View Single Post
  #18   Report Post  
Old April 14th 04, 12:08 AM
Bill Sohl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Jason Hsu wrote:
The ARRL and the new NCVEC petitions call for creating a new Novice
class and upgrading Technicians to General. (I already commented on
the ARRL petition to the FCC.)

I'm not upset with the ARRL about this. The directors did what they
felt they had to do. But I'm still puzzled by parts of the proposal.

The highly controversial proposal of upgrading Technicians to General
is the result of insisting that all license classes be merged into
just 3 without downgrading privileges for any class. It's a game of
License Class Survivor, and all classes but 3 have to be voted off the
island. General and Amateur Extra are (correctly) considered too
important to eliminate, and Advanced licenses get upgraded to Amateur
Extra. So only one more license class can remain, and the ARRL and
NCVEC think that the Novice should remain and be reopened, and the
Technician license should be voted off the island. Because of the "no
downgrade" condition, Technician licenses are upgraded to General.


Interesting take on the issue, Jason.

My main concern is that there is a precedent in the proposed mass upgrade:

If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means that
after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come afterward.


Mike, that is absolutely false as an argument of any substance.
Government has given temporary waivers in many areas and no one
has ever been able to say that after the door closed on a particular
waiver, they should be allowed a similar waiver afterwards.

There will be a *powerful* argument that "The Tech elements were good
enough for the majority of hams to become General, so why should I have
to take a harder test?"


They can argue that until hell freezes over and it won't stand up in
any court. A one time "free pass" based on a legitamate FCC goal
of license and rules simplification is ample justification.

And although there is really no test process needed at all to get on HF
(witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels) I believe that we should
foster technical knowledge qualifications for the ARS.


No argument there...BUT the process still needs a solution and the
hodgepodge of 6 licenses and 6 sets of rules today just isn't needed.
That is why both ARRL and NCVEC have proposed almost identical
3 license plans with the "free" upgrades.

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


Not difficult at all. Many people have taken and passed the test. I
can't think of any good arguments for reducing it.


Think of a very basic entry level that more than just extraordinary
bright kids can take and pass.

What's now the Technician exam was two separate
tests back then - Novice and Technician. Both the Novice and
Technician licenses required passing the Novice exam plus one more
exam. For the Novice license, the 5 wpm Morse Code exam was the
additional exam. For the No-Code Technician license, the Technician
exam was the additional exam. By at least a 20:1 or 30:1 margin, the
new hams chose the No-Code Technician exam. The new hams (including
myself) clearly thought that preparing the Technician exam was MUCH
easier than preparing for the 5 wpm exam. But in spite of this, the
ARRL thinks that the current Technician exam (a merger of the old
Novice and Technician exams) is too hard but says that the 5 wpm exam
is quite easy and uses this view as a partial justification as keeping
the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license.


5WPM is easy for some, and not at all easy for others.


Agreed.

The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice
license obsolete. In the 2000 restructuring, the FCC closed the
Novice class for the same reason GM closed Oldsmobile - not enough
takers to justify the administrative costs and labor required.

Given all this, is it SO necessary to bring back the Novice class at
the expense of the Technician class? Why didn't the ARRL propose a
4-class system so that the popular Technician class could be kept?


My theories on why the ARRL thinks the Novice license is more
important than the Technician license:
1. The ARRL directors couldn't agree, so they proposed a compromise
that they felt would promote good PR. I don't think they seriously
expect the FCC to approve it.
2. Nostalgia about their Novice days led them to want to reopen and
reintroduce the Novice class.


That is a pretty good assessment, Jason.


I have already disagreed and said so in a different email.
I would especially doubt the ARRL expects a non-approval from
the FCC. The ARRL has a long standing positive relationship
with most, if not all, those in the FCC that will be assessing the
petitions. If there's any doubt in ARRL's mind, it is (IMHO)
likly tied to doubt that any code test will remain as opposed to
even having only a 5wpm test for Extra.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK