"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article et, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you
really want?
One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain.
It is a "TIRED" radio structure.
Not at all!
It's a "tried and true" license structure.
When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about
250,000 US hams. Today there are about 680,000.
Bill,
Remember how the number of US hams barely moved from 1962 to 1968?
Jim,
The "When incentive licensing was re-est...." was not my statement.
If you want Merit Badges, join the
BSA (or CAP).
License class is not a merit badge.
There is no need to have class distinctions between
hams artificially created by the FCC.
License class is not about class distinctions. It's about qualification
for privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass
the
Extra is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more
privileges.
But, as you and I have agreed before, the privileges gained do NOT relate
to
the additional knowledge needed for the higher license class.
FCC disagrees, Bill.
True for now. But if anyone is serious about a new license
structure, I'd like to see rational relationship between the
license class knowledge test requirements and whatever
additional privileges are associated with that license.
What is the technical competency difference between an Extra
operating SSB with a TS440 in the 80m Extra voice segment vs a General
operating the same rig at say 3.885Mhz?
Not much!
Not any as I see it.
But the FCC thinks it's a good idea to reward additional
technical knowledge with more privileges.
I don't oppose the concept, I oppose the illogical implementation.
For that matter, what is the technical competency difference between
operating
CW on the low end of 2 meters vs. the low end of 20 meters? (note that I
wrote
*technical*)
None and that point has been made by myself as well. The only
two truly CW only sub-bands do NOT require passing any
code test to be able to use them.
This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about
amateur
radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has
demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges.
The problem, again one we agreed on before, is that granting
additional frequency spectrum doesn't rationally flow from the
additional knowledge required for the higher license class (e.g.
Extra vs General, General vs Tech.
It rationally flows if you buy into FCC's logic on the matter.
It only flows as to "pure incentive". It doiesn't flow or relate
at all to the additional knowledge tested to pass the license.
Would you rather that FCC did away with the Extra, Bill? For that matter,
what
about the General?
Did I even hint at that. The answer is basically no...although
I have NO preference for or against changing license structure
to a more rational basis for added privileges.
Allow the ham to distinguish
himself or herself, based upon actual achievements.
Such as?
Good question.
My point exactly.
Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of
the
Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service
as
one
of "self-training".
I do.
Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF?
-Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once
you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop.
There is nothing more to be learned!
Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said
Extra has demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full
privileges.
True under the current scheme of licensing for the USA. It could
be changed and that is the point raised in this discussion. Should
it be changed and if so, how?
I wrote up a suggested three-tiered system some time back and reposted it
recently. I think it's the best compromise between all the various
considerations. YMMV.
Please note the following sentence. I'm *not* saying I want one class of
license! I'm simply describing how to do it.
You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it:
First, put aside the code test issue and concentrate on the writtens.
Second, close off the Tech and General to new issues.
Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into
one large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to
the
Tech
or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more.
Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from
the
combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to
become hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all
privileges.
Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically
extended to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took
effect. No
renewals.
Never happen.
I hope you're right, Bill. But I learned long ago to "never say never".
I hope I'm right too :-) :-)
Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur
Class" test within the next 10 years or leave the air.
Never happen. You want a way to kill ham radio, then that'd
do it in a heartbeat...a 10 year heartbeat at the longest.
Exactly! But the hams who remained would all have passed the same test so
there's be no more license-based "class distinctions". That's the point.
But, again, not at all a probable possibility.
At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all
have
passed the same test to get it.
At the end of 10 years we'd have no ham service of any consequence.
Sure we would. Just not the one you or I want. But it would be more like
what
Brian wants.
IF the numbers of hams dropped considerably because of the proposal,
I seriously doubt the service as well as ham organizations would survive.
Calling for all retesting of existing hams would play right into the hands
of
the commercial interests that would love to get us off the air completely.
Retesting does NOT get any support at all. A handful of people
propose retesting (I oppose retesting)...but that is all. If 1968
incentive
licensing drove some folks away, you can bet the "all existing
hams would need to be retested" will certainly do it.
I think most active hams would just take the %^&#$% test and be done with
it.
The problem is that many semi-active or inactive hams wouldn't, and we'd
see a
drastic reduction in numbers. Bad news.Very bad news.
Exactly my point.
To repeat: I'm not in favor of a one-class system. I'm just pointing out
where
such a system would lead.
I believe we both believe, if imlemented as you proposed above,
the end result would be disastor.
Why not?
Please tell me any example of something you do in life that
requires anyone to be knowledge retested...other than
something in the medical field such as CPR recertification.
In my line of work, (no, I'm not going to say what it is here), employees
are
constantly retested on safety and procedures. The last time I took a
safety
test, the passing grade was 100%. Get *one* question wrong and you fail.
And in
a year or less you have to do it all over again.
But if you get one wrong do you lose your job...or
just take it again until you pass? The last time I took
any test that actually might have impacted my career was
when I was first hired and tested by the personel office
back in 1970.
Cheers and happy new year.
All the best in '04, Bill
Mega dittos to you and everyone else in RRAP
Bill K2UNK