N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article , Alun
writes:



Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).


And also without any purpose.


I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.


Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off

the

air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were

such

awful ideas.

I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit
though.


Why? It's my understanding that the 10-year idea is based partly on the current
license term and partly on the idea that we don't want to force anyone out
because of "life happens" events like education and family.

Its just too long. The license renewal period would just be another
number by that time, since the new A license would be forever. I'm busy
as all gitout, and it took me something over a week of hard study to get
ready for the Extra.

Plus I can't figure out what can make a person qualified to operate on
day 3652 of their licensing period and unqualified on day 3653. It takes
a lot less time than that to understand RF safety - the only real reason
I can think of for the second class license, so if we're going to do
this, it should make some timing sense.


I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read
teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A.

BTDT.

Not sure about BTDT.


Another
thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control
op at field day (or operate lower power)


Why would that be strange? It's the rule *today*.

I keep drawing parallels between the second class license and Generals.
We try to get people out to operate on field day, and you can get some
pretty strange setups. First a Ham with less than 2 years time in grade
would have to have a control op. We have hams what operate now at field
day that would suddenly have to have a control op (therefore taking
myself or another Extra away from a station) Of course the second class
ham could operate a 50 watt or less station, but that would mean that
either we change our setup - all stations except GOTA are full output -
or set up a special station just for the second class hams, a sort of
low power ghetto. Heck, the GOTA station can run more power. Maybe this
is no problem for you, but for others it isn't so good


Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels: QRP,
50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC.

Could be. But if we went back to that, the clubs could be forced to
make a decision to either run what they would like to run, take control
ops away from available stations for those who don't have time in grade.
(or the proper upgrade) or make that little ghetto for the second class
Hams. I really don't think that is a good way to welcome new people. YMMV.

- Mike KB3EIA -