On Mar 4, 7:54�am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:25 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message

There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.

Tech, and Extra.

Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with
all
privileges.

Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add.

[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

I disagree. *My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.

I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." *However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. *Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.

Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. *I would advocate
two licenses: *a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. *The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. *Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. *It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate.

I disagree. *The "top" license, Amateur, should be the current General
exam, and the entry level license, Limited Amateur, should be
something much less.

An ENTRY level license NAME loaded with denigrating
adjectives is not a good way to attract anyone. Using
"novice" or "beginner" or "apprentice" or "tyro" or "newbie"
MIGHT attract a younger teener but is a turn-off to most
anyone over 18. "Limited" might be an "accurate"
adjective but it is still emotionally-loaded as a descriptor.

Even a "tyro" marketing person would have tossed the
"Novice" name in the trash long ago. :-(

If anything, just call the entry class for Entry class...


Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine these
two. *Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how
best to present the combined material. *At this point in time, there are no
combined manuals that already address the material for both license classes.
In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was
available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and
Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person could
study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will be
to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of the
box.

As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level" license.

Why not?

Once upon a time in hamland there was NO "entry level"
by name. One simply jumped in and did it, "learning"
the (oh so) PROPER procedure as they went along.

As I suspected, and Len asserted, "It's all about Morse Code" with
some of you's guys.

Morsemanship skills could have used an on-air learning
period for many. It was never an intellectual skill but a
psychomotor thing that some had trouble with despite
some saying "oh, no trouble at all for 'me'." :-(

If any ham club wants to have specialized classes on
morsemanship skills, that's fine with me. Those interested
in that can do the classroom thing all they want, then try
it out for real with their radios later. That's the SAME
way one learns theory in classroom environments, then
tries it out on real radio hardware later.

Trying to combine classroom with on-air training by
frequency-restricted, limited privilege license classes
(and the attendant class-distinction) was never a good
thing in my mind.

73, LA

On Mar 4, 1:10 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:54?am, wrote:

On Mar 4, 10:25 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message

There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.

Tech, and Extra.

Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with
all
privileges.

Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add.

[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

Rip Van Deignan... overslept.

I disagree. ?My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.

I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." ?However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. ?Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.

Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. ?I would advocate
two licenses: ?a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. ?The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. ?Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. ?It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate.

I disagree. ?The "top" license, Amateur, should be the current General
exam, and the entry level license, Limited Amateur, should be
something much less.

An ENTRY level license NAME loaded with denigrating
adjectives is not a good way to attract anyone. Using
"novice" or "beginner" or "apprentice" or "tyro" or "newbie"
MIGHT attract a younger teener but is a turn-off to most
anyone over 18. "Limited" might be an "accurate"
adjective but it is still emotionally-loaded as a descriptor.

Even a "tyro" marketing person would have tossed the
"Novice" name in the trash long ago. :-(

If anything, just call the entry class for Entry class...

We could go French and call it the enfante' class.

Or Airman First Class, Airman Second Class, Airman Third Class...

Already our club is planning for future licensing classes to combine these
two. ?Of course, we'll have to create our own syllabus and figure out how
best to present the combined material. ?At this point in time, there are no
combined manuals that already address the material for both license classes.
In principle it would be similar to the Now You're Talking book that was
available prior to the 2000 changes, which combined the Novice and
Technician material in one integrated study guide such that a person could
study for both Novice and Tech writtens at the same time. Our goal will be
to not only help them get licensed, but to try for General right out of the
box.

As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level" license.

Why not?

Once upon a time in hamland there was NO "entry level"
by name. One simply jumped in and did it, "learning"
the (oh so) PROPER procedure as they went along.

Jumped in and did it as in NO TESTING.

As I suspected, and Len asserted, "It's all about Morse Code" with
some of you's guys.

Morsemanship skills could have used an on-air learning
period for many. It was never an intellectual skill but a
psychomotor thing that some had trouble with despite
some saying "oh, no trouble at all for 'me'." :-(

"If I can do it anyone can. And if they can't then they're not
special like me and don't belong..."

If any ham club wants to have specialized classes on
morsemanship skills, that's fine with me. Those interested
in that can do the classroom thing all they want, then try
it out for real with their radios later. That's the SAME
way one learns theory in classroom environments, then
tries it out on real radio hardware later.

Sounds real good to me.

Trying to combine classroom with on-air training by
frequency-restricted, limited privilege license classes
(and the attendant class-distinction) was never a good
thing in my mind.

73, LA- Hide quoted text -

bb

wrote:


[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

Rip Van Deignan... overslept.

The last I looked, the restructuring took effect in April 2000.

Hence,

"...my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments..."

Should have said

"...my Y2K restructuring NPRM comments..."


Alas, I'm not above misplacing an adjective or adverb at 5am, however, the
gist of my comments is still accurate. Nitpick if you have nothing better to
add.

On Mar 4, 5:00�pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
* *[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

Rip Van Deignan... *overslept.

The last I looked, the restructuring took effect in April 2000.

Hence,

"...my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments..."

Should have said

"...my Y2K restructuring NPRM comments..."

Alas, I'm not above misplacing an adjective or adverb at 5am, however, the
gist of my comments is still accurate. Nitpick if you have nothing better to
add.

You don't get "gist," tweetie. My Reply to Comments was to
YOUR Comments on FCC 98-143 and YOUR Comment was
dated 1998. Do you want a copy? :-) [it's still in the ECFS
for 98-143]

On Mar 4, 8:02�pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 4, 5:00?pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:





wrote:
? ?[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

Rip Van Deignan... ?overslept.

The last I looked, the restructuring took effect in April 2000.

Hence,

"...my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments..."

Should have said

"...my Y2K restructuring NPRM comments..."

Alas, I'm not above misplacing an adjective or adverb at 5am, however, the
gist of my comments is still accurate. Nitpick if you have nothing better to
add.

* *You don't get "gist," tweetie. *MyReplyto Comments was to
* *YOUR Comments on FCC 98-143 and YOUR Comment was
* *dated 1998. *Do you want a copy? *:-) * [it's still in the ECFS
* *for 98-143]

Yep, it is. It was filed by mail because Len couldn't
get ECFS to work for him back then.

Len did not file any Comments to 98-143 at all.
Len only filed Reply Comments to KH6HZ's Comments - even though KH6HZ
supported the NCI
position on Morse Code testing.

(That 1998 position
was to eliminate all testing except the 5 wpm required
to meet the old treaty, and to include a sunset clause
that would automatically eliminate the 5 wpm test if/when the treaty
no longer required it.)

Why Len would use the FCC comment system
to argue with someone who *supported*
elimination of all Morse Code testing at the earliest possible date
remains a mystery. Perhaps
he could not control his actions....

Reply to Comments are *only* supposed to be
rebuttals of others' comments. They are not
supposed to include any subjects not already
discussed - that's what Comments are for. Len
did not file any Comments to 98-143 at all.

Yet in Len's Reply Comments he
proposed that the FCC add a new, arbitrary and
completely unnecessary minimum age requirement
of 14 years to the rules, so that no class of amateur
radio license could be issued to anyone under that
age.

There has never been a minimum-age requirement for a US amateur radio
license, and to date Len has not been able to come up with a single
instance of problems caused by the lack of such a requirement.


Jim, N2EY

On Mar 7, 3:47?am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:02?pm, "
wrote:

massive snip of OLD, ANCIENT Spite of Miccolis...

There has never been a minimum-age requirement for a US amateur radio
license, and to date Len has not been able to come up with a single
instance of problems caused by the lack of such a requirement.

Still trolling right along after 8 years, Jimmie? :-)

Let's see...your line got bitten off years ago...your pole is
broken...the reel is rusted shut...and your boat keeps taking
on water...and the fish have moved on to another pond.

"A River Runs Through It" A very big river starting
23 February 2007. Happy "phishing." :-)

LA

On Mar 7, 6:47 am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:02?pm, "
wrote:





On Mar 4, 5:00?pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:

wrote:
? ?[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

Rip Van Deignan... ?overslept.

The last I looked, the restructuring took effect in April 2000.

Hence,

"...my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments..."

Should have said

"...my Y2K restructuring NPRM comments..."

Alas, I'm not above misplacing an adjective or adverb at 5am, however, the
gist of my comments is still accurate. Nitpick if you have nothing better to
add.

? ?You don't get "gist," tweetie. ?MyReplyto Comments was to
? ?YOUR Comments on FCC 98-143 and YOUR Comment was
? ?dated 1998. ?Do you want a copy? ?:-) ? [it's still in the ECFS
? ?for 98-143]

Yep, it is. It was filed by mail because Len couldn't
get ECFS to work for him back then.

Len did not file any Comments to 98-143 at all.
Len only filed Reply Comments to KH6HZ's Comments - even though KH6HZ
supported the NCI
position on Morse Code testing.

(That 1998 position
was to eliminate all testing except the 5 wpm required
to meet the old treaty, and to include a sunset clause
that would automatically eliminate the 5 wpm test if/when the treaty
no longer required it.)

Why Len would use the FCC comment system
to argue with someone who *supported*
elimination of all Morse Code testing at the earliest possible date
remains a mystery. Perhaps
he could not control his actions....

