Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news
Bill Sohl wrote:


"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.

Is it fair to those that come afterward?


Life's a bitch and then we die. Was it fair when new drivers no longer
had to take a drivers test on a manual gearshift auto? In any state today
you can take the driver's test on a car with automatic transmission
and then, having passed, go drive a car with a manual gearbox.


The problem I see with your analogy is that it's all one license, and
the requirement never comes back.

A closer analogy would be: At one time, a special test had to be taken
to drive a motorcycle. Then everyone would be given a motorcycle
endorsement, but after that, people would *again* have to take the
motorcycle test again to get the endorsement.


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.

Bill, just the same as we (you) are on the verge of eliminating Element
one as the great barrier to the Amateur radio service, we can change the
entrance requirements.

And who needs to argue that in any court? We simply do it the same way
that you support upgrading Techs to Generals. The same way that we make
a new "communicator license, and have people sign affidavits that they
have read part 97


If that's what you want, then you can file an RM asking the
FCC to consider it. Jim N2EY keeps saying the same thing
but admits it is just an argument and he'd never actually do so.


Of course I don't want it, nor Jim. But that doesn't mean that there
aren't some people out there that DO want it. And they will agitiate
for it.


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.

I could have passed the Technician exam in 7th grade, and there are
plenty enough people that think I'm as dumb as mud. I wasn't an
exceptional student or even close.


Yet there's no doubt at all that the current Tech is more
difficult than the Novice ever was.

Well, I think that is the case, but I haven't seen the Novice tests, so
I'll accept that as the case from people that have been hams for a
longer time.

- Mike KB3EIA -