"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.

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.

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

73,
Carl - wk3c

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.

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..

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

All bets are off if it can be shown or even argued that the new Tech Q&A pool
is responsible for the recent dropoff in new Techs. (See AH0A site for exact
numbers.)


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....

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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.

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

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.

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).

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."

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 ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

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 -

"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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"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


Why? Maybe a little time in grade would mean we don't hear a new extra ask
" how long is a half wave dipole on forty?"

Dan/W4NTI

Why? Maybe a little time in grade would mean we don't hear a new extra ask
" how long is a half wave dipole on forty?"

Dan/W4NTI

That would be an improvment Dan, what I hear is, what is a Dipole, and who
sells them, ands of course how much GAIN.

Why? Maybe a little time in grade would mean we don't hear a new extra
ask
" how long is a half wave dipole on forty?"

Dan/W4NTI



to me that just doesn't make any sense... I think you're implying that a
long time
ago, you would NEVER hear an extra ask such an entry-level question, and I
believe you are right. I do not believe the answer lies in haveing a "time
in grade"
requirement... and while it's impossible to have a comprehensive test that
covers
EVERYTHING (for obvious reasons), I believe it's possible to have a test
that
makes sure a person doesn't reach the top level license without knowing
basics
that the novice level licensees should be asking about.

i'm also a nuts-and-bolts person... just start at the basic everyday ham
radio station,
at each part that makes it up, and have a question pool that pertains to
each one....
questions about grounding, questions about feedline, questions about
antennas,
pretty much the way they do now but as he said, add "meat" to it... increase
the
amount of knowledge you have to have in each area to meet the requirements
to
be an extra class ham radio operator. It would be a beautiful thing, and
made
possible by the fact that the perspective extra will have more time to alot
studying
what really matters to know what a ham radio station is than simply test
eye-hand-
hearing coordination in some old communication mode that's being dropped
by non-ham radio services world wide in leaps and bounds...

Let it be repeated
that one of the fundamental concepts of ham radio is the "progression of the
radio art", NOT "the progression of the HAM radio art as a snapshot in time
during the 1950's"... after all, isn't that an oxymoron? trying to progress,
spread
knoweldge about and increase the use of something that is obsolete?

Clint

--

Reasons why it sucks to be a liberal....
file overrun error

--

Dan/W4NTI wrote:


Why? Maybe a little time in grade would mean we don't hear a new extra ask
" how long is a half wave dipole on forty?"

It's a quarter wave dipole Dan! You'd think we'd have that figured out
by now! Ducking now 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"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.

I don't look at it as discrimination. Right now, there isn't that much
difference between the General and Extra licenses. The largest being
some frequency segments which are often ignored. So the only
"discrimination" is that. No one is stopping anyone from getting on HF.

My thinking is that if we are to have three classes, they should mean
something. When I was a Technician, I had much more HF operating
experience -by way of the kind control op's from my club, thanks guys! -
than some Extras that I have tutored since. I could have, but wouldn't
dare, Elmer these Extra's at the time of having my Tech license.

A person has to start somewhere. Many if not most who get a Technician
license have their first experience on Radio the first time they push
the PTT button on thier HT. Many General class licensees get their first
tast of HF only after getting their ticket. All very good, and makes
good sense.

However, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that a person can have the
highest class license available, and yet have no clue about operating or
putting together a station. That really means that on a purely
functional level, there is no real difference between the General and
Extra class.

All that being said, if there is no waiting period or significant
bennefit to become an Extra, then I would support two licensing classes.

- Mike KB3EIA -