"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All
they're
really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

I'm still not so hot on the idea.

All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As
it
stands
right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF.

I agree and of all the licensing decisions made under 98-143,
the ending of Novice was, IMHO, not a good idea.

But...but...Bill, the FCC thought it was a good idea! Are you saying
FCC made a mistake? ;-)

Please point to any statement I have made that indicates
I agree with every FCC decision. :-) :-)

That said,
I think once the dust settles from the code "test" issue, then
perhaps ARRL may wish to take a top down look at licensing,
licensing requirements and the concurrent privileges associated
with each.

KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper?

No, is it on a web site?.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade
education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Were you "average" Jim?

In some things yes, in others no.

I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.

Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is
quite
different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere.

Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus
and
test
should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the
sixth-grade level in order to understand the material".

Next:


Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC
budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen,
assuming
that the idea of a beginner's class license is even accepted at
all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what
it
is now to the basic license. It may be named "Communicator" or
simply left as Technician. Let's assume it gets the name
"Communicator". All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the
element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and
pay

for

a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a
Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than
he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.


Exactly!


That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If
it's
OK
to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most
of
the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were
made!

hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)

"They remember a past that never was"

What are they remembering that wasn't? The tech written was the same as
the General as someone wrote above up to 1987 as you note below.

Direct quote:

"Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM."

That sentence, and the lack of other clarification, says that the
General and Tech writtens were the same right up to when the Tech lost
its code test in 1991. That's simply not the case - the written was
split almost 4 years earlier.

OK and understood.

Note that the paper wants to give *all* Techs a free upgrade to
General! It also ignores the fact that any Tech who got that license
before March 1987 is already able to upgrade to General with no
additional testing. And it's been that way since April 15, 2000. And
that's not a giveaway because those folks *did* pass the same written
as Generals.

IF (and it is a big IF) the FCC ever entertains some type of
license changes of the type being discussed there will be two
choices as to the affected hams already licensed. You can repeat
the 1968 approach and take away privileges or you can give
some people a "pass" while still impacting all new hams or
hams not already licensed at a particular level. Time will tell.

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written.
In
March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B
for
General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code
test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper
should
know
how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual
mistake
in
the paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the
glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the

KL7CC paper)

So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no "black plan" from the ARRL, no anything. Just
some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper
for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses - what a concept!

and:

A few final words:
There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!

I recycle.

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our
wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn't that be an odd reason for doing what
they
are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't*
want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The
person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're
such
great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when
my
license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying
that
for
just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the
form,
sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and
had
renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at
all.
They
thought I needed "help".

Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)

Maybe?

snippage

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there
are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?


Who, me?

Yeah, you!!

More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"?

more snippage

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill
Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license
(save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers
as
the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how
he
or she had read and understood part 97.

I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't
believe
it
the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!!

Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service.
Didn't
work very well.

The real problem with CB at the time and to this day was the "buy it
anywhere"
ability at prices net to nothing. Even in the early 70s CBs were less
than
$50.

I never saw them that cheap, but then again, I wasn't looking.

But what you are effectively saying, Bill, is that the real problem
with cb was "lack of investment" by many who used it. They did not
take it seriously because they had invested only a few dollars and
practically no time or effort into getting set up.

Does that mean if cb sets had cost, say, $500 back then instead of
$50, that service would not have become such a mess?

Probably because the sets wouldn't have found such a wide
market of accepatance for that price. Clearly the other
factor was the "no license" other than send in the
application approach.

Almost sounds like a new version of "what isn't worked for isn't
valued"

Cute, but no cigar.

Same is true today for FRS...but the good thing about FRS is the
lack of any real DX ability.

Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By
gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!

Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that
approach
is valid for the rules, why not the whole test?

But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime
author
admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the
license
he
holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that
fact. As
dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal.

One problem we have discused before is the stupid focus on some
testing on elements of the rules that very few hams ever engage
in...space
communications for example. Better to test on what we really want
most hams to be knowledgeable on that VEC qualifications, etc.

It used to seem to me that the one thing we could all agree on was
that the basic regulations (not talking about the fine-print stuff,
just the basics) were one subject that absolutely had to be tested
for. But the KL7CC paper suggests doing away with most of that!
Surreal...

I'll have to find that paper and read it.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK