"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

I said they elected to use the no-code Technician as their entry to ham
radio rather than the Novice license. Yes they took the Novice written
but
not the code. Thus they "bypassed" the Novice license in the sense that
they never held a Novice license. They had basically two choices to
enter
ham radio (unless of course they chose to do additional study and sit for
higher class tests at the same time).

1) They could take (and pass) the Novice written plus 5wpm and get a
Novice
license.
2) They could take (and pass) the Novice written and Tech written and get
a
no-code Tech license.

The prospective ham generally took the route 2 to enter ham radio rather
than route 1. Thus by that choice, the people themselves made the Tech
no-code the entry level license despite the fact that it was more
difficult
than earning the Novice license. The restructuring in 2000 merely
formalized what had already occurred.

I agree except for one point: The decision was made by different people
for a
number of factors, such as the *perceived* difficulty and the *perceived*
rewards.

Actually that was what I was trying to point out and you've clarified it
quite nicely.


Having earned my initial license in 1992 (Tech with HF), I'm quite
familiar
with what was going on. The majority of people sitting for their first
license took the Tech no-code route to put off learning the code not
because
of its two meter and VHF access. Prior to on-air experience, they simply
were not personally familiar enough with various ham activities to select
their entry route on the basis of the desireability of having 2m access.

Here in EPA, after about 1980 the predominant entry license was the Tech.
This
was true even before it lost its code test. The reason was 2 meter/440
access,
which Novices didn't have. A prospective ham would see almost every ham
with a
2 meter HT or mobile, ask "what license do I need to talk to you guys" and
wind
up with a Tech. Code or no code.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I can see where that could easily be a dominant factor if the prospective
ham had some exposure to that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE