wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
Scattered around several other threads there have been several
dialogs as to how many licenses the USA should have for
amateur radio.

The options suggested so far seem to be:

(a) 1 License
(b) 1 License plus a "lerner's license"
(c) 2 Licenses plus a "lerner's license"
(d) 3 Licenses
(e) 3 Licenses plus a "lerner's license"

What I wonder about these is how the individual
proponents of each would set the "difficulty
level" of each in comparison to current Tech/Gen/Extra
AND how they see privilege differences (in terms
of power levels and/or band segments and modes)
in multiple license options.

That's just the beginning, Bill.

The devil is in the details, limited by what FCC
has written in various NPRMs and R&Os:
- No existing licensee should lose privileges
- No existing licensee should gain privileges without taking
the required tests
- No free upgrades
- No significant extra admin work for FCC
- FCC sees the optimum level as 3 license classes, none of
which have a limited term and all of which are renewable.

None of the above is defined by any FCC rules.

That's true, Bill.

But from FCC actions and reactions over the past 20 years
plus, it's pretty clear that FCC is acting in accordance with
those ideas.

It may appear so to you, but I don't believe such is the
case in an absolute sense. We'll just have to disagree on that.
I believe the ARRL also would disagree with you (IMHO).

At the
moment there are 3 licenses being issued, but even that
can be changed as the FCC is not locked into their
past decisions because of prior comment in any NPRM
and/or R&O.

Of course! But at the same time, FCC isn't likely to change
their mind in the near future on those issues unless somebody
comes up with a really killer argument for the change.

How does any proposed system handle all these requirements?

It doesn't, nor does it have to. It becomes an issue of
making athe case for whatever is being proposed.

And that has to be done in a way that will convince FCC.
Particularly, to convince FCC to overrule decisions it made
just recently.

Of course.

Clearly
the ARRL still believes and appears to be still supportive
of an entry level (learner's permit) despite what the FCC
may have already said.

From reading the NPRM, it seems to me that FCC isn't against
an entry-level license at all. FCC simply sees the Technician
as the entry-level license for US ham radio, and also sees
no reason to change that - even though several proposals
have tried to change FCC's mind.

As proposed by the ARRL, the Learner's license
would (IMHO) involve a less intense
syllabus of material and access to some HF.
.. IF that is the case,
and ARRL accepts FCC mindset to leave Tech
as entry level, then what gets changed to
make the Tech an entry level per ARRL mindset.
....and, can I presume that you would be in opposition
to the Tech being changed in that or any other way?

What you're seeing is the classic "Law of Unintended Consequences".
If FCC does what they propose, eliminating the code test will also
eliminate any way for Technicians to get any HF privileges except
by upgrade to General.

Ageed...which is why I believe there will be some
changes made sometime down the road.

How do we convince FCC to accept the changes?

By making clear and rational arguments and reasons for
whatever the proposed system may be.

I'm sure that almost all the proposals and commenters thought they
were making "clear and rational arguments".

Of course they did.

But FCC said no to
all of them involving more privs for Techs, new license classes,
automatic upgrades, and much more.

Yet nothing in the FCC's rejection even comes close to stating
their decision is absolute/final and irrevocable based on the
princioples that you ascribe to the FCC.

Those are the tough ones!

K0HB's proposed 2 class system addresses all these issues.
But FCC denied his ideas.

(SNIP of history of nocode....because in the end, it came to pass
anywayregardless of who originated the idea. )

FCC also
left 13wpm and 20wpm as requirements for many years
with the lack of change/elimination of said 13/20 wpm
elements supposedly waiting for a "consensus" in the
amateur ranks.

Perhaps. Yet anyone who could come up with a doctor's
note could get a medical waiver. Such notes were never
hard to get.

But in the overall perspective waivers were used only by
a relatively small percentage of new hams. In the few VE
sessions I assisted in I don't recall ever seeing one being
used. Was the waiver process abused by some?
Probably, but it wasn't a wide practice at all.

In spite of the lack of any consensus on
code the FCC did, in fact, end 13/20wpm test elements
in April 2000 based on arguments and the FCC's own
conclusions at that time.

Yep. FCC also reduced the written tests at the same time
and closed off three license classes to new issues.

I presume you mean the FCC reduced the number
of written tests as opposed to the overall
difficulty of the test material since the syllabus for
the now three remaining test elements did not change.

(SNIP)

End result is less admin work for FCC. No more medical
waivers, only three written elements instead of five, and
eventual elimination of some rules.

That eventual elimination, unless
changes are made by the FCC, could
well be upwards of 50+ years assuming there are
some Advanced hams who are in their 20s.

Bottom line, every statement or opinion offered by the FCC
in any NPRM and/or R&O is not cast in stone and can
end up being revisited and changed at a later review.

Agreed - but at the same time, getting them to do so
is an uphill battle. Particularly when such an change will
result in more work for FCC.

On the issue of a learners license I see no additional
work for FCC if there are only one or two other
licenses as some (e.g. Hans) have proposed.

So Jim, with that in mind, what is your specific proposal?

I've given it here several times. Perhaps I'll dig it out and
post it again.

Does it reflect any of the options I listed above?

My point is not that change is impossible, but that FCC isn't
likely to adopt changes that violate the above principles.

In your opinion that is. In fact, several of the principals you
listed are only your interpretation based on FCC decisions
as opposed to the FCC ever articulating or stating them
as fact.

For example, more than one proposal wanted free upgrades.
FCC said no to all of them, and gave reasons why. (See
footnote 142...)

Neither of us may be around to collect on this bet, but I'll
bet you a dinner anywhere that sometime down the road
the FCC will "simplify" the rules and regs by renewing
Advanced as either Extra or General when the number
of Advanced drops to a small percentage of all
amateurs. I also believe that IF a learner's license does
come to pass, the FCC will make all current Novice
licenses renewable to that new license name AND will
make the rules for the existing Novice the same as whatever rules
and privileges are given to the new learner's class.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK