"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net...

Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get?

I would venture to say it is harder to get than the Novice (if we
still had novice testing) . That's the
problem as percieved by ARRL, NCVEC and other.

Granted, a No-Code Novice (if it existed) would be easier to get than
a No-Code Technician license. But if the No-Code Technician license
was too hard but the Coded Novice license was easy to get, then why
didn't more new hams get the Novice license first and then upgrade to
Technician Plus later?

During the years
when both the Novice and No-Code Technician licenses were available
for new hams, the new hams (including myself) overwhelmingly chose the
No-Code Technician.

But that's probably because you were an adult and only the Tech
gave sufficient VHF capability to allow you to engage in voice
operations, especially via FM.

OK, but giving Tech Plus privileges to No-Code Technicians would give
this new entry-level class the same HF privileges that the Novice
licensees have. Also, removing the 5 wpm requirement for the General
class would make it easier for No-Code Technicians to upgrade. This
would resolve the issue of the lack of HF privileges for the No-Code
Technicians. If the Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges aren't enough,
then an expansion of them would be called for. A modest expansion of
Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges would be MUCH more sensible than
automatic upgrades to the General class.

Although I believe the 5 wpm exam should be eliminated for all license
classes, I oppose the free upgrades from No-Code Technician to General
because the Technician exam was never intended to prepare people to
use General class privileges and the General class license was never
intended to be an entry-level license. Most people (except for a few
of the most strident pro-code testers who want to brag about passing
the 13 wpm exam) have no objections to the free upgrades from Advanced
to Amateur Extra since most of the current Amateur Extra exam question
pool was previously in the Advanced exam question pool. But the same
argument does NOT apply in upgrading Technicians to General. If the
General exam were that unnecessary, then why wasn't it merged in the
restructuring of 2000, and why won't it be eliminated in the ARRL
proposal? I highly doubt that anyone staunchly favors free upgrades
from Technician to General. I think this part of the ARRL proposal is
simply the result of insisting on both a 3-class system AND a new
Novice class. In my opinion, either current Novices should be merged
into the Technician class (with Tech Plus privileges), OR there should
be 4 license classes (Novice, Technician, General, Amateur Extra).

I disagree. I believe they want an easier entrance license than
tech that allows youth to get a license AND offers a full array
of operating privileges (HF, VHF, SSB, FM, CW, etc) to that
license. Today's Novice is effectively an HF non-phone lcense
and todays Tech is clearly a VHF/UHF only license. That's
the problem.

I still think that the Technician license is fine as an entry-level
license and that the Technician exam isn't terribly hard - just an
extended version of the old Novice exam. If a No-Code Novice license
is created, it should NOT be at the expense of the Technician license.
As I mentioned before, offering HF privileges to current Technicians
doesn't require upgrading them to General - simply giving No-Code
Technicians the Tech Plus privileges would accomplish this. Offering
HF voice privileges (in addition to the slice of 10m) to current
Technicians can be done by adding more voice privileges to the
license. Automatic upgrades to General are not necessary and are
unwarranted.

Jason Hsu, AG4DG