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

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

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

[snip]

Let's get this clear right now.

ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free
upgrade
to General with no additional testing.

They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to
Extra with no additional testing.

Do you support those free upgrades or not?

I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

I (N2EY) don't support it.

Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing?

Because there's no real harm to anyone...

I say there *is* real harm to the ARS.

However, let's explore your claim for a bit and see where it leads.

You say that the free upgrades are OK "Because there's no real harm to
anyone...". I've also seen it justified by "the difference between the
Tech and
General written tests is not that large".

If that's true, then what would be the harm is simply dumping the General
class
question pool completely and using the Technician pool in its place, with
slight modifications to include General HF privs?

Who would be harmed by such a change?

IF that is what you think must be the only way this can be implemented
then YOU file your coments as such or file your own petition.

By the same token, we could resurrect the old Advanced written and use it
in
place of the Extra.

Ditto my last comment.

and if you want an
incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it

I disagree! It works as a disincentive. Why should anyone study for an
upgrade
if there's a chance for a freebie? Would you you pay $500 for a new
computer if
you knew that next month it would go on sale for $300?

The above is ONLY a prospect for the period of time between when
the FCC announces their decisin and the actual implementation
date for free upgrades. Might someone today look at what the
ARRL proposes and now, on the hope the proposal goes through,
decide to do nothing towards upgrade? Well I'm sure some will
do exactly that. For now, the proposal is in the public arena and
that is just the way things are.

plus it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one
snapshot of time.

ARRL proposed similar freebies before and FCC said no, even though it
would
simplify the licensing and regs.

So what. Are you saying the ARRL should not have made the
proposal because it rejected a former upgrade proposal?

Ultimately the FCC will decide. I may hazard a guess as to how the FCC
will rule, but that's all it would be...a guess. Until the FCC
sings on this proposal, none of us know for sure.

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a
reduction
in the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements.

That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain
licenses on a certain date.

But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams.

Agreed.

And that's the point: Folks like Carl who said they'd NEVER support ANY
reduction are now supporting a reduction because it's a one-time thing.
And
ignoring the fact that it affects a huge number of hams.

Neither Carl nor I are ignoring the numbers involved. We fully
acknowledge the numbers you have posted...which anyone can get
from several database and web site sources anyway. Both Carl
and I support the ONE-TIME upgrades with full knowledge of
the numbers.

Free upgrades for Techs would affect about 322,000 hams. Last year we got
about
20,000 new Techs, so the proposed freebie would affect as many existing
hams as
the new ones we might get in the next 10-15 years.

Agreed. You aren't telling me anything I don't know.

THAT is the critical difference.

And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but
not as a permanent change?

Because it harms no one to get to the simplified scheme AND
it then continues with the incentive system as before.

I say it does harm people.

Yet you offer no specific "harm(s)."

But if it harms no one to get the simplified scheme, why not make it
permanent?

Yawn...do YOU want an incentive licensing system or don't you?

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time
reduction,
but it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction.

Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support
any
reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because
it's a
one time thing.

Time and situations change and people change.

IOW, Carl's "never" didn't mean "never", it just meant "until I change my
mind".

The reality is that words like always and never are usually (I almost
said never :-) too restrictive and subject to critisism when other
factors come into play that one might not have considered before.
I try to avoid use of always/never, but have, I'm sure used them
without thinking about it at the time.

You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

True.

Thank you!

Time and situations change and people change. Next week or next year....

You got it.

But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one?

See prior coments on the same thing.

Who would be harmed by a permanent reduction?

It would then, truly lower requirments on a permanent basis.
Neither Carl, you nor I want that. Or have you changed your mind?

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years.

That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing.

Big difference. Every General that lost privileges still understands
that loss.

I lost privileges as an Advanced. And I had to wait 2 years to even try
the
Extra, even though I could have passed it the day I lost privileges.

You made my point.

With this, no one losses anything.

If the existing classes are not given free upgrades, nobody loses anything
either.

True, but it doesn't "clean-up" the myriad of different licenses that
exist and would continue to exist for decades more. Clearly you
disagree as to the need to "clean-up" the licensing and, I'd guess you
will file comments stating it as such. For now, you and I simply
disagree on the need. I'm not going to waste time
trying to change your mind. The ARRL petition is quite
clear on the why.

Why, because no one losses any privileges.

Maybe. Or maybe not.

If maybe not, please point to what privileges will
be lost by which license holders.

Yet now I see that same person
supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take
*written* tests...

As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General
written
tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things
right"
i
a way where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those
Techs are already
authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any
knowledge of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF.

Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech
written is
adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not
simply
dump the General question pools into the Extra, and use the
current Tech pool for General?

If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself.

No, it's not what I want.

But how do we argue against those who want it?

YOU are assuming someone will file another petition to do that.

You're assuming they won't.

And I am also assuming IF someone did, the FCC would reject it
anyway. I'll worry about it if and when it happens.

I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens.

And what will you say to them? How will you argue against making the
one-time
freebie permanent?

After all, they can quote you and Ed and Carl saying "no one will be
harmed"
and "the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not
that
large"

What counterarguments can be used against those quotes?

IF the FCC goes with the ARRL proposal, there is sufficient arguments
there to counter argue.

Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care.

How do you know?

SWAG applied with common sense.

They said the same thing in 1969. I was there.

I have learned the folllowing basic instincts regarding how people
react....take something away from someone and they resent it
just about forever. Give something to someone but not someone else
and the one that didn't get the freebie rarely cares or thinks about
it for long. That's grass roots political reality 101.

In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most
of those were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges
based on having passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than
1 year experience, but not OK for future hams?

As above, because it will be a one time situation.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

It doesn't have to hunt for you.
The FCC is the only place that dog needs to hunt.

Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break.

If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them
upgrades,
is there?

They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't
sent in their license for cancellation - so what?

I'd expect the FCC will NOT reissue anyone that gets a free upgrade
a new license at all. There's no need to.

So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old
license class.

The database could be updated overnight by replacing all licenses with
their
upgraded license. Doing that does not require an actual new paper
license to be issued if Part 97 contains the following statement:

Any license holder whos paper license is Tech is now recognized to be
General and (ditto for Advanced to Ectra).

Then why wasn't it done in 2000?

We'll never know will we?

Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then?

Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's
(or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to
upgrade.

How do you know what FCC wants?

How do you?

I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport"
is
claiming to know what FCC wants.

Take it as a best quess then.

OK. My best guess is that FCC doesn't care.

Fair enough.

Ultimately the FCC will decide.

Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL?

Different subject for a different thread.

Not at all! You're saying we should just trust FCC. BPL shows what can
happen..

Good grief. I never said that at all. The reality is,
in the end, the FCC makes the final decision. I didn't
say you should not oppose any aspect of the ARRL
petition you want. You can continue to
oppose and file whatever you want with the FCC
if it (FCC) decides to implement free upgrades.
It is a free country, express your opinions all you
want.

I (personally, not as NCI)
think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way
forward
to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future.

Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test
requirements for over 400,000 hams.
That's almost 60% of those licensed today.

Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you
have a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...)

I don;t have any hangups about the tests. I'm all for them.

If the difference isn't so great, why require the General test at
all?

If YOU accept that, then file comments as such with the FCC.

I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too.

As is your right to do so.

let's see....3 classes of license, no free upgrades, imporved writtens...

The balls in your court. Shoot or pass.

So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the
changes take place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to
General.

Give me a break ...

What do you mean? That's exactly what a lot of people will do.

Those with no license or an existing Novice will have an incentive
to get a Tech before the rules change and ride the free upgrade
bus to General.

If "lots" of non-hams suddenly became hams by that process I'll
be truly surprised.

20,000 in the past 12 months.

20K is only about 3% of all hams. Not a very big
number in that perspective.

We'll likly lose that many to attrition this year alone. Look at
the future expirations per Joe Speroni's web site. There's one
month alone that has (I think) over 10,000 expirations.

