ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access
 

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB003
ARLB003 ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free HF Access

ZCZC AG03
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 3 ARLB003
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT January 20, 2004
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB003
ARLB003 ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free HF Access

The ARRL will ask the FCC to create a new entry-level Amateur Radio
license that would include HF phone privileges without requiring a
Morse code test. The League also will propose consolidating all
current licensees into three classes, retaining the Element 1 Morse
requirement--now 5 WPM-only for the highest class. The ARRL Board of
Directors overwhelmingly approved the plan January 16 during its
Annual Meeting in Windsor, Connecticut. The proposals--developed by
the ARRL Executive Committee following a Board instruction last
July--are in response to changes made in Article 25 of the
international Radio Regulations at World Radiocommunication
Conference 2003 (WRC-03). They would continue a process of
streamlining the amateur licensing structure that the FCC began more
than five years ago but left unfinished in the Amateur Service
license restructuring Report and Order (WT 98-143) that went into
effect April 15, 2000.

''Change in the Amateur Radio Service in the US, especially license
requirements and even more so when Morse is involved, has always
been emotional,'' said ARRL First Vice President Joel Harrison, W5ZN,
in presenting the Executive Committee's recommendations. ''In fact,
without a doubt, Morse is Amateur Radio's 'religious debate.'''

The entry-level license class--being called ''Novice'' for now--would
require a 25-question written exam. It would offer limited HF
CW/data and phone/image privileges on 80, 40, 15 and 10 meters as
well as VHF and UHF privileges on 6 and 2 meters and on 222-225 and
430-450 MHz. Power output would be restricted to 100 W on 80, 40,
and 15 meters and to 50 W on 10 meters and up.

''The Board sought to achieve balance in giving new Novice licensees
the opportunity to sample a wider range of Amateur Radio activity
than is available to current Technicians while retaining a
motivation to upgrade,'' said ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ. Under the
ARRL plan, current Novice licensees--now the smallest and least
active group of radio amateurs--would be grandfathered to the new
entry-level class without further testing.

The middle group of licensees--Technician, Tech Plus (Technician
with Element 1 credit) and General--would be merged into a new
General license that also would not require a Morse examination.
Current Technician and Tech Plus license holders automatically would
gain current General class privileges without additional testing.
The current Element 3 General examination would remain in place for
new applicants.

The Board indicated that it saw no compelling reason to change the
Amateur Extra class license requirements. The ARRL plan calls on the
FCC to combine the current Advanced and Amateur Extra class
licensees into Amateur Extra, because the technical level of the
exams passed by these licensees is very similar. New applicants for
Extra would have to pass a 5 WPM Morse code examination, but the
written exam would stay the same. Sumner said the Board felt that
the highest level of accomplishment should include basic Morse
capability. Current Novice, Tech Plus and General licensees would
receive lifetime 5 WPM Morse credit.

''This structure provides a true entry-level license with HF
privileges to promote growth in the Amateur Service,'' Harrison said.

Among other advantages, Sumner said the plan would allow new Novices
to participate in HF SSB emergency nets on 75 and 40 meters as well
as on the top 100 kHz of 15 meters. The new license also could get
another name, Sumner said. ''We're trying to recapture the magic of
the old Novice license, but in a manner that's appropriate for the
21st century.''

The overall proposed ARRL license restructuring plan would more
smoothly integrate HF spectrum privileges across the three license
classes and would incorporate the ''Novice refarming'' plan the League
put forth nearly two years ago in a Petition for Rule Making
(RM-10413). The FCC has not yet acted on the ARRL plan, which would
alter current HF subbands.

The ARRL license restructuring design calls for no changes in
privileges for Extra and General class licensees on 160, 60, 30, 20,
17 or 12 meters. Novice licensees would have no access to those
bands.

See ''ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free HF Access''
on the ARRL Web site, www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/, for
the specific subband allocations ARRL is proposing for each class.
NNNN
/EX

Gee... I thought the last restructuring was to streamline
the license classes, get rid of the under utilized 'entry'
class license(s), simplify things. Wasn't that the reasoning?
Now here we go 'cluttering' it up again.
Lets see, an 'entry' class license is to 'give people a
taste'
of ham radio, see if they like it, sort of an 'easy start'
license,
right? Seems like I've heard of that before (a few times,
actually).
Wasn't that what a couple of the licenses that got dumped in the
last restructuring were? And by all means, lets give that
'entry'
license a glitzy name so no one will recognize it for what it
is,
wouldn't want to make it obvious, would we? Make it easy for
others
to distinguish between them and the other licensee's? I mean,
you
wouldn't want to be able to 'point a finger' at operators who
are
out of bounds, for instance.
To me, an 'entry' class license shouldn't be 'for ever',
there
should be a reason to up-grade, right? How about making it for
a
limited duration, and non-renewable? Hmmm, where have I heard
that
before? (But you know what, it worked! Oh well, that's a good
reason
not to do it that way again, isn't it?)
What's the matter 'Mr. ARRL'? Not getting that 'huge' influx
of
new hams to buy your magazine? Don't you ever learn anything?
How
about doing what you're supposed to be doing? Hey, that would
be a
refreshing change!
'Doc

Pretty much agree with Doc, altho, after the last "restructureing", the
value of a
license is worthless! And now, the league wants to degrade it even more ??
Why even have a test?? Just issue licenses on the back of cereal boxes, or
inside
Cracker Jack boxes, or like about 45 years ago, when Popular Electronics
issued
their SWL calls (Think mine was WPE7AYQ) !! Or, even better: Lets auction
off
ALL THE SPECTRUM, for amateur bands to the highest bidders, and balance our
federal
deficit! Then we can ALL share the blissful 40 channels in the eleven meter
band!!
Maybe, also all those free band channels, up to, and sometimes includeing
the CW segment
of 10 meters!! Yeh, that the (pardon the pun) TICKET !! NN7K Jim




"'Doc" sent:
Gee... I thought the last restructuring was to streamline
the license classes, get rid of the under utilized 'entry'
class license(s), simplify things. Wasn't that the reasoning?
Now here we go 'cluttering' it up again.
Lets see, an 'entry' class license is to 'give people a
taste'
of ham radio, see if they like it, sort of an 'easy start'
license,
right? Seems like I've heard of that before (a few times,
actually).
Wasn't that what a couple of the licenses that got dumped in the
last restructuring were? And by all means, lets give that
'entry'
license a glitzy name so no one will recognize it for what it
is,
wouldn't want to make it obvious, would we? Make it easy for
others
to distinguish between them and the other licensee's? I mean,
you
wouldn't want to be able to 'point a finger' at operators who
are
out of bounds, for instance.
To me, an 'entry' class license shouldn't be 'for ever',
there
should be a reason to up-grade, right? How about making it for
a
limited duration, and non-renewable? Hmmm, where have I heard
that
before? (But you know what, it worked! Oh well, that's a good
reason
not to do it that way again, isn't it?)
What's the matter 'Mr. ARRL'? Not getting that 'huge' influx
of
new hams to buy your magazine? Don't you ever learn anything?
How
about doing what you're supposed to be doing? Hey, that would
be a
refreshing change!
'Doc

Jim wrote:
Pretty much agree with Doc, altho, after the last "restructureing", the
value of a license is worthless!

The only value in a license are the privileges granted. The privileges
granted haven't changed appreciably. I had full access to all ham bands
in 1953 and I still have full access to all ham bands in 2004. I lost
11m and 220 MHz but gained the WARC bands. The value of my license is
very close to what it was in 1953.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

We will determine the true worth, when the next set of rule changes, will
allow ARRL to auction licenses on E-Bay.

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:26:29 -0800, "Jim" wrote:

the value of a license is worthless!

__________________________________________________ _______

Until you get hauled into court for transmitting without one. Then
you'd find it quite worthwhile.

--
Bill, W6WRT

I wonder if the guys that are claiming that the license is so easy to get
could pass the test for their current grade? I bet a few of them would do a
lot worse than they would ever admit to.


--
John Passaneau, W3JXP
Penn State University



"W4JLE" w4jle(remove to wrote in message
...
We will determine the true worth, when the next set of rule changes, will
allow ARRL to auction licenses on E-Bay.

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:26:29 -0800, "Jim" wrote:

the value of a license is worthless!

__________________________________________________ _______

Until you get hauled into court for transmitting without one. Then
you'd find it quite worthwhile.

--
Bill, W6WRT

In article , John Passaneau
writes
I wonder if the guys that are claiming that the license is so easy to get
could pass the test for their current grade? I bet a few of them would do a
lot worse than they would ever admit to.


As an ARRL Volunteer Examiner, I think the multiple guess tests are far
too easy. But, that is what is mandated to be the standard so that is
what we as examiners have to test!!!

Before the last restructure I always used to think the Advanced test was
the most difficult *technical* exam, but of course they done away with
that because it caused a major stumbling block for a lot of fairly non-
technical people trying for an Extra license. Isn't Amateur Radio a
technical pursuit? So shouldn't we be examining at the appropriate
technical level? Currently, we are not. The same happened with the
20wpm Morse test which they made a joke of by lowering it to 5wpm and
now they are killing it off completely. Maybe that was stopping people
getting to the top level when they weren't prepared to put in the
effort. That would never do in this day of 'everything for nothing'.

Welcome to the world of mediocrity which the RSGB in this country have
been pursuing for years by trying to kill off Morse testing (even though
the majority of their members voted to keep it!!!!!!). Of course, like
the squeaky wheel, they won in the end......

RIP Amateur Radio as a technical pursuit.

Andrew Williamson GI0NWG / AC6WI
Homepage = http://www.gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk/

One of the ZL9CI gang
http://www.qsl.net/zl9ci/

In article , Bill Turner
writes
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:41:21 +0000, andrew wrote:

RIP Amateur Radio as a technical pursuit.

_________________________________________________ ________

I sympathize with your feelings Andrew, but Amateur Radio is changing
and there's little we can do about it.

I have homebrewed more stuff than I can remember but those days are
gone. I am proud of the complete 40 meter mobile SSB rig I designed and
built from scratch, but I would not expect anyone these days to
duplicate the feat. It's just not cost-effective and the technology is
so much better now besides.

We need to focus on what Amateur Radio needs to become and not get
dragged down by pining for the olden days.

Although a little reminiscing now and then is ok by me. :-)

Hi Bill,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that everyone should be able to
design and build a transceiver from scratch (I know I couldn't).
However, I do have enough knowledge to troubleshoot and fix problems
when I let the smoke out of something!!!

Personally, I believe that in a technical hobby the participants should
at least have a reasonable technical knowledge so they can understand
what they are doing instead of ignorantly causing untold QRM after
they've twiddled pots inside the radio. The current examining system is
not testing for that, and they are now going to make it even easier.....

If it was as easy to get a driving licence as it is to get a ham licence
today, there would be absolute carnage on the roads because the new
drivers would have no knowledge about the theoretical side (i.e. the
highway code in the UK or whatever the equivalent is in the States). If
people don't want to put the effort in to learn the technical side then
they should stick to the area of the radio hobby that uses type approved
equipment (i.e. CB). Come to think of it, the new M3 licence in the UK
is restricted to using type approved equipment... Hmmmm.

One other thing, I don't really pine for the 'old days' as the old days
of amateur radio to me is around 1990 when I was licensed (I'm still
only 33 years old) :)

Andrew Williamson GI0NWG / AC6WI
Homepage = http://www.gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk/

One of the ZL9CI gang
http://www.qsl.net/zl9ci/

I for one, would take the present test anytime, any place, and if I don't
get 90% plus you can have my ticket.

Doubtful that I am alone. I suspect that most of the old farts, like myself,
would tell you the same thing.

"John Passaneau" wrote in message
...
I wonder if the guys that are claiming that the license is so easy to get
could pass the test for their current grade? I bet a few of them would do
a
lot worse than they would ever admit to.


--
John Passaneau, W3JXP
Penn State University



"W4JLE" w4jle(remove to wrote in message
...
We will determine the true worth, when the next set of rule changes,
will
allow ARRL to auction licenses on E-Bay.

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:26:29 -0800, "Jim" wrote:

the value of a license is worthless!

__________________________________________________ _______

Until you get hauled into court for transmitting without one. Then
you'd find it quite worthwhile.

--
Bill, W6WRT

To avoid all the ****ing and moaning on an individual basis, everyone stand
up and say, in unison, "I had to take the code test so should everyone else,
boo hoo hoo".



"Lloyd Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
SB QST @ ARL $ARLB003
ARLB003 ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free HF Access

ZCZC AG03
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 3 ARLB003
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT January 20, 2004
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB003
ARLB003 ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free HF Access

The ARRL will ask the FCC to create a new entry-level Amateur Radio
license that would include HF phone privileges without requiring a
Morse code test. The League also will propose consolidating all
current licensees into three classes, retaining the Element 1 Morse
requirement--now 5 WPM-only for the highest class. The ARRL Board of
Directors overwhelmingly approved the plan January 16 during its
Annual Meeting in Windsor, Connecticut. The proposals--developed by
the ARRL Executive Committee following a Board instruction last
July--are in response to changes made in Article 25 of the
international Radio Regulations at World Radiocommunication
Conference 2003 (WRC-03). They would continue a process of
streamlining the amateur licensing structure that the FCC began more
than five years ago but left unfinished in the Amateur Service
license restructuring Report and Order (WT 98-143) that went into
effect April 15, 2000.

''Change in the Amateur Radio Service in the US, especially license
requirements and even more so when Morse is involved, has always
been emotional,'' said ARRL First Vice President Joel Harrison, W5ZN,
in presenting the Executive Committee's recommendations. ''In fact,
without a doubt, Morse is Amateur Radio's 'religious debate.'''

The entry-level license class--being called ''Novice'' for now--would
require a 25-question written exam. It would offer limited HF
CW/data and phone/image privileges on 80, 40, 15 and 10 meters as
well as VHF and UHF privileges on 6 and 2 meters and on 222-225 and
430-450 MHz. Power output would be restricted to 100 W on 80, 40,
and 15 meters and to 50 W on 10 meters and up.

''The Board sought to achieve balance in giving new Novice licensees
the opportunity to sample a wider range of Amateur Radio activity
than is available to current Technicians while retaining a
motivation to upgrade,'' said ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ. Under the
ARRL plan, current Novice licensees--now the smallest and least
active group of radio amateurs--would be grandfathered to the new
entry-level class without further testing.

The middle group of licensees--Technician, Tech Plus (Technician
with Element 1 credit) and General--would be merged into a new
General license that also would not require a Morse examination.
Current Technician and Tech Plus license holders automatically would
gain current General class privileges without additional testing.
The current Element 3 General examination would remain in place for
new applicants.

The Board indicated that it saw no compelling reason to change the
Amateur Extra class license requirements. The ARRL plan calls on the
FCC to combine the current Advanced and Amateur Extra class
licensees into Amateur Extra, because the technical level of the
exams passed by these licensees is very similar. New applicants for
Extra would have to pass a 5 WPM Morse code examination, but the
written exam would stay the same. Sumner said the Board felt that
the highest level of accomplishment should include basic Morse
capability. Current Novice, Tech Plus and General licensees would
receive lifetime 5 WPM Morse credit.

''This structure provides a true entry-level license with HF
privileges to promote growth in the Amateur Service,'' Harrison said.

Among other advantages, Sumner said the plan would allow new Novices
to participate in HF SSB emergency nets on 75 and 40 meters as well
as on the top 100 kHz of 15 meters. The new license also could get
another name, Sumner said. ''We're trying to recapture the magic of
the old Novice license, but in a manner that's appropriate for the
21st century.''

The overall proposed ARRL license restructuring plan would more
smoothly integrate HF spectrum privileges across the three license
classes and would incorporate the ''Novice refarming'' plan the League
put forth nearly two years ago in a Petition for Rule Making
(RM-10413). The FCC has not yet acted on the ARRL plan, which would
alter current HF subbands.

The ARRL license restructuring design calls for no changes in
privileges for Extra and General class licensees on 160, 60, 30, 20,
17 or 12 meters. Novice licensees would have no access to those
bands.

See ''ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free HF Access''
on the ARRL Web site, www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/, for
the specific subband allocations ARRL is proposing for each class.
NNNN
/EX

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:19:04 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jim wrote:
Pretty much agree with Doc, altho, after the last "restructureing", the
value of a license is worthless!

The only value in a license are the privileges granted. The privileges
granted haven't changed appreciably. I had full access to all ham bands
in 1953 and I still have full access to all ham bands in 2004. I lost
11m and 220 MHz but gained the WARC bands. The value of my license is
very close to what it was in 1953.

Unfortunately, there are far too many for whom the value of their
license is measured in how many people it allows them to look down
their noses at. Their only motivation for moving up was so they could
gloat over how much better they are than anyone that isn't up to their
standards. This is also the primary reason that contests and awards
are rubbed in our faces in most of the magazines and newsletters. This
is the crowd the ARRL has been cutivating for years, because they
don't care about advancing the state of the art, or building their own
equipment, helping others, or any of the other aspects of the hobby
that used to make it great. They simply want to buy the newest,
coolest, fanciest or most expensive rig to help them along on their
ego trip, which keeps the advertisers happy.

Somebody let me know when QST no longer has any contests or award
notices in it. Then I *might* be interested in looking at it again.

Bob McConnell
N2SPP

I disagree with your premise Bob, I hope that you are not so insecure with
your manhood that you would find the success of others a threat.

Many of us older farts strive for excellence, we use various means to
measure how we compare to others. Do not confuse pride in accomplishment
with ego.

In spite of what the feel good types tell you, competition is a basic human
instinct. Keeping score is the way to quantify the competition.

To distain the accomplishments of others as "ego" is both supercilious and
lacking in the basic understanding of the human condition.

"Bob McConnell" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:19:04 -0600, Cecil Moore

Unfortunately, there are far too many for whom the value of their
license is measured in how many people it allows them to look down
their noses at. Their only motivation for moving up was so they could
gloat over how much better they are than anyone that isn't up to their
standards. This is also the primary reason that contests and awards
are rubbed in our faces in most of the magazines and newsletters. This
is the crowd the ARRL has been cutivating for years, because they
don't care about advancing the state of the art, or building their own
equipment, helping others, or any of the other aspects of the hobby
that used to make it great. They simply want to buy the newest,
coolest, fanciest or most expensive rig to help them along on their
ego trip, which keeps the advertisers happy.

Somebody let me know when QST no longer has any contests or award
notices in it. Then I *might* be interested in looking at it again.

Bob McConnell
N2SPP

Bob McConnell wrote:
Unfortunately, there are far too many for whom the value of their
license is measured in how many people it allows them to look down
their noses at.

At 6'4", I don't usually need a ham license for that. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

You Sir have the opportunity to corrct all that. The beauty of Ham radio is
that anyone can start a club.

Maybe it's time you do so and correct all the ills you have observed.

Remember every one has a purpose in life, even if only as a bad example. Now
that you know what NOT to do, the rest is easy.


"Bob McConnell" wrote in message
...
I have very little problem with my manhood. I have a son with a Master

They ****ed and Moaned when incentive licensing hit...

And they still **** and Moan when non-incentive licensing hits..

what goes around, comes around...

Pete

In article et,
"Dr. Daffodil Swain" wrote:

HUH? Most FCC "engineers" can't pass this test! They have EE's which have
nothing to do with assembling QRP rigs. They don't teach soldering in
school. Get a life.

There aren't many of those guys (FCC "engineers) left in the Commission,
since Uncle Billy and his henchman ALGORE, reinvented the Commission,
and layed off 75% of the Field Operations Folks. Better look for some
other folks to admin your goofy exams and build your QRP Radio's.

me

I suspect that Bob McConnell is being facetious with his suggestion about
building a QRP rig as part of a ham examination.


"Me" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Dr. Daffodil Swain" wrote:

HUH? Most FCC "engineers" can't pass this test! They have EE's which
have
nothing to do with assembling QRP rigs. They don't teach soldering in
school. Get a life.

There aren't many of those guys (FCC "engineers) left in the Commission,
since Uncle Billy and his henchman ALGORE, reinvented the Commission,
and layed off 75% of the Field Operations Folks. Better look for some
other folks to admin your goofy exams and build your QRP Radio's.

me

If you can't build one from a few parts and get it on the air, you don't
deserve to be called a ham.

Any CBer or welfare ham can turn on the latest, greatest, Kenwood.

If you have even the most rudimentary understanding of electronics, you
should be able to build a transmitter.

How about something as simple as a crystal, a digital hex inverter and some
wire and a couple of capacitors?

Whoops! that requires knowledge not gained from memorizing a set of
questions.

Mores the pity! There have been no real hams since the FCC stopped giving
the exams. If that ****es people off, please take note of the mistletoe
pinned to my coat tail....


"geocal" wrote in message
...
I suspect that Bob McConnell is being facetious with his suggestion about
building a QRP rig as part of a ham examination.

Hey Bob,
I get QST...always have. The contesting stuff doesn't interest me, so I just
ignore it. Occasionally I'll see a familiar call and think "hey, I know
that guy", then move on.
73
Joe KB8QLR
--
Be sure to check-out our webpages...
http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/kb8qlrjoe/index.html
New pictures & links being added frequently.
"Bob McConnell" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:19:04 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jim wrote:
Pretty much agree with Doc, altho, after the last "restructureing", the
value of a license is worthless!

The only value in a license are the privileges granted. The privileges
granted haven't changed appreciably. I had full access to all ham bands
in 1953 and I still have full access to all ham bands in 2004. I lost
11m and 220 MHz but gained the WARC bands. The value of my license is
very close to what it was in 1953.

Unfortunately, there are far too many for whom the value of their
license is measured in how many people it allows them to look down
their noses at. Their only motivation for moving up was so they could
gloat over how much better they are than anyone that isn't up to their
standards. This is also the primary reason that contests and awards
are rubbed in our faces in most of the magazines and newsletters. This
is the crowd the ARRL has been cutivating for years, because they
don't care about advancing the state of the art, or building their own
equipment, helping others, or any of the other aspects of the hobby
that used to make it great. They simply want to buy the newest,
coolest, fanciest or most expensive rig to help them along on their
ego trip, which keeps the advertisers happy.

Somebody let me know when QST no longer has any contests or award
notices in it. Then I *might* be interested in looking at it again.

Bob McConnell
N2SPP

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:55:05 GMT, "geocal" wrote:

I suspect that Bob McConnell is being facetious with his suggestion about
building a QRP rig as part of a ham examination.


I was beginning to wonder if anyone caught that. The initial
suggestion was that a ham license was worth less after the last
restructuring eliminated half of them and reduced the CW requirement.
My sarcastic reply was that if they wanted to revert to a time when
the license was more difficult to obtain, they weren't going back far
enough, but should revert all the way to the era when only an FCC
engineer was qualified to test and issue licenses. Then add the
assembly to really separate the hams from CBers that can memorize the
text book.

Apparently, high schools no longer teach sarcasm as a literary device.
Even my pseudo HTML tag didn't clue them in.

I am curious about one thing. In 1977 I took the FCC test series for
the commercial phone license. I breezed through third class and passed
the second class elements, but missed first class by 6 points. If I
had turned around and taken the amateur tests at that time, without
the code requirement, what license would I have ended up with?

Bob McConnell
N2SPP

Bob McConnell wrote:

I am curious about one thing. In 1977 I took the FCC test series for
the commercial phone license. I breezed through third class and passed
the second class elements, but missed first class by 6 points. If I
had turned around and taken the amateur tests at that time, without
the code requirement, what license would I have ended up with?

Bob McConnell
N2SPP


I received my Novice license in late 1974, and worked my way up the
amateur ranks to Advanced. I then moved over to the commercial exams,
and worked up to First Class. I may be wrong, but I don't think you
could get any class of amateur license, without a code test, back in
those days.

When I took my test in 1957, the FCC guy testing , told me the most
difficult test was the amateur advanced.

I took the General Ham and all commercial elements through 1st class and
RADAR endorsement. At that time, there was a time requirement between the
amateur licenses, ergo I was not eligible to take the advanced or extra.

Back then You both sent and received Morse, and a solid one minute out of
three was the passing mark. The test itself consisted of drawing schematics,
supplying missing components to a schematic, etc. Unlike today's NO CODE, No
ELECTRONICS exams.

The fact that they were tough to pass, marked passage into a select group
called HAMS. After waiting about five weeks I finally received that magical
piece of paper that allowed me to contact other members of the fraternity.

My first contact was on 3885 Kcs, checking into the Graveyard Net, finally
getting to talk to the mystical voices I had listened to on my Hammurland
HQ-129X.

Among the biggest thrills of my life.


"Attila The Hun" wrote in message
...
Bob McConnell wrote:

I am curious about one thing. In 1977 I took the FCC test series for
the commercial phone license. I breezed through third class and passed
the second class elements, but missed first class by 6 points. If I
had turned around and taken the amateur tests at that time, without
the code requirement, what license would I have ended up with?

Bob McConnell
N2SPP


I received my Novice license in late 1974, and worked my way up the
amateur ranks to Advanced. I then moved over to the commercial exams,
and worked up to First Class. I may be wrong, but I don't think you
could get any class of amateur license, without a code test, back in
those days.

W4JLE wrote:
When I took my test in 1957, the FCC guy testing , told me the most
difficult test was the amateur advanced.

Heh, heh, good thing I was drunk when I took mine. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

And in some European countries a decade or three back (I don't know if
it's still the same), the tests for a driver's license had questions
about mechanical theory (e.g., what is actually happening under the hood
when you put your foot on the clutch?) and practical tests (e.g.,
changing a wheel).

Perhaps today's US driver's licenses are worthless too, and perhaps the
people who get them aren't really DRIVERS. Perhaps the only "real
DRIVERS" today are the people who pass the tests for membership of the
Institute of Advanced Motorists (which existed in Britain when I was
growing up, maybe still does) or its equivalent in other countries.

Alan AB2OS


On 02/02/04 07:17 pm W4JLE put fingers to keyboard and launched the
following message into cyberspace:

When I took my test in 1957, the FCC guy testing , told me the most
difficult test was the amateur advanced.

I took the General Ham and all commercial elements through 1st class and
RADAR endorsement. At that time, there was a time requirement between the
amateur licenses, ergo I was not eligible to take the advanced or extra.

Back then You both sent and received Morse, and a solid one minute out of
three was the passing mark. The test itself consisted of drawing schematics,
supplying missing components to a schematic, etc. Unlike today's NO CODE, No
ELECTRONICS exams.

The fact that they were tough to pass, marked passage into a select group
called HAMS. After waiting about five weeks I finally received that magical
piece of paper that allowed me to contact other members of the fraternity.

You miss the point completely, there was pride in becoming a ham, simply
because it was difficult. Once obtained, one behaved as a person worthy of
being called a ham.

The worst behavior I remember back then was W2OY who used to call "CQ No
kids, no lids, no drugstore cowboys..." Unlike the profanity of the bands
today.

With the new age thinking , that finds achievement unfair to those that have
not achieved, we have lowered the bar so those who were incapable of
competing can be included as well.

First it was "why should I learn the code it is only an obstacle to my
desires", the point is all endevors in life have a price of admission, if
your not willing to pay, you don't get in the show. At least thats the way
it used to be, today if I whine enough about fairness someone will give it
to me.

Where does it end? I want to be a brain surgeon, I just don't want to spend
time learning all that medical stuff, it's just not FAIR... Would you want
me as your doctor?

"Minnie Bannister" wrote in message
...
And in some European countries a decade or three back (I don't know if
it's still the same), the tests for a driver's license had questions
about mechanical theory (e.g., what is actually happening under the hood

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:24:44 -0600, Attila The Hun
wrote:

Bob McConnell wrote:

I am curious about one thing. In 1977 I took the FCC test series for
the commercial phone license. I breezed through third class and passed
the second class elements, but missed first class by 6 points. If I
had turned around and taken the amateur tests at that time, without
the code requirement, what license would I have ended up with?

Bob McConnell
N2SPP


I received my Novice license in late 1974, and worked my way up the
amateur ranks to Advanced. I then moved over to the commercial exams,
and worked up to First Class. I may be wrong, but I don't think you
could get any class of amateur license, without a code test, back in
those days.

That is correct. The first codeless license (Technician) was
introduced Feb 1991. But how did the written portions compare between
the amateur and commercial licenses?

Bob McConnell
N2SPP

Hello Alan and group,

"Minnie Bannister" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
And in some European countries a decade or three back (I don't know if
it's still the same), the tests for a driver's license had questions
about mechanical theory (e.g., what is actually happening under the hood
when you put your foot on the clutch?)

This is still going this way. You need to have 15 hours theoretical
education and 20 hours driving education under supervision of a driving
instructor. Costs you about 1000.- Euros, about 1250 US $. You have to do it
with a driving school to securely pass the exam. But the DL then is valid
livelong.

The only thing they changed is the oral test. They took away most of it and
changed it to a standardized computer test.

and practical tests (e.g. changing a wheel).

They discontinued this, but they teach you how to change a wheel and how to
mount snowchains whilst in the practice-hours with your driving instructor.

Perhaps today's US driver's licenses are worthless too, and perhaps the
people who get them aren't really DRIVERS.

I know the difference, I hold a valid California DL for cars, trucks and
motorbikes

Perhaps the only "real
DRIVERS" today are the people who pass the tests for membership of the
Institute of Advanced Motorists (which existed in Britain when I was
growing up, maybe still does) or its equivalent in other countries.

