RadioBanter - View Single Post - You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.

[email protected] · September 5th 06, 10:32 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 3 2006 1:49 pm

(whole bunch of Len's errors and insults snipped in the interest of
time and space)

The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to
*return* to a system something like that which existed before February
1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it
being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned
earlier.

If that is true (and it is not) then there were FIVE classes
of amateur radio licenses prior to "incentive licensing." :-)

Actually, there were six classes of amateur radio licenses in the USA
from 1951 until the mid-1970s. They were Novice, Technician, General,
Conditional, Advanced and Extra.

Was the Conditional actually a class of license or a method of taking
the exam?

FCC considered it a different class of license until it was phased out.

What priveleges did it convey?

Same *operating* privileges as General. However, over its history, the
Conditional had some unique characteristics.

First off, you could only get a Conditional if you lived more than a
certain distance from an FCC exam point, or were disabled enough to be
physically unable to travel to an exam session. The Conditional
distance changed a few times over the history of that license, and the
amount of CONUS that was "Conditional territory" changed dramatically.

Second, until the mid-1950s, if a Conditional moved closer to an exam
point than the Conditional distance, they had 90 days to show up at an
FCC exam session and re-test for the General.

Third, the Conditional did not convey any test-element credit for
higher class licenses. If a non-disabled Conditional wanted an Advanced
or Extra, they had to get to an exam point, and would have to retake
the General code and theory before being allowed to try the other exam
elements.

Sounds like the "original" dumbed down license if there ever was one.
Even the FCC didn't trust the system which granted conditional
licenses.

Why do some OF's state that
they had a General when, in fact, they held the Conditional license?

I don't know - ask *them*.

Was there shame associated with the Conditional license?

Not that I know of. Why should anyone be ashamed of any class of
license?

Why all the retesting?

In the mid-1970s the Conditional was phased out. When a Conditional was
renewed or modified, the FCC changed the license class to General.

Hmmmm? Almost interesting.

The number of amateur radio license classes in the USA remained at 5
until the Technician Plus lucense was created in the early 1990s.

False.

No, true.

The Technician Plus class was created in the early 1990s - about 1993.

1993 is the early 1990s. The Technician-without-code-test went into
effect February 14, 1991.

The technician (with code) and the technician (without code) ran
concurrently until the Plus was developed.

Two different licenses with the same name.

The Technician with 5wpm code ran concurrently with the
Technician license without code. That lasted for about two years, then
we got the "Plus" as a marker for the code accomplished.

That's right. From February 1991 to about mid-1993, both flavors of
Technician were simply "Technician". It was left to the licensee to
keep documentation.

They weren't different flavors. They were different license classes
with the same name.

But then the strangest thing happened. It went back to "Technician"
and you have to keep track of your code "accomplishment" yourself.
Doesn't sound like the FCC values the code "accomplishment" all that
much.

Maybe not. However, note that:

- The FCC did create the Tech Plus license class

- The FCC could have reduced the code test requirement for all license
classes to 5 wpm long before 2000, but they didn't. FCC even went
through the additional complexity of medical waivers for a decade
before reducing the code test requirement

- Despite all their pronouncements about code testing in the various
NPRMs and R&Os, FCC has not yet changed the rules about code testing
from those imposed in 2000. It's been more than three years since the
treaty changed, yet they won't even say when they will make a decision.
If FCC doesn't value the Element 1 accomplishment, why have they
retained it for so long?

You tell me?

Maybe changes to Part 97 are not a high priority to FCC.

Even when the FCC addresses amateur related issues, they do so poorly.

Those are the plain and simple facts, Len.

Those are almost the plain and simple facts, Jim.

Are you taking stage magician lessons? You've FAILED.

How is it a failure for someone to state the facts?

Simple. Your "facts" failed. I corrected them, but you need not thank
me.

My facts were correct - the "early 1990s" did not mean Fenruary 14,
1991.

The fact is that there were two different technician licenses. You
counted only one.

btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names
rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL.

Sweetums, do NOT go into your smokescreening by diversion
routine again. That's SO transparent.

You don't really know what caused the 1951 restructuring, do you, Len?

I didn't think so.

(rest of Len's errors snipped for sake of time and space).

Are you going to tell us again?

You don't seem to know, either

How far is it to the moon?