rjr@mgweed.UUCP (Bob Roehrig) (11/20/85)
qst de k9eui hr crrl bulletin nr 30 from crrl headquarters london ont november 19, 1985 to all radio amateurs bt doc has given crrl permission to release the following details of their proposal to restructure the canadian amateur service. there would be three amateur radio certificates. a. b and c. certificate a would be entry level. candidates would be required to pass an examination on 1, the installation and operation of a modern amateur radio station, with heavy emphasis on preventing rf interference. 2, basic electronic theory, 3, antennas and propagation, and, 4, domestic and international regulations. there would be no morse code test. the following privileges and restrictions would apply, 1, the transmitter portion of the station would have to be commercially built. 2, no emissions below 30 mhz but all modes permitted above 30 mhz, 3, maximum power of 250 watts dc input. and. 4, could not become licensees of repeater or remote base stations. certificate b would require a 12 wpm morse code sending and receiving test and holders would have certificate a privileges plus the use of all modes below 30 mhz. certificate c would require a test on advanced electronic theory at a level of difficulty between the present amateur and advanced amateur examinations. holders would be permitted to operate homebuilt transmitting equipment, use 1000 watts dc input. and become licensees or repeaters of remote base stations. further information will appear in december qst ar
hardie@sask.UUCP (Peter Hardie ) (11/20/85)
> hr crrl bulletin nr 30 from crrl headquarters > > doc has given crrl permission to release the following details > of their proposal to restructure the canadian amateur service. > there would be three amateur radio certificates. a. b and c. > > certificate a would be entry level. > the following privileges and restrictions would apply, 1, the > transmitter portion of the station would have to be > commercially built. If this proposal goes through we will have a licensing structure that FORCES hams to be appliance operators. Furthermore, it would basically kill the 'art' of QRP as one of the joys of QRP work is to build your rig. This proposal will have to be killed! Pete VE5BEL MAIL: ihnp4!sask!hardie
ptb@mitre-bedford.ARPA (11/25/85)
I am concerned about this, especially if the FCC decides to go this
way. I can understand the first license ("A" I beleive) needing to go
with commercial gear (Their license does not seem to cover enough
technical info to safely allow them to do that.) However, I think
that the solution should be to PUT THAT INTO THE LICENSE EXAM, so that
the technical state of the art would continue to be expanded.
Just my opinion, but I think that the things an operator should be
entrusted to do should be partially be on the examination - at least
the basics of making sure that his transmitter will not CAUSE other
people problems by being out of band, having harmonics on it, or
splattering all over blazes.
I disagree with the approach taken by DOC. If they want a technical
license without Morse Code, fine. But then there should be technical
privileges too.
Peter Baldwin, WA1SNH
(ptb@mitre-bedford)stephany.WBST@Xerox.ARPA (11/26/85)
Commenting on what the Canadians are doing may not be any of my business, but, I can't see why they are starting a code-free licese. Code free licenses already exist, it is called the citizen's band. Joe N2XS
hardie@sask.UUCP (Peter Hardie ) (11/30/85)
> Commenting on what the Canadians are doing may not be any of my > business, but, I can't see why they are starting a code-free licese. > Code free licenses already exist, it is called the citizen's band. > > Joe N2XS Joe: We already have a no-code license up here in VE-land. It is called the digital license and it seems to have been an unqualified failure. It was intended to stimulate interest in digital communications and in packet radio in particular but very few licenses were issued (only a few hundred, and many of those, like myself, already had the advanced amateur license anyway). It consists of three parts. Two parts are the regulations and theory exams that are also given on the advanced amateur exam. The third part replaced the code exam and was a written exam on aspects of digital communications with emphasis on packet radio. 73 Pete ve5bel ihnp4!sask!hardie
stephany.WBST@Xerox.ARPA (12/02/85)
Pete, Thanks for the update, I had forgotten about the Canadian Digital license. Joe N2XS
karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (12/05/85)
> > Commenting on what the Canadians are doing may not be any of my > > business, but, I can't see why they are starting a code-free licese. > > Code free licenses already exist, it is called the citizen's band. > We already have a no-code license up here in VE-land. It is > called the digital license and it seems to have been an unqualified > failure. Ohboyohboy...[rub hands with glee]...just what I've been waiting for, a reopening of the old no-code debate! I always find it amusing to compare the comments of those who oppose the technical no-code license because it will create another CB out of amateur radio with those who oppose the technical no-code license because the Canadians tried it and nobody bothered to get one. From what I've heard, knowledge of the code doesn't keep quite a few people from jamming FM repeaters, but *lack* of knowledge of the code DOES keep quite a few otherwise talented people from participating in amateur packet radio development and other clearly worthwhile activites. Sooner or later we *will* get a no-code "amateur" license in the USA. The question is whether it will occur before or after the present amateur service atrophies away from lack of both quality and quantity. I much prefer the former over the latter, but you've got to have at least ONE of those two factors to get and keep frequencies. Phil
taylor.WBST@Xerox.ARPA (12/06/85)
Phil, I agree with you. I appears that we have two ways of screening ham radio for "quality" of operators: (1) By a tough technical exam; (2) By a tough code axam. Citizens Band had neither-- therefore, a complete lack of "quality" screening. It seems to me that the chief challenge for the hobby now is how we can best attract the most of the best young innovators. I just don't see a code requirement of over, say, 5 or 10 wpm as contributing to this end. 73 Jim (W2OZH)