"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*)
debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met
with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or
called
for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

Yet no one has apparently made that pitch,

Actually, some folks have made similar pitches.

Some time back, QCWA petitioned FCC to give full privs to all hams who
held
General and Advanced licenses before Nov. 22, 1968 (the effective date of
the
first phase of "incentive licensing". Hans, K0HB, has twice officially
proposed
a simplified two-class system. The NCVEC folks are thinking of proposing
changes that go far beyond dumping Element 1 (see:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/

Second item in the Table of Contents.

and no
one is petitioning to end written tests either.

As I wrote elsewhere, some written testing is needed to insure hams know
the
rules, including safety precautions. What I'm talking about is the whole
concept of multiple license levels and "jump through the hoop" written
tests as
a "hazing ritual" for more privileges.

Bottom
line, the requirement for some technical knowledge is
coupled to the freedom ALL US hams have to build,
modify and/or repair their own equipment...even if they
never want to. The knowledge is expected to help
hams stay within tolerences and signal characteristics
allowed because failing to do so can/will lead to
interference.

Of course! That's why the written tests cannot be totally eliminated. As I
have
written elsewhere.

BUT (and it's a very big but), FCC says that almost all of the technical
knowledge a ham needs to know is already adequately tested by the 35
question
Technician test. That conclusion is inescapable from the fact that Techs
are
allowed to use all authorized amateur modes, frequencies, power levels and
technologies above 30 MHz.

The only technical knowledge things that may not be adequately tested on
the
Tech written are some HF specific items of propagation, and some
regulations.

There's nothing inherently different about a 6 meter rig and a 10 meter
rig, is
there? In fact, many modern rigs cover all ham bands from 160 through VHF!
Why
is a Technician licensee qualified to design/build/repair/align/modify and
most
of all operate a 6 meter rig but not a 15 meter rig - particularly when
it's
the same rig?

Actually, when you think about it...ANYONE is allowed to design, build,
repair,
align and/or modify ham equipment...it is ONLY the "operate" part that
ultimately requires the license.

Look at the FCC enforcement logs. Problems due to technical incompetence
are
very few in the ARS, and those that do happen are not clustered on any
particular license class.

So why do we need all that written testing beyond Tech?

Jim, you keep bringing up what you believe are analogies
to the ode test issue and I'm not gonna play anymore. the
argument(s) fail to convince the FCC and I don't see you
making them to the FCC either. If and when someone attempts to petiton
for the changes you suggest are analogous...then I'll argue further.

Morse knowledge, on the other hand,
has no potential for harming others, causing interference,
etc.

And that's a good thing! One more reason to learn the skills! ;-)

But we're not talking about Morse. We're talking about written testing
beyond
the minimum needed to insure safe, legal operation of an amateur station.

You are talking about it, I'm done playing. No reason to do
so.

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process. People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be
progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code
testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely
interrelated
concepts.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests. Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Or how about this rebuttal:

Those who want technical knowhow in amateur radio are either unwilling
to expend
the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give
the
theory a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently
unwilling to
take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue
to
seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive
"recruiting program" for them ...

--

Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?


Jim,

If/when someone floats an RM to end written testing, then
I'll be one of the first in opposition.

It's already been done - see the QCWA petition. See the NCVEC thinkpiece
linked
to, above. See Hans' proposal.

Waiting for an RM may be too late. Look at what happened with
restructuring -
FCC proposed 4 classes of license but enacted 3. They proposed improved
written
exams but instead cut back both the number and size of the written tests.

To be clear - I support a multi-level license structure and *better*
written
tests at all levels - code test or no code test. But that's just my
opinion.

The question remains - how can proposals like Hans' be refuted, other than
"I
don't like it?"

What can be said in response to "You just want all hams to take a lot of
written tests because *you* had to take a lot of written tests"

When I see something that looks like an NPRM, I'll comment.

For today, the code test
is not, IMHO, in any way comparable.

That's not the issue I'm talking about.

We'll just have to
agree to disagree on that because I ain't gonna waste any more
time arguing hypotheticals when those arguments aren't
even being made to the FCC.

But they are being made to FCC, as shown above. What reasonable, rational
arguments can we make to counter the above logic?

Until the FCC makes a propsed rulmaking using any of that as a
basis, its a waste of time.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK