"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*)
debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met
with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or
called
for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

Yet no one has apparently made that pitch,

Actually, some folks have made similar pitches.

Some time back, QCWA petitioned FCC to give full privs to all hams who
held
General and Advanced licenses before Nov. 22, 1968 (the effective date of
the
first phase of "incentive licensing". Hans, K0HB, has twice officially
proposed
a simplified two-class system. The NCVEC folks are thinking of proposing
changes that go far beyond dumping Element 1 (see:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/

Second item in the Table of Contents.

and no
one is petitioning to end written tests either.

As I wrote elsewhere, some written testing is needed to insure hams know
the
rules, including safety precautions. What I'm talking about is the whole
concept of multiple license levels and "jump through the hoop" written
tests as
a "hazing ritual" for more privileges.

Bottom
line, the requirement for some technical knowledge is
coupled to the freedom ALL US hams have to build,
modify and/or repair their own equipment...even if they
never want to. The knowledge is expected to help
hams stay within tolerences and signal characteristics
allowed because failing to do so can/will lead to
interference.

Of course! That's why the written tests cannot be totally eliminated. As I
have
written elsewhere.

BUT (and it's a very big but), FCC says that almost all of the technical
knowledge a ham needs to know is already adequately tested by the 35
question
Technician test. That conclusion is inescapable from the fact that Techs
are
allowed to use all authorized amateur modes, frequencies, power levels and
technologies above 30 MHz.

The only technical knowledge things that may not be adequately tested on
the
Tech written are some HF specific items of propagation, and some
regulations.

There's nothing inherently different about a 6 meter rig and a 10 meter
rig, is
there? In fact, many modern rigs cover all ham bands from 160 through VHF!
Why
is a Technician licensee qualified to design/build/repair/align/modify and
most
of all operate a 6 meter rig but not a 15 meter rig - particularly when
it's
the same rig?

Actually, when you think about it...ANYONE is allowed to design, build,
repair,
align and/or modify ham equipment...it is ONLY the "operate" part that
ultimately requires the license.

Look at the FCC enforcement logs. Problems due to technical incompetence
are
very few in the ARS, and those that do happen are not clustered on any
particular license class.

So why do we need all that written testing beyond Tech?

Jim, you keep bringing up what you believe are analogies
to the ode test issue and I'm not gonna play anymore. the
argument(s) fail to convince the FCC and I don't see you
making them to the FCC either. If and when someone attempts to petiton
for the changes you suggest are analogous...then I'll argue further.

Morse knowledge, on the other hand,
has no potential for harming others, causing interference,
etc.

And that's a good thing! One more reason to learn the skills! ;-)

But we're not talking about Morse. We're talking about written testing
beyond
the minimum needed to insure safe, legal operation of an amateur station.

You are talking about it, I'm done playing. No reason to do
so.

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process. People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be
progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code
testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely
interrelated
concepts.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests. Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Or how about this rebuttal:

Those who want technical knowhow in amateur radio are either unwilling
to expend
the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give
the
theory a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently
unwilling to
take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue
to
seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive
"recruiting program" for them ...

--

Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?


Jim,

If/when someone floats an RM to end written testing, then
I'll be one of the first in opposition.

It's already been done - see the QCWA petition. See the NCVEC thinkpiece
linked
to, above. See Hans' proposal.

Waiting for an RM may be too late. Look at what happened with
restructuring -
FCC proposed 4 classes of license but enacted 3. They proposed improved
written
exams but instead cut back both the number and size of the written tests.

To be clear - I support a multi-level license structure and *better*
written
tests at all levels - code test or no code test. But that's just my
opinion.

The question remains - how can proposals like Hans' be refuted, other than
"I
don't like it?"

What can be said in response to "You just want all hams to take a lot of
written tests because *you* had to take a lot of written tests"

When I see something that looks like an NPRM, I'll comment.

For today, the code test
is not, IMHO, in any way comparable.

That's not the issue I'm talking about.

We'll just have to
agree to disagree on that because I ain't gonna waste any more
time arguing hypotheticals when those arguments aren't
even being made to the FCC.

But they are being made to FCC, as shown above. What reasonable, rational
arguments can we make to counter the above logic?

Until the FCC makes a propsed rulmaking using any of that as a
basis, its a waste of time.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article et, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

I wonder how many of you realise that when you are operating Single Sideband
Suppressed Carrier you are on Amplitude Modulation ??

Dan/W4NTI

I wonder how many of you in here realize that you are messaging
not with AM, FM, or PM but rather BM when you openly troll so?

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable.

True.

Now explain why hams know how to use "other modes" when there isn't
a profeciency test to MAKE them do it in the first place.

Clint

Some forgot where they put their microphones.

Brian, I think some of them forgot where they put their minds...

LHA

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

snip

1906 - (December 24 & 31) Christmas Eve broadcast of both recorded and
live music and voice from Massachusetts. Signals heard all over North
Atlantic and coastal areas. Inland as far as New York State. Broadcast
*repeated* New Year's Eve.

Quit misdirecting with olde tyme raddio lore.

Come up with the way anyone can make a spark transmitter
amplitude modulated for intelligible voice or music communication...
using a microphone in the antenna circuit of a 1 KW transmitter.

Come up with the way a spark transmitter suddenly turns into
an Alexanderson Alternator whenever it is brought up in an amateur
radio newsgroup.

Come up with the engineering expertise that proves a McGraw-Hill
periodical was "in error" in 1980.

No luck on that one, now...you are into the Twilight Zone.

LHA

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*)
debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met
with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called
for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

I don't mean to come across as condescending, but your attempts
to equate Morse testing's irrelevance to the written tests in an effort
to support continued Morse testing is something I'm getting tired of.
And I'm not going to play that game.

Otherwise, 73,
Carl - wk3c

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better

It doesnt matter what you think, the writtens are going to be Dumbed Down
Further.

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

(old stuff removed)

(N2EY wrote:)
Why
is a Technician licensee qualified to design/build/repair/align/modify and
most
of all operate a 6 meter rig but not a 15 meter rig - particularly when
it's the same rig?

Actually, when you think about it...ANYONE is allowed to design, build,
repair,
align and/or modify ham equipment...it is ONLY the "operate" part that
ultimately requires the license.

Excellent point! However, in the interests of strict correctness, note that
equipment which is manufactured for sale has to meet certain certification
requirements which licensed hams ar exempt from. In the case of RF power
amplifiers, a licensed amateur can homebrew things no manufacturer can legally
sell.

Look at the FCC enforcement logs. Problems due to technical incompetence
are
very few in the ARS, and those that do happen are not clustered on any
particular license class.

So why do we need all that written testing beyond Tech?

Jim, you keep bringing up what you believe are analogies
to the ode test issue and I'm not gonna play anymore. the
argument(s) fail to convince the FCC and I don't see you
making them to the FCC either. If and when someone attempts to petiton
for the changes you suggest are analogous...then I'll argue further.

The code test issue will be decided by FCC one way or the other, sooner or
later. I'm not worried about it, they'll decide whatever they decide.

My concern is simply that if someone or some group starts using the same
arguments against much of the writtens, they're going to be difficult to
defend.
Reading the KL7CC article, and seeing the recent drop in new Techs that
correlates exactly to the new Tech Q&A pool got me thinking, that's all.

You are talking about it, I'm done playing. No reason to do
so.

OK, fine. As I pointed out to W0EX, we disagree about lots of things.

I hope you are right about it not becoming an issue.

When I see something that looks like an NPRM, I'll comment.

Me too! Hopefully, FCC will agree with us.

Until the FCC makes a propsed rulmaking using any of that as a
basis, its a waste of time.

I do hope you're right

73 de Jim, N2EY

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

Carl, It isn't about you. You know a bit about politics it is obvious.
But you are falling prey to a common malady among politicians.

It isn't about you. You don't support the watering down of the writtens.
That's great, and I agree and support you in that effort 100 percent. I
also support you in your BPL efforts. 100 percent again.

But there are people out there who agree with part of your premise about
the CW test, but not all of it. They don't think that removing the CW
Morse test is enough. They want more. (or less if you wish to look at it
that way) Right now, things are going their way. Maybe not for your
reasons, but they like what they see happening.

The political spectrum is filled with all kinds of people, and what
happens in amateur radio and the world depend on which way the currents
are running. Right now, the currents are simply not running toward a
more technically inclined ARS.

Want to get the Present FCC administration's ears to perk up? Phrase it
in "regulatory" terms. Talk a bit about how modern radio's don't require
the level of regulation that used to be needed for proper operation. I'd
bet that would get them listening. I'm glad you support the continued
testing of ARS candidates. You may need to lend your good name to some
pretty robust efforts to retain the tests soon.

All apologies

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote


Back then, all it took for full privs was 13 wpm code and a ~50
question written test. Has 35 years of incentive licensing made hams
"more technical"? If not, why do we need all those written tests?


Jim,

This old strawman of yours is getting shopworn. Since it's nearly
Halloween, just prop him up next to a pumpkin and see if the children
are impressed when they come for tricks and treats.

Not a strawman, Hans.

What level of written testing would you have if FCC adopts your 2 class
structure?

The purpose of the written test is to determine if an applicant is
qualified to play on our RF playground without hurting themselves or
innocent bystanders, without straying into nearby industrial and
military places, that we know how to share nicely with other players,
and that we recognize practices and conditions which will trash up the
playground.

I agree 100%.

Now, what level of written testing is required to meet that purpose?

And how do we justify any testing or test questions that exceed that purpose?

I invite you to read KL7CC's paper on the AL7FS website and see what NCVEC
thinks about the future - besides code testing.

Take a spin over to AH0A's website and see how the number of new Techs has
dropped since the new Q&A pool was put in place July 15.

Please tell us how we can defend the Extra written test when Generals have the
same bands, modes and power levels.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

snip

1906 - (December 24 & 31) Christmas Eve broadcast of both recorded and
live music and voice from Massachusetts. Signals heard all over North
Atlantic and coastal areas. Inland as far as New York State. Broadcast
*repeated* New Year's Eve.

Quit misdirecting with olde tyme raddio lore.

Quit trying to moderate an unmoderated newsgroup.

Come up with the way anyone can make a spark transmitter
amplitude modulated for intelligible voice or music communication...
using a microphone in the antenna circuit of a 1 KW transmitter.

Why? That's not what Fessenden did.

Come up with the way a spark transmitter suddenly turns into
an Alexanderson Alternator whenever it is brought up in an amateur
radio newsgroup.

That's your game, Len.

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*)
debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met
with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called
for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

That's fine, Carl. You don't have to.

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests.

Neither do I.

I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

Agreed - and we have detailed ways that could be done within the present
system.

I don't mean to come across as condescending, but your attempts
to equate Morse testing's irrelevance to the written tests in an effort
to support continued Morse testing is something I'm getting tired of.

You've got it backwards.

And I'm not going to play that game.

My point is simply this: When someone or some group challenges the *written*
tests - particularly the parts beyond the regulations and safety - how are we
going to defend them from a regulatory point of view? Particularly if they use
the exact same arguments as used against the Morse test?

You and I and many others will say "Those writen tests are relevant and
reasonable". But how can we *prove* it?

Before restructuring, it took 5 written tests totalling 190 questions to get
full privileges. Now it takes 3 writtens totalling 120 questions. Did we lose
anything by that change?

Have you read KL7CC's paper on NCVEC's vision of the future of amateur radio? I
invite you and everyone else to take a look, with particular attention to the
parts other than code testing.

It ain't a pretty vision.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).
[snip]

The political spectrum is filled with all kinds of people, and what
happens in amateur radio and the world depend on which way the currents
are running. Right now, the currents are simply not running toward a
more technically inclined ARS.

That's not what you see if you read the R&O in 98-143 ... the FCC
states that the ARS is "primarily a technical service" ...

Want to get the Present FCC administration's ears to perk up? Phrase it
in "regulatory" terms. Talk a bit about how modern radio's don't require
the level of regulation that used to be needed for proper operation. I'd
bet that would get them listening. I'm glad you support the continued
testing of ARS candidates. You may need to lend your good name to some
pretty robust efforts to retain the tests soon.

I don't think that will fly ... but if someone does toss it up in the air,
I will make every effort to shoot it down.

One thing to remember ... the ITU Radio Regulations require administrations
to verify the technical qualifications of applicants for amateur radio
licenses.
And, there is an ITU-R Recommendation (M.1544) that outlines the things
that amateurs should have a theoretical knowledge of ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

My point is simply this: When someone or some group challenges the
*written*
tests - particularly the parts beyond the regulations and safety - how are
we
going to defend them from a regulatory point of view? Particularly if they
use
the exact same arguments as used against the Morse test?

Simple ... the FCC has determined that the ARS is "primarily a technical
service." Additionally, the ITU Radio Regs require administrations to
determine the technical qualifications of applicants for amateur licenses
and there is an ITU-R Recommendation (M.1544) that outlines the
theoretical knowledge that amateurs should have ... yes it is not strictly
mandatory, but the US and most other administrations do generally
follow the guidance given by ITU Recommendations, even ones that
are not strictly mandatory.

You and I and many others will say "Those writen tests are relevant and
reasonable". But how can we *prove* it?

By citing the facts above ...

Before restructuring, it took 5 written tests totalling 190 questions to
get
full privileges. Now it takes 3 writtens totalling 120 questions. Did we
lose
anything by that change?

There was some consolidation of testing as a result of the smaller number
of classes. I don't see that as a big deal.

As Ed Hare said over dinner when he was down here last ... he remembers
the 3 page study guide he had to work from when he first got on the air.
Now "Now you're talking" is well over 200 pages of material for folks to
study and absorb ... how this is "dumbing down" is beyond me.

Can we put this one to bed now?

73,
Carl - wk3c

Mike Coslo wrote in message .net...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

Carl, It isn't about you. You know a bit about politics it is obvious.
But you are falling prey to a common malady among politicians.

It isn't about you. You don't support the watering down of the writtens.
That's great, and I agree and support you in that effort 100 percent. I
also support you in your BPL efforts. 100 percent again.

But there are people out there who agree with part of your premise about
the CW test, but not all of it. They don't think that removing the CW
Morse test is enough. They want more. (or less if you wish to look at it
that way) Right now, things are going their way. Maybe not for your
reasons, but they like what they see happening.

The political spectrum is filled with all kinds of people, and what
happens in amateur radio and the world depend on which way the currents
are running. Right now, the currents are simply not running toward a
more technically inclined ARS.

Want to get the Present FCC administration's ears to perk up? Phrase it
in "regulatory" terms. Talk a bit about how modern radio's don't require
the level of regulation that used to be needed for proper operation. I'd
bet that would get them listening. I'm glad you support the continued
testing of ARS candidates. You may need to lend your good name to some
pretty robust efforts to retain the tests soon.

Mike,

Thank you for expressing my concerns much better than I could.

Have you read the NCVEC position paper by KL7CC? It's not just about
code testing. It already proposes a drastically easier entry level
license.

Of course *most* hams will not support reductions in written testing.
But will we have a choice if somebody makes a case in, as you say,
*regulatory* terms?

Here's a scenario for ya. Suppose:

At some point in the near future, FCC just dumps Element 1.

There's a surge in upgrades and new hams. Maybe we reach 700,000 - and
maybe we don't.

Then the growth and upgrade numbers drop back to about what they were
before. Maybe they're a little better, but not a lot.

Some folks say it's all due to that $%#^& code test and those %$&*!
old timers, but after a few years the code test is but a memory and
the old timers are fewer every day.

Then some folks - maybe NCVEC - makes noises about the failure rates
of the *writtens*, the burden of taking and administering the tests,
etc. They point out how few hams use homebrew, how few technical (as
opposed to operating) violations occur in the ARS, and question the
"regulatory purpose" of all those writtens.

And the one 'killer' argument they bring to the table is that Techs
have had full power and mode privs above 30 MHz for years and years
with very few technical problems - so what is the regulatory purpose
of much more written testing for full privs below 30 MHz? Sure, some
regs, some propagation - but why all the rest of the stuff?

How will we counter that argument?

Nobody has yet come up with an answer. And as you point out, there
*are* folks who want more - or less.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Now "Now you're talking" is well over 200 pages of material for folks to
study and absorb ... how this is "dumbing down" is beyond me.

Can we put this one to bed now?

73,
Carl - wk3c

I cant wait to hear Karl cry when the next proposal for Dumbing Down comes
out.

Why should 'B' class license holders take a Morse Test, at any speed, to
become a dinosaur like most, not all, 'A' License holders?

We were good enough to pass the RAE Exam!

Those who wish to use Morse can. I have on CAT but, just for the experience
you understand.

Use it by all means but, do not keep those off the air who enjoy Telephony.

The airwaves are for the use of all those qualified.

What would you rather, the frequency used, or lost, because of an outdated
and backward looking 'elite'

RH (G1EZV)

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

My point is simply this: When someone or some group challenges the
*written*
tests - particularly the parts beyond the regulations and safety - how are
we
going to defend them from a regulatory point of view? Particularly if they
use
the exact same arguments as used against the Morse test?

Simple ... the FCC has determined that the ARS is "primarily a technical
service."

OK, fine!

Now what, exactly, does "primarily a technical service" mean wrt testing? You
and I agree that it means hams should know more than "turn the left knob to 6".
But to someone else it could mean that the tests should only be about the most
basic concepts, and that hams should be free to learn as the need arises.

And remember that what seems basic and simple to engineering types like us can
be advanced and complex to other folks.

Additionally, the ITU Radio Regs require administrations to
determine the technical qualifications of applicants for amateur licenses
and there is an ITU-R Recommendation (M.1544) that outlines the
theoretical knowledge that amateurs should have ... yes it is not strictly
mandatory, but the US and most other administrations do generally
follow the guidance given by ITU Recommendations, even ones that
are not strictly mandatory.

That language leaves M-1544 wide open to an enormous variety of
interpretations. And there's a world of difference between "theoretical
knowledge that amateurs should know" and "subjects that must be tested".

You and I and many others will say "Those written tests are relevant and
reasonable". But how can we *prove* it?

By citing the facts above ...

I hope you are right about that. But any lawyer will tell you that it's all
about interpretations. Like that phrase "pool of trained operators".

Before restructuring, it took 5 written tests totalling 190 questions to
get
full privileges. Now it takes 3 writtens totalling 120 questions. Did we
lose
anything by that change?

There was some consolidation of testing as a result of the smaller number
of classes. I don't see that as a big deal.

OK, fine. Now suppose somebody pushes 2 classes and a total of 60 questions. Or
free upgrades for already licensed hams.

As Ed Hare said over dinner when he was down here last ... he remembers
the 3 page study guide he had to work from when he first got on the air.

That study guide shrinks every time Ed tells that story.

What he doesn't tell you is:

- The study guide was for the old Novice, with its extreme restrictions

- He did not count the pages of regulations in the back of the book that were
also required.

- The study guide was simply a guide to what you should expect to be on the
test, not a complete training manual, nor a complete copy of every possible
test question and answer

- That it's not the size of the book but the level of information in it.

- That Ed had quite a bit of radio background before he ever picked up the
guide.

Now "Now you're talking" is well over 200 pages of material for folks to
study and absorb ... how this is "dumbing down" is beyond me.

Simple - the 200 page book is a complete step-by-step guide to all aspects of
ham radio for the newbie, and includes detailed explanations of every single
question in the pool. The study guide was simply an indicator of what would be
on the test.

A more accurate comparison would be to compare "Now You're Talking" with "How
to Become a Radio Amateur" or "Understanding Amateur Radio".

Can we put this one to bed now?

Let's talk actual examples.

How about this idea, if/when code testing is dropped:

1) Tech is replaced by a new entry level license that (call it "Communicator")

2) Communicator allows most of General CW/data and about half of General voice
bands on HF, plus lots of VHF/UHF

3) Communicator power level is below RF exposure limit (100W below 24 MHz, 50 W
above) and there are no RF exposure or safety questions on the test.

4) No regulations questions on the Communicator test - instead, new
Communicators have to sign a statement that they have provided themselves with
a copy of Part 97 and have read and understood the applicable regs for their
license.

5) All existing Novices are reclassed as Communicators, all existing Techs,
regardless of vintage, get free upgrade to General, all existing Advanceds get
free upgrade to Extra.

6) Present Novice subbands - all of them - become more voice/image space.

I'm not the one proposing this.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"R Harrison" wrote in message news:CEfjb.12$Eb
...

What would you rather, the frequency used, or lost, because of an outdated
and backward looking 'elite'

RH (G1EZV)

The PCTA would answer "LOST."

They really don't care.

Brian

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote


What level of written testing would you have if FCC adopts your 2 class
structure?


Two levels.

A beginers level similar to our current Technician examination, with a
modest limit on power, and a non-renewable 10-year term.

A regular level similar to our current Extra examination, with power
levels of 1.5KW as now.


Making the second level license examination equivalent to the current Extra
examination sounds like it would drive people out of ham radio. That's
simply too big a jump to expect people to take in one swallow so to speak
especially since this would affect current Technicians who entered the
licensing program under a system with 3 tiers (or more for those who entered
several years ago). It would also take away privileges from existing Techs
in that they are now receive renewable licenses but would not under that
proposal.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

(old stuff removed)

(N2EY wrote:)
Why
is a Technician licensee qualified to design/build/repair/align/modify
and
most
of all operate a 6 meter rig but not a 15 meter rig - particularly when
it's the same rig?

Actually, when you think about it...ANYONE is allowed to design, build,
repair,
align and/or modify ham equipment...it is ONLY the "operate" part that
ultimately requires the license.

Excellent point! However, in the interests of strict correctness, note
that
equipment which is manufactured for sale has to meet certain certification
requirements which licensed hams ar exempt from. In the case of RF power
amplifiers, a licensed amateur can homebrew things no manufacturer can
legally
sell.

Look at the FCC enforcement logs. Problems due to technical
incompetence
are
very few in the ARS, and those that do happen are not clustered on any
particular license class.

So why do we need all that written testing beyond Tech?

Jim, you keep bringing up what you believe are analogies
to the ode test issue and I'm not gonna play anymore. the
argument(s) fail to convince the FCC and I don't see you
making them to the FCC either. If and when someone attempts to petiton
for the changes you suggest are analogous...then I'll argue further.

The code test issue will be decided by FCC one way or the other, sooner or
later. I'm not worried about it, they'll decide whatever they decide.

My concern is simply that if someone or some group starts using the same
arguments against much of the writtens, they're going to be difficult to
defend.

That is your opinion...I think otherwise. You and I can join forces to
defend writtens...if and when someone does try to end
writtens. Frankly, I don't think it'll happen on my watch.

Reading the KL7CC article, and seeing the recent drop in new Techs that
correlates exactly to the new Tech Q&A pool got me thinking, that's all.

You are talking about it, I'm done playing. No reason to do
so.

OK, fine. As I pointed out to W0EX, we disagree about lots of things.

I hope you are right about it not becoming an issue.

Time will tell.

When I see something that looks like an NPRM, I'll comment.

Me too! Hopefully, FCC will agree with us.

Until the FCC makes a propsed rulmaking using any of that as a
basis, its a waste of time.

I do hope you're right

Works for me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

Carl, It isn't about you. You know a bit about politics it is obvious.
But you are falling prey to a common malady among politicians.

It isn't about you. You don't support the watering down of the writtens.
That's great, and I agree and support you in that effort 100 percent. I
also support you in your BPL efforts. 100 percent again.

But there are people out there who agree with part of your premise about
the CW test, but not all of it. They don't think that removing the CW
Morse test is enough. They want more. (or less if you wish to look at it
that way) Right now, things are going their way. Maybe not for your
reasons, but they like what they see happening.

Just who are those people...the THEY want folks that you think exists.

The political spectrum is filled with all kinds of people, and what
happens in amateur radio and the world depend on which way the currents
are running. Right now, the currents are simply not running toward a
more technically inclined ARS.

Want to get the Present FCC administration's ears to perk up? Phrase it
in "regulatory" terms. Talk a bit about how modern radio's don't require
the level of regulation that used to be needed for proper operation. I'd
bet that would get them listening. I'm glad you support the continued
testing of ARS candidates. You may need to lend your good name to some
pretty robust efforts to retain the tests soon.

All apologies

No apologies needed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

How will we counter that argument?

One approach would be to stop planting it in peoples'
minds numerous times a day ... things that are repeated
often enough sometimes catch on, even if they are BAD
ideas ...

Carl - wk3c

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

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

How will we counter that argument?

One approach would be to stop planting it in peoples'
minds numerous times a day ... things that are repeated
often enough sometimes catch on, even if they are BAD
ideas ...

Carl - wk3c

You mean like "the 5-wpm code exam is a barrier" or "it's a lid filter that
keeps out CBers?" Gee, not only "BAD ideas"...untruths too.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

(old stuff removed)

(N2EY wrote:)
Why
is a Technician licensee qualified to design/build/repair/align/modify
and
most
of all operate a 6 meter rig but not a 15 meter rig - particularly when
it's the same rig?

Actually, when you think about it...ANYONE is allowed to design, build,
repair,
align and/or modify ham equipment...it is ONLY the "operate" part that
ultimately requires the license.

Excellent point! However, in the interests of strict correctness, note
that
equipment which is manufactured for sale has to meet certain certification
requirements which licensed hams ar exempt from. In the case of RF power
amplifiers, a licensed amateur can homebrew things no manufacturer can
legally
sell.

Look at the FCC enforcement logs. Problems due to technical
incompetence
are
very few in the ARS, and those that do happen are not clustered on any
particular license class.

So why do we need all that written testing beyond Tech?

Jim, you keep bringing up what you believe are analogies
to the ode test issue and I'm not gonna play anymore. the
argument(s) fail to convince the FCC and I don't see you
making them to the FCC either. If and when someone attempts to petiton
for the changes you suggest are analogous...then I'll argue further.

The code test issue will be decided by FCC one way or the other, sooner or
later. I'm not worried about it, they'll decide whatever they decide.

My concern is simply that if someone or some group starts using the same
arguments against much of the writtens, they're going to be difficult to
defend.

That is your opinion...I think otherwise.

OK, fine.

You and I can join forces to
defend writtens...if and when someone does try to end
writtens.

An out-and-out removal of the written test would be opposed by almost
everyone, so no one with any sense will suggest that. Not right away,
anyhow.

What I'm talking about is efforts to gradually reduce the level of
written testing. Take a few things out here and reduce the level of a
few other things there, change the testing method a little someplace
else, etc. Not just for entry-level but for all levels.

For example, what would you say to a proposal to remove the
regulations questions from the entry-level exam? No questions on Part
97 - just require each new ham to certify that they have provided
themselves with a copy, have read it, understand it, and will follow
it. Good idea or bad idea?

Frankly, I don't think it'll happen on my watch.

It's already started. See what the NC-VEC leadership has in mind for
the future. The above is just one of their ideas. I think it's a very
bad idea.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Making the second level license examination equivalent to the current Extra
examination sounds like it would drive people out of ham radio.

That depends on how it's done. If a person knows from the start that they have
10 years to get ready for the upgrade, they have a goal and can set a timeline
to meet it.

There's also the possibility (I don't know if Hans' plan would allow this or
not) to allow Beginners to simply take the Beginner test again if they're not
ready to upgrade after 10 years.

That's
simply too big a jump to expect people to take in one swallow so to speak
especially since this would affect current Technicians who entered the
licensing program under a system with 3 tiers (or more for those who entered
several years ago).

That all depends on how the transition is handled.

Perhaps all existing hams would simply get Regulars. Or maybe all existing hams
except Novices.

Or perhaps existing hams would have their existing licenses and privileges
extended/renewed until 10 years after the new system went into effect, putting
everyone on the same timeline for upgrading.

It would also take away privileges from existing Techs
in that they are now receive renewable licenses but would not under that
proposal.

See above - it all depends how the transition is handled.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote

What level of written testing would you have if FCC adopts your 2 class
structure?

Two levels.

A beginers level similar to our current Technician examination, with a
modest limit on power, and a non-renewable 10-year term.

A regular level similar to our current Extra examination, with power
levels of 1.5KW as now.

Thanks for a clear and concise answer, Hans. I can see some merit in this
idea, and some problems too. At first I saw only the problems, but after some
consideration I see the merits too (simplicity, uniform access to bands for all
hams, incentive to upgrade).

A few questions on this idea:

- What happens to existing hams' licenses? Does everybody get a Beginner, or a
Regular, or do some get Beginner and some get Regular?

- If a Beginner isn't ready to pass the Regular exam after 10 years, can he/she
retake the Beginner exam and get a new license? Or do they have to leave ham
radio until they can pass the Regular?

- Can the Regular license test be taken straightaway or is there an experience
requirement of having a Beginner license for a period of time?

Your answers are eagerly anticipated.

I invite you to read KL7CC's paper on the AL7FS website and see what
NCVEC thinks about the future - besides code testing.

I've read it.

Thanks for taking the invitation.

I don't agree with their vision of the future.

Me neither, but whatever they propose will be given serious consideration by
FCC. That's why I think it needs to be discussed, rather than wait for a
proposal or NPRM and then try to fight it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
t...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

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

How will we counter that argument?

One approach would be to stop planting it in peoples'
minds numerous times a day ... things that are repeated
often enough sometimes catch on, even if they are BAD
ideas ...

Carl - wk3c

You mean like "the 5-wpm code exam is a barrier"?

That concept has been agreed in FCC comments by the ARRL,
QCWA, and other organizations besides NCI ... and the IARU
has recognized and resolved that continuation of the Morse test
requirement is not in the best interest of the ARS.


or "it's a lid filter that keeps out CBers?"

That idea was rejected by the FCC both in 1990 and in
1999 ...

Carl - wk3c

That idea was rejected by the FCC both in 1990 and in
1999 ...

Carl - wk3c

So that makes it a FACT, I guess the FCC is never wrong.

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

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
t...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

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

How will we counter that argument?

One approach would be to stop planting it in peoples'
minds numerous times a day ... things that are repeated
often enough sometimes catch on, even if they are BAD
ideas ...

Carl - wk3c

You mean like "the 5-wpm code exam is a barrier"?

That concept has been agreed in FCC comments by the ARRL,
QCWA, and other organizations besides NCI ... and the IARU
has recognized and resolved that continuation of the Morse test
requirement is not in the best interest of the ARS.

Then I'm disagreeing with the ARRL's, QCWA's, and NCI's position re. this
"barrier" concept. As a matter of fact, I offer myself as a living example
to the contrary. I'm neither eligible for the QCWA nor NCI, however, I'm
thankfully in a position where I e-mailed my respective Hudson section
candidates to let them know my postion wrt code testing and that my vote
partially (But in no small part.) depends on their position re. same.

or "it's a lid filter that keeps out CBers?"

It only acts as a filter to those who are unwilling to give it an honest
effort to learn.

That idea was rejected by the FCC both in 1990 and in
1999 ...

However, back in the REAL world...?

Carl - wk3c

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

Making the second level license examination equivalent to the current Extra
examination sounds like it would drive people out of ham radio. That's
simply too big a jump to expect people to take in one swallow so to speak
especially since this would affect current Technicians who entered the
licensing program under a system with 3 tiers (or more for those who entered
several years ago). It would also take away privileges from existing Techs
in that they are now receive renewable licenses but would not under that
proposal.




Dee,

I suspect you have not read my complete proposal. I'll attach a copy
at the end of this. After you read it your concerns should be
addressed. It is actually very accomodating of current hams of all
classes.

At the onset, current Novices and Technicians would have several
options:

1) Within the grace period they could upgrade to General or Extra, and
such license would be renewable indefinitely.
2) They could retain their current license and renew indefinitely.
3) They could take the "Class B" test and gain full access to all
amateur bands at reduced power. (This license would expire after 10
years, so this is eventually an "up or out" choice.)
4) They could take the "Class A" test and gain full access to all
amateur bands at full power.

Current General and Advanced would have these options:

1) Retain their current licenses and renew indefinitely.
2) Within the grace period they could upgrade to Extra.
3) Take the "Class A" test and gain full access to all amateur bands
at full power (functionally equivalent to choice 2).



Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's ) RM-10787
Amateur Service Rules to eliminate )
Morse code testing. )


To: The Commission

PERSONAL COMMENTS OF HANS BRAKOB, K0HB



OVERVIEW

These comments are submitted in response to the petition of
NCVEC which requests elimination of test Element 1 (Morse Code)
from the Amateur Radio service rules.

I. Discussion:

The instant petition requests the elimination of Element 1
(5WPM Morse code test) from the required test for General
and/or Extra Class licenses in the Amateur Radio service.

I find no persuasive argument for continuation of this test,
and support the petition to discontinue testing new applicants
with Element 1.

I am concerned, however, that other elements of the qualification
tests are not adequate to ensure a high level of expertise in
new applicants to the Amateur Radio service, and propose changes
in the licensing structure to ensure that all 5 points of
CFR 47 paragraph 97.1 (Basis and Purpose) are reasonably addressed
in the qualification process.

II Proposal:

I propose that no new applicants be accepted for the current
license classes and that after some reasonable grace period, no
upgrades be available in the current licensing structure.

A. New License Classes:

I propose that new license applications be available
in two classes, namely "Class B" and "Class A".

The "Class B" license would have an entry-level test (basic
regulations, safety, operating procedures, basic DC and AC
electronics). This class would have full frequency and
mode privileges, power limited to 50W output. The license
would be issued for a period of 10 years, and be non-renewable.
Holders of this license would be required to have 2 years
experience as a licensee ("time in grade") before being
eligible to upgrade to "Class A".


The "Class A" license test would be of a difficulty level
similar to the current Extra class test, and would have
full privileges at power levels up to 1500W, equivalent to
current Extra Class license holders. This license
would be issued permanently without requirement for
renewal.

B. Status of current licensees.

Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would
retain their current operating privileges.

Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class
licensees could up grade to "Class A" at any time.

Respectfully submitted,

H. Hans Brakob, K0HB