And how many will renew in the grace period? You have to look longterm.

Just look at the declining Novice and Advanced numbers.
Speroni data doesn't show any significant percent of "grace period"
renewals.

As for the existing novices...that is now
down to about 30,000...assuming everyone of them did what you
suggest.

34,000 or so.

minor difference in the scope of this conversation.

Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to
actually take (or study for) the General.

Life's a

[expletive deleted]

and then we die.

Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test.

God grant us the wisdom to...
Accept the things we cannot change, change those
we can and hopefully have the wisdom to know the difference.

Right. So why not just accept 5 wpm and the existing classes?

Because God gave me the wisdom to change those
I can.

Same for Advanceds and the Extra.

The rate at which advaceds have been upgrading is pathetically
low already.

17% in 4 years. Gotta wonder why. Maybe the code test wasn't a problem
after all....

No one said it was the only roadblock to all
Advanced hams going to Extra.

It has been touted as the boogieman for years. Now we see that it wasn't.

I speak only for myself. Lots of other people have
said lots of other things.

And let's suppose FCC enacts the ARRL proposal, and even dumps Element 1
for
Extra as well. And suppose we don't get a huge increase in the number of
new
hams, just as we didn't after 2000.

You watch - there will be more proposals to further water down the
writtens.

If the "new" NOVICE doesn't work, then some probably
will. I can't know or be aware of everyone that is
or wants to be a ham. BUT, until it does, this is
just an academic discussion to which my participation
will be limited.

your arguments are just plain lame

How? Do you think people won't do this?

Some will, but it won't be significant.

How do you know?

SWAG and common sense. Do you see a floodgate opening
of new hams rushing to become techs before the FCC
implements free upgrades on a certain date?

Yep. Plus a huge drop in upgrades. Why not? "We're having a one-time
sale - get
'em now!"

The ONLY drop in upgrades that would benefit anyone
is the Techs from a new ham perspective. We already see
only a negligiable amount of Novices upgrading to
Tech or Advanced upgrading to Extra.

Back in 1951, there was a similar one-time sale. FCC announced that they
were
closing out the Advanced/class A and replacing it with the much harder to
get
Extra at the end of 1952. But existing Class A/Advanceds would have the
same
privs as Extras. There was a flood of folks upgrading to beat the price
increase.

Understood, but if we only look at already licensed hams,
the ONLY group that could quickly upgrade to benefit from
a free upgrade later is the existing Novice group...34K
by your numbers at most...or about 5% of all hams.

and your "someone might
get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions
as I
took" is REALLY showing.

Nobody today can even take the tests I took. You couldn't
pass the tests I took, Carl.

Translation, I did it, so should everyone else.

Nope. Not at all.

It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the
qualifications, both written and code, slowly reduced for over a
quarter
century. And that's not a good thing.

And if that is your true meaning, why would you state
that "You (Carl) couldn't pass the tests I (Jim) took, Carl."
Do you really think Carl would be unable to pass the same
written tests if he had to?

If he had to, maybe. But he didn't have to.

So in reality, you have no clue as to Carl's ability
or not to pass similar tests that you once did. If correct,
why make such a personal statement you can't
back-up?

And he couldn't pass the other tests I had to take.

And he didn't do it at 16 years of age, with no professional background. I
did.

Who gives a damn how old you or I was when we passed
certain tests? And as to whatever other tests you are talking
about, you realy have no knowledge of Carl's competence
and/or technical expertise in the field of radio and making the
statement: "And he couldn't pass the other tests I had to take."
is just inflamatory rhetoric.

The tests I took are not the issue.
Free upgrades and reduction in written
test requirements are the issue.

The issue is ONE time free upgrades only. No effort is being made to
lower the General or Extra requirements.

Not yet. But a one-time upgrade is one more step. And it paves the way.

As you have said.

Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code
tests.

That makes what - a dozen countries?

I believe so.

I wonder what HK's written test requirements are.....

I don't really care.

bwaahaahaa!

Sorry to have upset you. Now back to the Daytona 500.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK