I suppose it depends on how they define Tech Plus. If the definition is any Technician class licensee who held that class before February 14, 1991, then they took the exact same written test for their license as General class licensees took at that point in time (it was the same element). That would distinguish Technician from Tech Plus because they would have taken different written tests. If the definition of Tech Plus is instead any Technician licensee who subsequently passes a code test, then the removal of the code testing requirement makes the two indistinguishable.

Looking back, what they should have done is automatically moved Tech Plus up to general when they renewed. With 10 year licenses, they would have all been gone now (either expired or moved to General). I found some interesting numbers on this page: http://www.hamdata.com/fccinfo.html

-- Andy Oppel, N6AJO

At 03:44 PM 7/23/2005, you wrote:

But Dave, you must be wrong. The FCC says there is/are differences between Techs and Tech + besides CW. I made a note on my copy to ask you and ODV…what is the difference in the requirements for Tech and Tech + besides CW??? I wasn’t aware there were differences…but I must be wrong too. The FCC can’t be wrong can they? (This question is for Rick).
Some time ago I remember the FCC saying they were not going to keep track in their database of who was a Tech and who was a Tech+. If there are differences this wouldn’t make sense? Since no one has accused the FCC of making sense then their position that there is a difference must make sense? What is the difference between a Tech and a Tech + besides CW?
73/Greg W7OZ

From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [ mailto:dsumner@arrl.org]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 5:33 AM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:12784] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News

When I first heard about the NPRM I assumed that the FCC at least had done the logical thing and proposed to give Tech Plus privileges to Techs, since the only difference between the two is Morse and they're now saying Morse isn't relevant.

It was a surprise, on reading the NPRM, to discover that that's not the proposal at all.

Dave

-----Original Message-----

From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota)

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:32 AM

To: arrl-odv

Subject: [arrl-odv:12769] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News

FCC is looking for the simplest way to address the petition from their administrative perspective. They dropped the Morse proficiency requirement because they could and because it is one less thing to have to deal with or track.

What intrigues me is the apparent inconsistency of this action. By dropping a Morse requirement and retaining the current license structure Tech licensees may acquire HF access on the HF novice Morse allocations. Since there won’t be any distinction between Tech’s and Tech Plus or Tech with HF there doesn’t appear to be any reason in the NPRM for not permitting Tech’s on HF CW.

Mike’s point about “regulatory minutia” follows from the tendency of FCC to move from its original purpose as a independent regulatory agency to a “chamber of commerce.” If FCC wants out of regulating generally and regulating Amateur Radio in particular, the tradition of self-regulation in Amateur Radio will be more important and, like it or not, we will have to continue to deal with the regulatory minutia that oils the gears of the Amateur Service.

In a real sense FCC’s NPRM is less a matter of “dissing” ARRL (and to some extent NCVEC and Bill Crosses hero Johnny Johnson) and more the result of an Agency that is always looking for the quick fix without considering the ramifications.

73,

Jay, KØQB

-----Original Message-----

From: Mike Raisbeck [ mailto:k1twf@arrl.net]

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:37 PM

To: arrl-odv

Subject: [arrl-odv:12750] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News

Frank,

I see and agree. The message here might be:

Why did we mess around with a proposal to slice things up by bandwidth? The FCC wants out of the detailed regulation business. Just get rid of all the mode and bandwidth limitations, and manage our frequencies the way most of the rest of the world does, informally.

As a board, we seem to spend excessive time worrying about regulatory minutia. I understand this tendency - it's far easier to define a small problem and tackle it with details than to recognize a large one and conquer it with wisdom.

Mike

K1TWF

-----------------------------------

Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck

Phone: (978) 250-1236

Fax:   (978) 250-0432

Web:   www.mraisbeck.com

Email: k1twf@arrl.net

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message.

-----Original Message-----

From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net]

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:08 PM

To: arrl-odv

Subject: [arrl-odv:12749] Re: FCC Releases Restructuring NPRM - Not Good News

Mike,

I think most of us expected them to do away with CW altogether. I know I did. All we had to do to know that was coming was to read Cross in "Restructuring I" where he knocked down all the arguments for retaining CW and said the "only" reason for keeping the CW testing was the international requirement. With that gone it was a no brainer.

What is a surprise is that they ignored all the ink and talk the ham US ham community spent on proposals for three license classes. That is a slap in the face. It should also wake us up to the new reality at FCC.

After that experience I am inclined to think that Coy is correct. Our bandwidth proposal is probably not going to get much attention. Cross will like the "..think tank" proposal for its simplicity. Perhaps I should place some bets this time around.

Frank...N2FF......

Mike Raisbeck wrote:

> Hello Folks,

>

>      I see this development quite differently than most of you (at

> least, those of you who have expresses opinions so far.) The FCC is

> delivering a message here that this Board has been struggling to

> ignore for my entire tenure as a vice director!!!

>

> *CW is an antiquated, technologically uninteresting mode that is

> completely irrelevant to the goals and purposes of Amateur Radio*

> **

>      I am myself a great fan of CW, and one who would probably come

> out on the top quartile of any CW test given to the members of this

> Board. But CW is like sailing - a wonderful, wonderful hobby, and a

> skill that no rational person would argue should be required knowlege

> to drive a power boat.

>

>      Over the last decade we have seduced ourselves with arguments

> about how wonderful CW is in a low power, high noise pinch. How many

> examples can we really find of CW "saving the day"? We have invoked

> the high ground of "democracy" and of "doing the will of our members",

> ignoring the broader responsibility that we have to them to see and

> plan for a real future for the hobby. We have allowed our ears to be

> captured by a small number of vociferous crackpots (often, very

> intelligent and articulate crackpots, and just possibly including a

> few members of our own revered group!)

>

>      Is the real sting in this that the FCC might be thinking that we

> are becoming a bit irrelevant?

>

>      Frankly, if this decision of the FCC is a surprise to you, you

> need to take a long, hard look at yourself, your hobby, and your

> relation to it.

>

> 73,

> Mike

> K1TWF

>

> PS - do any of you see it interesting that the notice came out a few

> days AFTER the board meeting?

>

>

>

> -----------------------------------

> Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck

>

> Phone: (978) 250-1236

> Fax:   (978) 250-0432

> Web:   www.mraisbeck.com

> Email: k1twf@arrl.net

>

> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and

> confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient.

> If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any

> use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case,

> please notify us by reply email and delete this message.

>