing the old NJ Scanner law. I'm an elected official (councilman) in my home town (Mount Olive Township) and I've been a telecommunications proffessional for almost 30 years. I've testified before state committees on various issues on several occasions. I'm an ARRL member (but my opinions would not in any way be representative of an ARRL position on the issue). I'm an ARRL Local Government Liason. Cheers & 73s Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!cc!whs70 201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet whs70@cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #384 ******************************