Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate.
Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is
"top." I don't see anything wrong with that ...

What do you think would be a good division knowledge wise between the
classes? The tech and general are not too bad now, knowledge to
privileges. I lean a bit toward having the Extra require a bit more
knowledge, or perhaps experience. I know a few no-experience Extra's and
it just seems (to me) that some "time in grade" might make the license
more meaningful.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I do not expect the overall licensing requirements
to be made "harder" in any way, since that would only raise objections
from the knuckle-draggers and the subsequent petitions which that
would produce.

Theres no Question the License will be easier.The Knuckle draggers would
really cry if the FCC went and made it something where they would actually have
to know something.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate.
Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is
"top." I don't see anything wrong with that ...

What do you think would be a good division knowledge wise between the
classes? The tech and general are not too bad now, knowledge to
privileges. I lean a bit toward having the Extra require a bit more
knowledge, or perhaps experience. I know a few no-experience Extra's and
it just seems (to me) that some "time in grade" might make the license
more meaningful.

- Mike KB3EIA -


I wouldn't oppose a bit more "meat" on the Extra written ... but I
would oppose any "time in grade" requirements. Folks either
qualify (pass the test) or not ... "time in grade" unnecessarily
discriminates against people who are qualified by making them
wait unnecessarily.

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article ,
(WA8ULX) writes:

I do not expect the overall licensing requirements
to be made "harder" in any way, since that would only raise objections
from the knuckle-draggers and the subsequent petitions which that
would produce.

Theres no Question the License will be easier.The Knuckle draggers would
really cry if the FCC went and made it something where they would actually
have to know something.

You mean like knowing how to spell and punctuate, when to capitalize, and the
rules of grammar?

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

I think that the most likely scenario is that they will do as you suggest,
and distill it down to two license classes, General and Extra. All current
Techs would be "grandfathered" to the General class, and the Extra will
remain the same, sans Element 1(a). This would be the easiest change
to accomplish from an administrative standpoint, and they wouldn't have
to even bother renaming the remaining license classes, which would only
risk causing resentment among current Extras. There could be, at most,
a requirement for current Techs to pass another written element, but the
grandfathering would be an easier fix.

ARRL asked for something very similar back in 1998 and FCC said no. (ARRL's
proposal would have given Novices and Tech Pluses instant upgrades to General).

Such an instant upgrade has these problems:

1) A lot of screaming about "no giveaways"

2) FCC has to announce a change and then implement it. To my knowledge, stuff
like license requirement changes almost never is done "effective immediately".
So the day such a change is announced, you'll see a flurry of folks getting
their Techs in anticiaption of a free upgrade to General in a few weeks or
months.

Of course, almost
anything is possible.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

So you believe a few supplied-answer questions on a couple written
tests, with little technical content, a few memorized band edges and a
few rules, no operational testing of any sort, with no experience record
whatever, makes an expert rahwdyo amatooer.

FCC seems to think that way.....:-(

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I wouldn't oppose a bit more "meat" on the Extra written ... but I
would oppose any "time in grade" requirements. Folks either
qualify (pass the test) or not ... "time in grade" unnecessarily
discriminates against people who are qualified by making them
wait unnecessarily.

So you believe a few supplied-answer questions on a couple written
tests, with little technical content, a few memorized band edges and a
few rules, no operational testing of any sort, with no experience record
whatever, makes an expert rahwdyo amatooer.

So much for that sensible NCI position!

First, I didn't say it was an NCI position ... I was expressing my personal
view. If I state an NCI position, it will be clearly identified as such,
otherwise, it's my personal comment.

Second, what part of "more 'meat' on the Extra written don't you
understand??? You say "with little technical content" ... where'd
you pull that out of? I never said that.

Your zeal to attack anything I say, even if you might actually agree
with the substance if you actually UNDERSTOOD what I said,
and then try to spin your distortion as "NCI position" is telling.