Reply to Comments are *only* supposed to be
rebuttals of others' comments. They are not
supposed to include any subjects not already
discussed - that's what Comments are for. Len
did not file any Comments to 98-143 at all.

Yet in Len's Reply Comments he
proposed that the FCC add a new, arbitrary and
completely unnecessary minimum age requirement
of 14 years to the rules, so that no class of amateur
radio license could be issued to anyone under that
age.

There has never been a minimum-age requirement for a US amateur radio
license, and to date Len has not been able to come up with a single
instance of problems caused by the lack of such a requirement.

Jim, N2EY-

I'm going to have to re-evaluate NY whine. Them's some sour grapes.

On Mar 4, 3:11�pm, wrote:
On Mar 4, 1:10 pm, "
wrote:





On Mar 4, 7:54?am, wrote:

On Mar 4, 10:25 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message

There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.

Tech, and Extra.

Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with
all
privileges.

Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add.

* *[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

Rip Van Deignan... *overslept.





I disagree. ?My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.

I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." ?However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. ?Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.

Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. ?I would advocate
two licenses: ?a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. ?The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. ?Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. ?It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate.

I disagree. ?The "top" license, Amateur, should be the current General
exam, and the entry level license, Limited Amateur, should be
something much less.

* *An ENTRY level license NAME loaded with denigrating
* *adjectives is not a good way to attract anyone. *Using
* *"novice" or "beginner" or "apprentice" or "tyro" or "newbie"
* *MIGHT attract a younger teener but is a turn-off to most
* *anyone over 18. *"Limited" might be an "accurate"
* *adjective but it is still emotionally-loaded as a descriptor.

* *Even a "tyro" marketing person would have tossed the
* *"Novice" name in the trash long ago. *:-(

* *If anything, just call the entry class for Entry class...

We could go French and call it the enfante' class.

May Eiffel drop your tower! :-)

Or Airman First Class, Airman Second Class, Airman Third Class...

Humphhh...no ME, blue-suiter... :-(

* *Morsemanship skills could have used an on-air learning
* *period for many. *It was never an intellectual skill but a
* *psychomotor thing that some had trouble with despite
* *some saying "oh, no trouble at all for 'me'." * :-(

"If I can do it anyone can. *And if they can't then they're not
special like me and don't belong..."

They are spay-shull. Shades of SNL and the "church lady!"

* *If any ham club wants to have specialized classes on
* *morsemanship skills, that's fine with me. *Those interested
* *in that can do the classroom thing all they want, then try
* *it out for real with their radios later. *That's the SAME
* *way one learns theory in classroom environments, then
* *tries it out on real radio hardware later.

Sounds real good to me.

The military did NOT restrict newbies from a successful
morse code class to "entry level" spectrum spaces.
They were expected to PERFORM as directed.

The same with voice operators. Once they learned
the various radios in school they were out in the field,
NONE having any "entry level" spectrum spaces.

Now, not all in here have had military experience. None
of those realizes that the military is primarily trained to
DESTROY the enemy. Using radios while the enemy
is busy trying to destroy you is one of the harshest
environments I know. There's no "entry level" for that,
either, no spay-shull space for "novice killers." :-(

There's wayyyy too much emphasis on this class-
distinction nonsense in a HOBBY activity that is
not allowed (by law) to be a commercial radio service.

73, LA

wrote:

...

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. Amateur radio has been driven by a
weird group of "initiation fanatics." Like they are kinda "inducting"
ya into a cult or somethin'. Or, kinda like joinin' the masons. Weird
group who never outgrew high school and college frat initiations into
"secret societies."

Actually, this would be good group for Art Bell to do a show
on--"amateur frat initiates" ... If the pyramids were here in the US,
they'd use them as the "initiation temple." erie music plays here

Me, I just grabbed the mic and set my own style, course never suffered
from "mike fright" here. Never had a strong need to "feel a part of" or
that I needed others to increase my own self worth. Never found the
"official flock of sheep" had that much to offer either.

But hey, to each their own ...

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

On Mar 4, 3:45�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

* ...

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. *Amateur radio has been driven by a
weird group of "initiation fanatics." *Like they are kinda "inducting"
ya into a cult or somethin'. *Or, kinda like joinin' the masons. *Weird
group who never outgrew high school and college frat initiations into
"secret societies."

Everyone has to do it like They did...blah, blah, blah. :-(

Veddy FORMAL in everything, absolutely CORRECT
protocol or one faces "ex-communication."

"That's the way 'we' do it..." is the rationale, only proving
that They think they own the turf.

73, LA