" wrote in message . net...
"Brian" wrote in message
m...
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"Brian" wrote

Paul, since the only apparent privelege difference in the two proposed
license classes is 50W, and you could operate any amateur frequency in
any mode, why would that deter you from the ARS?

Brian "gets it" !!!!

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its
all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get.

Paul gave an opinion that I didn't understand, so I asked a question.

Perhaps Paul requires "Extra right out of the box" and cannot be
bothered with "lesser" licenses. Until he replies, we'll never know.

I missed your first message asking "why would that deter you from the ARS?"
Sorry.

Being new to all this (licensed in October of 2001), it is easy for me to
remember my thoughts and feelings prior to being licensed. Here is why it
would have deterred me:
1) Seeing "real" hams being able to run 1500 watts while only being able
to run 50 watts. I would have KNOWN (it doesn't have to be true, I still
would have KNOWN it) that I never would have been able to make a contact.

I cannot understand that. All the amateur literature is chock full of
examples of QRP operations where worldwide contacts take place using
mere milliwatts.

FWIW, I've never run more than 100 watts from my home station on HF.

2) Being treated as a second class citizen -- the Rookie League is not a
fun place to be

Tell me about it, but I think the times have changed. Lotsa OF's here
are whimsical about their rookie days.

But you didn't start as an Extra, did you?

In 1987 when I became a ham, we were called Novices. We were shuttled
to bands of little or no CW activity (ghettos) to somehow learn from
each other. There was little or no activity at the tail end of the
Novice Era.

Technician was the consolation prize for passing the General exam but
flunking the 13 wpm code.

Today, Technician is the starting point, and I don't consider the
label Technician to be the equivalent of "Rookie League." Novice,
however, always smacked of "Rookie."

With Hans proposal, the new hams are mainstreamed and can easily learn
from some highly seasoned operators.

3) Basic congenital problem with Time-In-Grade approach. (Please note, I
would not have had a problem with serious theory/operating practice tests as
opposed to the actual Elements 2,3, and 4. I won't have passed them all, I
am sure, but I would not have had a problem with approach.).

If you're a bright guy and the "serious theory/operating" tests, you
would have passed -providing- the QP continues to be published. If
not, then you'd find the Extra ranks occupied by mostly electronic
technicians and engineers.

Of the above, number 3 would have been the most important to me, I think.
Now that I am licensed, I seldom put out more than 75 watts. Yes, I have an
amplifier, but I checked my log and see that I haven't had it on since early
June (honest).

I believe you.

So, experience has showed me how silly 1) above is -- that
does not, however, change how I felt in my pre-licensed days.

True. And this is the argument that I use with the current Morse Code
exam being administered. It is not Morse Code, it is Farnsworth at
13-15 WPM, not the Morse at the specified 5wpm.

The OF's here say that the testee can request the old Morse exam and
not take it Farnsworth styled. I say they don't even know the
difference, so how could they?

I am sure that I am an odd duck -- I never even heard a QSO until after I
was licensed (the purest Extra Lite in captivity).

Don't fool yourself. There were lots of "Code-Tape Extras" in days
gone by.

I can understand and accept people thinking that anyone as ignorant as me
should not have been granted full privileges. At no time did I say that I
DESERVED such privileges -- only that the suggested two class system would
have deterred me from entering this great hobby -- perhaps rightly so.

As a purely practical matter, if an approach similar to yours came into
existence, I would suggest a 100 watt limit rather than 50 watts. Given that
the vast majority of modern transceivers run 100 watts output, enforcing a
50 watt maximum would be problematical at best.

There are technical reasons that Hans suggested the 50W maximum.
Safety. And you'll recall from the exams that you took, that beyond
50W on Ten meters, you'd have to accomplish the calculations for RF
safety. 100W would require the safety calculations to be tested as
well. That is a clear cut-off/point of distinction to me.

To be honest, on HF, the Japanese market is full of 10W transceivers
made specifically for their 10W license, and I would not object to 10W
being the standard on HF and 50W on VHF+ for the limited license.

Given a 50W limit and 100W transceivers being a virtual standard, I
can see more than a little room for abuse. But in the great scheme of
things, that's a 3db abuse and probably hardly enforceable.

73

Paul AB0SI

Paul, you have a good discussion and the most important point was your
pre-license days impressions of the service. The ARRL would be wise
to pay attention to the image that interested newcomers have to our
service/hobby. And the naming of the license class is but one
argument that has been discussed here previously.

73, Brian