Alan AB2OS


This was kind of out of topic. Concerning the amateur license, the test were
oral and written, the full nine miles through all the technical and
operational questions, for both the CEPT 2 and CEPT 1 licenses. The only
difference in testing for HF privileges was the CW test, where you had to
send and receive. At my time in the late 80's 13wpm (60 signs per minute),
and lateley they dropped to 25 signs per minute, which equals 5 wpm. The
test is still held at the Authorities QTH in the state capitals. After the
recent workaround of the requirements after the WRC 2003 in Geneva, You are
not requested to make the CW test. But you can do it voluntary after
seperate application, and as long as the authority will be able to supply CW
capable Examiners

Best regards and 73
de OE8SOQ
Helmut

Bob McConnell wrote:

That is correct. The first codeless license (Technician) was
introduced Feb 1991. But how did the written portions compare between
the amateur and commercial licenses?

Bob McConnell
N2SPP


I remember the First Phone as being the toughest test. There were a lot
of questions about tube type circuits, and I was only familiar with
solid state. The amateur tests had been "modernized" with transistor
circuit questions, but the commercial tests were on "fifties" era circuits.

I have taken them all at one time or another so can't give you an exact
comparison, for my money the advanced amateur was the hardest.

As I cut my teeth on "Hollow State", the tube stuff was easy. You haven't
lived until you have a rig with 3B24's emitting their purple glow into the
shack.


"Attila The Hun" wrote in message
...
Bob McConnell wrote:

That is correct. The first codeless license (Technician) was
introduced Feb 1991. But how did the written portions compare between
the amateur and commercial licenses?

Bob McConnell
N2SPP


I remember the First Phone as being the toughest test. There were a lot
of questions about tube type circuits, and I was only familiar with
solid state. The amateur tests had been "modernized" with transistor
circuit questions, but the commercial tests were on "fifties" era
circuits.

W4JLE wrote:
As I cut my teeth on "Hollow State", the tube stuff was easy. You haven't
lived until you have a rig with 3B24's emitting their purple glow into the
shack.

Along with the VR-150's pulsating to the sound of your voice on AM.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

W4JLE wrote:
I have taken them all at one time or another so can't give you an exact
comparison, for my money the advanced amateur was the hardest.

As I cut my teeth on "Hollow State", the tube stuff was easy. You haven't
lived until you have a rig with 3B24's emitting their purple glow into the
shack.

SNIP

Or, 866's

When I took my no code tech license in 1993 I didn't have to do what you did
in 1957.

But I did spend years in college attaining a degree in Electronic Technology
, learned all about tubes and electron theory, electronics related math,
drew schematics, learned about solid state and early digital IC's, op amps,
did work study doing bench work at a BSR factory, learned how to repair
motracs and radar units in a professors garage shop (he was a ham and the
local service guy for the radios the cops used). Moved into the working
world in the late 70's , Trained on teletype repair at the Skokie, Il.
plant., Worked as an engineering lab tech programming EPROMs and ROM for
early electronic control units writing code onto paper tape, used sniffers
on networks, Made engineering changes to prototype circuit boards, Worked on
repair of mainframe water cooled computers with scopes, meters, and all
kinds of magic tools and test equipment, learned personal computers and
telecommunications networks, specialized in bus sized high speed laser
printers (3800) and 3745 telecommunications boxes, learned how write
mainframe code, learned how to write PC code, can fix computers in my sleep.
Have a bunch of WORKING self repaired reel to reel tape decks and radios in
my garage collection. Fix my own cars. Maintain my own home.

I'm a no code tech.

It doesn't mean I'm a button pusher. Don't treat us like dirt.

Steve
N2UBP



-- When I took my test in 1957, the FCC guy testing , told me the most
difficult test was the amateur advanced.

Back then You both sent and received Morse, and a solid one minute out of
three was the passing mark. The test itself consisted of drawing
schematics,
supplying missing components to a schematic, etc. Unlike today's NO CODE,
No
ELECTRONICS exams.

There you go, waving a 2 inch swantz around the big boys and crying
because we are not impressed.

Never said you were dirt, I did say your getting a free ride as the result
of those unable to compete, whining long and hard.

"Steve Stone" wrote in message
...

When I took my no code tech license in 1993 I didn't have to do what you
did
in 1957.

But I did spend years in college attaining a degree in Electronic
Technology
, learned all about tubes and electron theory, electronics related math,
drew schematics, learned about solid state and early digital IC's, op
amps,
did work study doing bench work at a BSR factory, learned how to repair
motracs and radar units in a professors garage shop (he was a ham and the
local service guy for the radios the cops used). Moved into the working
world in the late 70's , Trained on teletype repair at the Skokie, Il.
plant., Worked as an engineering lab tech programming EPROMs and ROM for
early electronic control units writing code onto paper tape, used sniffers
on networks, Made engineering changes to prototype circuit boards, Worked
on
I'm a no code tech.

MORE YA DA Da Da Snipped...

It doesn't mean I'm a button pusher. Don't treat us like dirt.

Steve
N2UBP



-- When I took my test in 1957, the FCC guy testing , told me the most
difficult test was the amateur advanced.

Back then You both sent and received Morse, and a solid one minute out
of
three was the passing mark. The test itself consisted of drawing
schematics,
supplying missing components to a schematic, etc. Unlike today's NO
CODE,
No
ELECTRONICS exams.

As a younger Ham (27), who could have gone no-code, I say keep the code.
It's a right of passage, plus the ability to send/receive means multipliers
on contest weekends... hi hi.

I know a no-code who can't ground an antenna.

I know a no-code who has built several homebrew rigs that all work
marvellously.

The lack of code in liscensing has NOTHING to do with actual mechanical
ability, it has to do with REALLY wanting to be a part of a fraternity that
can and does do a lot of good not only for the local communtiy, but the
international one as well.

While I will agree that the hobby of amateur radio has a shrinking
population (due largely in part to what sent you this message... the
internet) and needs some revitalization, lessening the requirements is not
the way to do it. Why not promote ARES or RACES. Some of the most fun I've
ever had was volunteering in St. Charles county Missouri back in 1993 when
2/3 of the county was under water. I got to see a lot of things and go a
lot of places that the average "civilian" wouldn't be allowed to go. THAT'S
NEAT!

At the same time, younger members of the community should not be shunned as
me and my friends were by certain hams just because of our age. We used to
get run off repeaters at 3 am on Friday nights because we were "keeping
people up." TURN OFF YOUR RIG WHEN YOU'RE ASLEEP!!! We were told it was
because of our age... "no 16 yr. old could possibly have a clue." THAT'S
NOT NEAT! To this day, there are local hams who won't talk to me when I
call "monitoring" on 2 meters just because of who I am... a grudge based on
age held for 11 years... ???

At the same time, I"ve made some of my best friends by trolling VHF/UHF
(even though HF is my true love). My first directional 10m antenna was
given to me by a guy who was impressed that I had a confirmed QSO from
Kwajellain Atoll. No I break pile-ups on a regular basis. Thanks Scott.

Anyway... that's my 2 cents...

73's
KB0JNF (I'm PROUD of my novice callsign)
James Brennan

PS what is echolink? That takes all the fun out of a contact...

James Brennan wrote:
As a younger Ham (27), who could have gone no-code, I say keep the code.
It's a right of passage, plus the ability to send/receive means multipliers
on contest weekends... hi hi.


PS what is echolink? That takes all the fun out of a contact...



What difference does it make if a person who pays taxes to support an
organization(FCC), doesnt know a tube from a transistor. Why shouldnt
they have equal access to the privilages. Most buy an appliance and
start putting it to use. You dont need a license to build. There is so
much garbage on the air now it wouldnt matter how clean the signal was.
Things mutate with time. I have experienced 49 years of ham radio and
99 percent of what i did didnt require a license. Pressing the mic
button did, plus being considerate, respectful, and helpful after
pressing the button.

W1HRM

From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT January 20, 2004
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB003
ARLB003 ARRL to Propose New Entry-Level License, Code-Free HF Access

The ARRL will ask the FCC to create a new entry-level Amateur Radio
license that would include HF phone privileges without requiring a
Morse code test.

Isn't that "Special"!!!!!! I can hardly wait to be in the middle of a good
QRP QSO and hear some CBer who thinks he is a ham blair in with "Is the
channel in use?"

It is nice to know that the good friends at ARRL sold us out! Wonder what
30 pieces of silver will buy these days? Apparently if you are a
corporation, it will buy you the priviledge to destroy ham radio! Heck,
why require a license at all? That seems like such a bother. Why not just
make up a call and get you a radio and jump in "Good Buddy"? I'll bet that
for 50 bucks, the "board" at ARRL will back you!

Mitch
AE4YW
--
"Come by and sit a spell with me at www.volstate.net/~mitch/ "

Bill Turner wrote:
"Mitch Dickson" wrote:
Isn't that "Special"!!!!!! I can hardly wait to be in the middle of a good
QRP QSO and hear some CBer who thinks he is a ham blair in with "Is the
channel in use?"

The word is "blare". Ignorance can be found with or without a ham
license.

Don't you just hate being in the middle of a CW QRP QSO
with a ham who can't spell? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

LMAO! Why thank you BT, and it's nice to know that after what I wrote in
that post, the only thing you could find to bitch about was a mispelled word
:) Cut a little close to the quick did it? HEHEHE!

--... ...--

..- . ....- -.-- .--

Perhaps some kind old general will take pity and interpret the above for you
:)

Mitch
AE4YW

--
"Come by and sit a spell with me at www.volstate.net/~mitch/ "


"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:30:30 -0500, "Mitch Dickson"
wrote:

Isn't that "Special"!!!!!! I can hardly wait to be in the middle of a
good
QRP QSO and hear some CBer who thinks he is a ham blair in with "Is the
channel in use?"

__________________________________________________ _______

The word is "blare". Ignorance can be found with or without a ham
license.

--
BT

I'm sure that he just put you off as a hopeless idiot, as did I.

"Mitch Dickson" wrote in message
...
LMAO! Why thank you BT, and it's nice to know that after what I wrote in
that post, the only thing you could find to bitch about was a mispelled
word
:) Cut a little close to the quick did it? HEHEHE!

ogihosr