In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Bill
Sohl"
writes:

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

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

No, is it on a web site?.

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/

Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"

You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on
that.
What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should
happen to
the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, et al;

Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals.

I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are
looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC)
has certainly stirred the pot.

Agreed - but not in the best way, IMHO.

Are you saying discussion or stawman proposals are bad???

No!

I'm saying that some of the proposal's ideas (not talking about the code test -
that's old news!) are not the best way to reach the desired results.

Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator"
entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs
some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that
would lay out the rules for Communicator license.

If anything needs to be a part of the test, it's the rules and regs.

I agree...to a point as noted below.

I have always felt
memorizing
band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed
over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a
frequency
chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for
his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is
provided. Other basic questions probably should require some
recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.)

Power levels, modes allowed, knowing you can't cuss or jam others, etc.

I think there is some sort of legal precedent that if something isn't in
the
test syllabus, a licensed violator may have an out wrt prosecution.

No such legal precedent..rather, just the opposite...to wit,
ignorance of the lasw is not a valid defense to a violation charge.

My point is that if the govt. grants licenses that require tests, it makes
sense that the rules for that license be on the test.

If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you
can find it:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the
free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake
in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me
at
all
if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with
regard
to privileges vs requirements.

Free upgrades have a lot of downsides. For example, suppose that a tech
gets a
free upgrade to General without ever taking Element 3 or its equivalent.
Doesn't that prove that Element 3 contains nothing that is essential for
General class privileges?

It proves nothing that definitive.

See below.

Couldn't somebody claim that requiring new hams to
pass Element 3 (or 4) but not requiring existing hams to do the same is
discriminatory?

Someone can claim anything they want.

Consider this:

Prospective ham reads about the upcoming changes. Reads that on Date X, all
Techs will get free upgrade to General. Crams for Tech and takes it a day or
two before Date X. Passes Tech, gets General as a freebie. Is that fair? Does
said newbie really have General class qualifications?

The other two alternatives a
(1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track
record on that as we saw in 1968) or
(2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and
wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants
for enforcement and rules simplification.

I don't see what the problem is with (2). FCC has kept three "cul de sac"
license classes active for almost 4 years now (Tech Plus/Novice/Advanced)
with
no real problems. They're just entries in a database.

They are more than just database entries. They also have specific
privileges which
differentiate them from the "lower" level licenses. IF the FCC granted
identical
privileges to Advanced rather than doing a "free upgrade" of Advanced to
Extra,
THEN the old licenses would be just a database differentiator.

Only difference is a few lines of rules - particularly the difference between
Advanced and Extra.

And FCC turned down ARRL's idea of free General upgrades for existing
Novices
and Tech Pluses.

The FCC once was looking for a consensus of hams before it would
entertain dropping code speeds.

But that wasn't the issue - ARRL proposed 5 wpm for General, so all Tech Pluses
and Novices met that already. The sticking point was the written testing.

Further commentary ad discussion welcome.

And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon
of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate.

AGREED!

There's also the part about the "no homebrew no voltages over 30" for the
Communicator. Not good ideas at all - nor are they realistic.

They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual
"homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen?

I've seen plenty! ;-)

The "no voltages over 30" means no line-powered rigs, no antenna tuners.....

73 de Jim, N2EY