Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:

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


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?


Jim, you're talking to a post.

I don't think so at all, Dick. K2UNK is one of the most interesting
folks to discuss things with here.

Bill and I are simply having a discussion. We disagree with each other
but there is mutual respect and civility on both sides. He's not
convinced by my arguments and I'm not convinced by his reassurances,
but I'm quite sure he read what I had to say and considered it
carefully.

Frankly, I hope Bill is right and I'm wrong on this, and that we don't
ever have to contend with folks wanting to drastically reduce written
testing.

NCI thinks they've got what they want
now and their heads are firmly buried in the sand to any issue beyond
killing off the code test.

That's the whole purpose of that organization - and we're promised
that it will simply cease to function in the USA if/when there's no
more code test.

When Bill or Carl or Ed or Jon write something here, I take it to be
their own personal view, not that of NCI (in the case of Bill or Carl)
or ARRL (in the case of Ed or Jon) *unless* they specifically state
"NCI policy is..."

Nothing will dull their premature euphoria.

The fat lady ain't sung yet.

So now we'll see if the adage "be careful what you ask for" will apply.

Who knows? My concern, however, is still the same:

What reasonable, rational arguments can we make to counter the above
logic (against more-than-the-barest-minimum-written-tests)?

Because I still think that sooner, rather than later, that issue will
come up. And we better be ready for it.

Everyone should read that KL7CC paper on the AL7FS website. Note what
it says about the writtens. Heck, the author is one of the top guys at
NCVEC, helping make their policy, and he says in public that he
couldn't pass the current *written* exam for the Extra without some
serious book study!

--

Who of us here was a ham before November 22, 1968? Let's see - there's
N2EY, W0EX, K2UNK, W3RV, K0HB, W4NTI, AA2QA. Apologies to anyone I
missed.

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?

What say, folks?

73 de Jim, N2EY

(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.

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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

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

(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.

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

73, de Hans, K0HB

"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

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

"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

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