When they drop the morse code test requirement, it's
fairly clear to me they just won't "drop" it all by
itself with a stroke of an administrative pen; I imagine it
will accompany other changes in the license structure...
what do you think will also change in the licensing
system when the drop the morse code test?

Clint
KB5ZHT

Clint wrote:

When they drop the morse code test requirement, it's
fairly clear to me they just won't "drop" it all by
itself with a stroke of an administrative pen; I imagine it
will accompany other changes in the license structure...
what do you think will also change in the licensing
system when the drop the morse code test?

This is the biggest reason that I believe it will take quite a while to
remove the Morse test. There will probably be a lot of changes that
need to be discussed and made, if the licensing structure is to make any
sense.

My earlier prediction was 4 years in a "guess the drop time" contest we
started earlier in the year.

I would guess that we will have either two or three classes, as we do now:

The technician license will probably be very similar to what it is now.
I don't know that any significant changes will be made.

The HF licenses are a much murkier area.

If there were to be only two license classes, my wish would be that the
testing regimen would be more or less what the Extra is now.

But there may be some resistance to that, and it is understandable.
There is no reason not to have an entry level HF license similar to the
General.

I tend toward two license classes, but don't have any strong feelings
against three.

Testing......

The multiple guess format is probably here to stay. I don't think it is
as bad as some say. Reading the answers in a textbook or reading them in
multiple choice format is all the same to me. It took me a week of
fairly steady study to get ready for the exam. The way they get you to
learn is to have a lot of questions, and only test on a few.

And as a fairly new Extra, I can say that those answers don't always
show up in the same abcd order as they do in the question pools. So you
really do have to know an answer.

I would like to see the tests a little more in depth (note I don't say
harder) with more operation questions. Perhaps even a post-test booklet
with good operating procedures. I really needed this after passing my
general. I had some small HF experience from contesting with the club,
but contesting etiquette and everyday etiquette are two very different
things.

My biggest hope is that we take the time to make a good system, and not
come up with some Byzantine mess.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I figure 3 classes... probably a entry level "no HF" license, and
then 2 licenses that reflect different levels of expressed knowledge,
that is, seperate amounts of frequency priviledges.

I'd prefer more, but for some reason I feel it will settle to 3....
What WAS a no code tech license will be the equivalent to
the new entry level license, what is now the general class
will be the middle license, and extra being the "top" license.

Personally, I think they should just "drop" the code part
of the test and not effect the number of license, keep them
the same, or increase them back to what it was before.

My $.02

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Clint wrote:

When they drop the morse code test requirement, it's
fairly clear to me they just won't "drop" it all by
itself with a stroke of an administrative pen; I imagine it
will accompany other changes in the license structure...
what do you think will also change in the licensing
system when the drop the morse code test?

This is the biggest reason that I believe it will take quite a while to

remove the Morse test. There will probably be a lot of changes that
need to be discussed and made, if the licensing structure is to make any
sense.

Having the amateur license classes make sense has never been much of a priority
to the FCC - at least not for 50 years or so.

I still remember getting my first License Manual in 1966 or 67, and discovering
that there were six classes of ham license. Interesting system, I thought, lots
of steps to climb the ladder to the top.

Then I found that four of the six license classes granted all operating
privileges. Three of them could only be gotten by mail, and two could only be
gotten via FCC examiners .And one of the classes was closed to new entries but
those who had 'em could keep on renewing 'em. Huh?

Even more mystifying was finding out that things had been that way for more
than a dozen years.

My earlier prediction was 4 years in a "guess the drop time" contest we

started earlier in the year.

You may be right.

I see three possibilities:

1) FCC just dumps Element 1 and not much else

2) FCC does the whole restructuring thing all over again

3) FCC does nothing at all. (For a few years, anyway).

Before you dismiss that last one, note how long some petitions have been
hanging fire with the FCC. Like the Novice refarming petitions.....

I would guess that we will have either two or three classes, as we do
now:

The technician license will probably be very similar to what it is now.

I don't know that any significant changes will be made.

The HF licenses are a much murkier area.

That would be unfortunate.

The whole idea of VHF/UHF as the entry is an artifact of S25.5. Hundreds of
thousands of us started out on HF. All it takes is a little know-how.

If there were to be only two license classes, my wish would be that the

testing regimen would be more or less what the Extra is now.

But there may be some resistance to that, and it is understandable.
There is no reason not to have an entry level HF license similar to the
General.

But note how the number of Techs has dropped off. W5YI has already made
statements about the Tech being too difficult for an entry-level license - and
that was with the old pool!

I tend toward two license classes, but don't have any strong feelings
against three.

Testing......

The multiple guess format is probably here to stay.

Unfortunately true. FCC is certainly going to insist that any test method have
one and only one correct answer, and be totally independent of examiner
interpretation.

I don't think it is
as bad as some say. Reading the answers in a textbook or reading them in
multiple choice format is all the same to me. It took me a week of
fairly steady study to get ready for the exam. The way they get you to
learn is to have a lot of questions, and only test on a few.

One of the biggest differences between the old and new Tech pools is that the
new one is bigger - almost twice the size.

And as a fairly new Extra, I can say that those answers don't always
show up in the same abcd order as they do in the question pools. So you
really do have to know an answer.

You only have to know the *right* answer...

I would like to see the tests a little more in depth (note I don't say
harder) with more operation questions. Perhaps even a post-test booklet
with good operating procedures. I really needed this after passing my
general. I had some small HF experience from contesting with the club,
but contesting etiquette and everyday etiquette are two very different
things.

I'd like to see the test subdivided by subject area so that you could not pass
with, say, less than a certain number of safety questions wrong.

My biggest hope is that we take the time to make a good system, and
not come up with some Byzantine mess.

Agreed, but don't count on it. Look at the last restructuring - took almost 2
years, and the end result was a complete hodgepodge.

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

Even though incentive licensing was reintroduced 35 years ago, the bad feelings
that were created by a system that took away existing hams' operating
privileges continue. They even continue among some hams who were not even
licensed at the time! So demoting anybody will be opposed strongly.

OTOH, automatic upgrades (like the 1998 ARRL idea to give Generals to existing
Novices and Tech Pluses) will be opposed just as strongly by folks who don't
want to see any "giveaways".

That kinda limits any cleanup efforts.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


I would like to see the tests a little more in depth (note I don't say
harder) with more operation questions. Perhaps even a post-test booklet
with good operating procedures. I really needed this after passing my
general. I had some small HF experience from contesting with the club,
but contesting etiquette and everyday etiquette are two very different
things.

My biggest hope is that we take the time to make a good system, and not

come up with some Byzantine mess.

Mike:

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.

I'd also look for them to pre-empt future petitions to increase voice
spectrum by the conversion of the current Novice/tech sub-bands to
include that mode. 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.

The FCC's goal, obviously, is to get as much of the administrative
burden of the ARS licensing system off their backs as possible, so I
look for them to do just that.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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.

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?