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

Even a paper upgrade would be unnecessary since the category of Tech Plus
does not exist anymore. These days Techs who pass the code must keep a
copy
of their code CSCE to prove it in case they are ever questioned.
Currently
when Tech Plus licensees renew, their license simply says Tech and they
should keep a copy of their expired Tech Plus to show they passed the
code.
All that the FCC would need to do is issue a ruling that all Techs have
the
same privileges as the old Tech Plus or Tech with code. The result is
that
they would no longer need to keep a copy of their code CSCE or old Tech
Plus
license.

Yep, they could do that easily.

But it would be almost exactly what ARRL asked for 5 years ago, when they
proposed that Techs get HF CW privs.

But the FCC couldn't grant that because of the (now gone) ITU requirement
that
one pass a Morse test BEFORE getting on HF ...

Maybe. But look at what the UK did. Does the "Morse appreciation" thing used
with the Foundation license really constitute a "test"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[snip]

One of the big problems is the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall"
paradigm.

The NCI and NCVEC Petitions are "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall"
propositions ... since a tech now gets HF privs if he/she passes a 5 wpm
code test, the elimination of the test would not be a "windfall" if all
techs got the same privs as the old "TechPlus" ...

Everything else stays the same.

Yup. And so we wind up with a continuation of the VHF/UHF heavy, HF/MF
light
entry level setup that is an artifact of the old S25.5.

I doubt that ... I expect that a very large percentage of techs will rapidly
upgrade to at least general, if not extra, once the code test is gone.

Maybe - but look at what has happened with the Tech Plus:

It's been 3-1/2 years since restructuring.

No new Tech Pluses in all that time.

All existing Tech Pluses changed to Techs when renewing or vanity call granted.

Many Tech Pluses needed no additional testing at all to get a General.

Yet we still have about 50% of pre-restructuring Tech Pluses on the books.Which
means many of the existing Tech Pluses simply haven't yet bothered to upgrade
to General.

The idea of "eliminate the code test and give techs "techplus" privs is
logical, takes nothing away from anyone, and gives nobody a "freebie."

From the standpoint of written testing, anyway.

Didja know that some time back QCWA (you're a member, I'm not, even though I'm
"qualified") asked FCC to grant all pre-Nov.22-1968 Generals and Advanceds a
free upgrade to Extra? Talk about freebies!

Note there is NOTHING in the NCI (or NCVEC) petition about any form
of restriction of Morse use, any expansion of the phone bands at the
expense
of Morse (or other digital mode) use, etc.

In the case of NCI, that's "outside the charter". And NCI has promised to
cease
to exist when code testing goes. Which means that if/when Element 1
disappears,
NCI's USA chapter will simply go away as an organization trying to change
FCC rules.

NCI will exist until Morse testing is gone worldwide, but you're right,
we'll have
nothing to do in the US once the FCC eliminates Morse testing for all
classes of license.

My point exactly.

In the case of NCVEC, there may be more petitions and proposals. They have
already hinted at same.

I'm not part of that group, so I can't speak for them ... if they file a
petition
seeking to water down the writtens or expand the phone bands, I'll oppose
it vigorously (personally).

Same here. But does Fred often take no for an answer? He sure is used to
getting his way.

I think these proposals fully meet the "nobody loses/nobody gets a
windfall" paradigm.

Some would say that getting full privileges with no code test was a
windfall, but I'm not gonna go there....

The governments of the world don't seem to hold that view, so you'd be
up against the "heavy hitters."

The governments of the world don't make FCC rules.

How would you feel if it was proposed that all Advanceds get an instant upgrade
to Extra with no additional testing?

Main point is that between those two constrainsts, very little change in
the writtens or basic structure is possible.

And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate.
Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is
"top." I don't see anything wrong with that ...

That's essentially what we have now.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate.
Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is
"top." I don't see anything wrong with that ...

What do you think would be a good division knowledge wise between the
classes? The tech and general are not too bad now, knowledge to
privileges. I lean a bit toward having the Extra require a bit more
knowledge, or perhaps experience. I know a few no-experience Extra's and
it just seems (to me) that some "time in grade" might make the license
more meaningful.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Man you got that right Mike. It was that way, decades ago. The extra used
to mean something. Now it means squat.

Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going
to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now.

Dan/W4NTI