"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote


That's a good question, but it really isn't the point.


Actually it wasn't a very good question at all. In fact, I'm not sure
it was even a question, but more a feeble attempt to troll, so I
checked my Troll-O-Meter, and it didn't even budge up off the pin.
Since Mike Coslo is an avid Morse Code operator like me, I expected a
much better reading on the meter. Sigh...... truly disappointing.

Jim has--anyone has--the perfect right to say whatever they'd
like.

Bingo! Good answer, Kim! You nailed it dead on! And I have every
right to tell Jim that he resembles a flea-bitten stray dog with three
legs and one blind eye dragging around a 15-days-dead roadkilled stray
cat and growling and posturing and acting as if he has uncovered
something dangerous.

73, de Hans, K0HB


Well, yes. Yes, you do Hans. But it's not that that I am pondering upon.
It is that someone made a remark about "shutting up." That is what I am
pondering upon...

Kim W5TIT

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

In article .net,

"KØHB"

writes:

"N2EY" wrote

But...but Hans....are you saying that all that theory stuff should be
"shoved down the throats" of hams who will never use it?

What the hell is it with you, Jim????? Halloween is over. Drag this
worn-out old strawman out to the curb with the trash. You sound like a
broken record.

Note that Hans avoids my question.

I have to agree with Hans on this.

You're avoiding my question too, Carl. Why is that?

I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests

That's NOT what I've said at all! You're twisting my words into something
completely different.

Neither test is "invalid". Opinions vary on how necessary certain tests are,
however.

I'm saying that the same arguments can be used - and will be used - by some
against both tests. The process is already started - see KL7CC's comments
on the recent petitions.

(I know he's playing devil's advocate, but something
that's repeated often enough sometimes catches on and I don't want to
see Jim end up being the best salesman for something that I know he
doesn't want to see any more than I do ...)

So you're just asking me to shut up. Is that what we have to look for in
the amateur radio of the 21st century?

That is how I read it also. You (we) are being told to just keep quiet,
and that if we say anything, it will be our fault if the things we are
warning about come to pass.

To which I would ask Carl and Hans:

Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of
something unless Jim Miccollis says it?

Nothing ever stands still. If the political currents happen to make the
entrance requirements for getting into the ARS easier, do those currents
stop once the original goal is met?

Face it, the people who want drastically reduced entrance requirements
or no requirements at all are a subset of those who want no Morse code
testing. Can you deny that?

Did you ask KL7CC and the other authors of that paper to shut up?

Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...

I've never seen you guys more eager to get someone to be quiet about
something.
Tell it to W5YI. Oh, no, Fred's sacred - no one must criticize Fred - he's
the Maximum Leader.

Or KL7CC.

And his views do not reflect those of NCI...yeah, I know.

No, they do not.

NCI's mission in the USA is to get rid of Element 1, nothing else. If/when FCC
dumps all code testing in the USA, NCI will cease to function in the USA.

That mission is demonstrated by NCI's petition, which asks FCC to drop all code
testing as a requirement, merge Tech and Tech Plus, and....nothing else.

Why isn't he, if not asked to shut up, at least be asked to provide a
disclaimer. Instead, all we get is that his views do not reflect, yadayada.

Fred et al ain't on rrap.

If you guys have an answer that simply quashes the KL7CC paper's bad ideas,
why are you so afraid?

ahem....

You didn't ask Hans to shut up with his 2 license class proposal.

nope....

Hans' proposal is nothing like what's in the KL7CC paper. But Hans' proposal
has at least one major problem: forced upgrading.

I doubt FCC would ever again enact a ham license that wasn't renewable. They
dumped that feature of the old Novice more than a quarter century ago.

But even if FCC *did* make the entry-level class nonrenewable, it wouldn't stay
that way.

You didn't ask Len to shut up with his age-requirement nonsense.

nope....

Len wants just one class of license.

You haven't asked KL7CC et al to shut up with their bad ideas.

nope....

Only me. Interesting.

Do you want to know why Jim? What you are saying is:

T H E T R U T H

And that makes some people very very uncomfortable.

I hear Hans telling you about his losing respect for you. I hear Carl
setting you up for taking the blame when the FCC starts seriously
looking at massive reductions in knowledge needed to get a license.

And how's this for getting the great unwashed worked up?:

"Testing for the Amateur Radio Service is an anachronism, a relic of
previous days of left wing Socialist ideas. Much of the regulatory
morass that such thinking has inflicted on us has already been swept
aside, witness the great success with deregulation in the broadcast
bands. It is time we complete the process, and eliminate such regressive
policies in the rest of the radio spectrum." This will truly turn the
Amateur bands into the..............

Who the heck wrote *that*?? Not me! Not Hans or Carl, either!

Where's it from??

You think THAT wouldn't sell with some people in power? Another chance
to diss the hated regulators.

Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing
requirement be radically reduced?

It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their
credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman!
- Mike KB3EIA -

The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented
service"

Right. Now what the heck does that actually mean? How does it somehow prove
the
need for multiple license classes and written tests such as we have now?
Why
can't hams be left free to choose what parts of amateur radio to pursue?

Here is what I think it means (to some):

I know people who think that they are "high tech" because they use a
cell phone. Or a computer. Or a GPS reciever. They might not be able to
explain how any of those things work, but by just using them, they
consider themselves high tech. I never asked, but I would be that they
would take one look at my IC-745 with it's 30 some buttons and knobs,
and conclude that just knowing how to operate it was a major bit of
"primarily a technically oriented service"

They oughta try to use the Southgate Type 7....

Oh-Oh! A percon of average intelligence could indeed learn to operate my
rig if they read the manual. NO test required!

No test to use a computer....

... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of
traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others
fighting that one.

How will we fight it? Saying amateur radio is primarily a technical service
doesn't prove anything more than the old "trained pool or operators"
mantra.

We won't be able to fight it, will we?

Sure we will - the question is how? That's what I want to know, so we're ready.


How on earth can Pro-Coders fight
it when we lost the last war against the arguments presented by the No
Coders, and how are the No-Coders going to fight against the same
arguments that they had once used so successfully?

My questions exactly.

Has taking and passing all those written exams caused anyone to decide to
build
a radio or be "more technical" than they would have been otherwise?

Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell -

Sounds to me like you're afraid that there are plenty of folks out there
who will *agree* with KL7CC.....

No doubt there ARE plenty.

I hope there aren't. I don't see how my discussing a paper that is already in
the public domain on a website is going to change people's minds to agree with
said paper.

But Jim, I think you are just being set up to
take the blame here. Once the movement has gained momentum, it will just
be one more thing to blame upon those arrogant "Pro-coders".

And it can be said that they were told to be quiet....

there will
be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were
to lend any credence to such a proposal.

It's probably already too late.

I don't see what else there is to say. I've been working up a response to the
KL7CC paper.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Hans' proposal is nothing like what's in the KL7CC paper. But Hans'
proposal
has at least one major problem: forced upgrading.

Is forced upgrading a "major problem"? The Novice license is widely
acknowledged to have been the best licensing idea the FCC ever had. It
admitted people to the hobby with a sort of "learner permit" in which they
could learn some skills and meet other experienced hams "on the air". It
expired after one year and was not renewable. If it had any fault, it was
that it tended to isolate newcomers into little "ghettos" mostly frequented
by other newcomers.

My "learner permit" is different than the old Novice license in 4 ways:

1) Rather than isolate the newcomers into narrow little band segments
crowded with mostly other newcomers, it gives them expanded privileges
on all bands.

2) Rather than expiring in 1 year, it would expire after 10 years, giving
them more time to "gain their wings".

3) Power would be limited to 50 watts (in line with prevailing RF exposure
doctrine.)

What "major problem" lies in that? (Give me **your**version of the problem,
not what you think the FCC version of the problem would be.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Hans' proposal is nothing like what's in the KL7CC paper. But Hans'
proposal has at least one major problem: forced upgrading.

Is forced upgrading a "major problem"?

It was for the old Novice.

The Novice license is widely
acknowledged to have been the best licensing idea the FCC ever had.

Wasn't FCC's idea, but that's beside the point.

If it was such a great idea, why was it closed to new license issues in 2000?

It
admitted people to the hobby with a sort of "learner permit" in which they
could learn some skills and meet other experienced hams "on the air". It
expired after one year and was not renewable.

Only from 1951 to 1967. And not only was it nonrenewable, it was
"nonretakeable" - one Novice license to a customer, and if you'd ever had any
class of ham license before, you couldn't have a Novice.

In 1967, the Novice went to 2 years, nonrenewable, still "nonretakeable". The
reason given back then was "too many dropouts"

In the early-to-mid 1970s, the Novice went through a period of quick changes.
First, the FCC allowed folks who had been unlicensed for at least a year to get
a Novice, regardless of prior licensure. This meant a ham could be a Novice
forever - two years on, one year off, new callsign and license each time. Again
the reason given was "too many dropouts".

Then the one-year-unlicensed requirement was dropped. And the reason given
was...

Finally the Novice was made 5 years renewable, like all the other license
classes of the time. That was more than a quarter century ago.

If it had any fault, it was
that it tended to isolate newcomers into little "ghettos" mostly frequented
by other newcomers.

The reasons for the limited privileges we

- to simplify the "ideal" Novice station. 75 watts, xtal control, 3 HF bands CW
only meant that almost anybody could have a half-decent station that wasn't
much worse than anybody else's. High point was reached with Heathkit's $100
HW-16 "shack in a box" that needed only a key, speaker, xtals and antenna.

- to encourage homebrewing/tinkering (what a concept). Lot of newbies built
their own rigs, either from scratch (ahem) or simple kits.

- to minimize the chances of Novices straying outside the ham bands. Thus the
xtals. This was not well-thought-out by FCC, because while the xtal requirement
kept Novices inside the bands on the fundamentals, the harmonics fell outside
the bands. Also required a different xtal for each band.

- to keep the level of activity high. Novices could count on other Novices
being on the air on nearby frequencies almost 24/7.

My "learner permit" is different than the old Novice license in 4 ways:

1) Rather than isolate the newcomers into narrow little band segments
crowded with mostly other newcomers, it gives them expanded privileges
on all bands.

I thought it gave them all privileges on all modes on all bands - just limited
power.

The old Novice license got higher power and VFO control in the '70s, too. More
bands and modes in the '80s. Didn't help much.

2) Rather than expiring in 1 year, it would expire after 10 years, giving
them more time to "gain their wings".

Sure. And that's the problem. See below.

3) Power would be limited to 50 watts (in line with prevailing RF exposure
doctrine.)

Not many non-QRP rigs out there limited to 50 watts out. Would it be acceptable
to simply reduce the power level on a 100 W rig?

What "major problem" lies in that? (Give me **your**version of the problem,
not what you think the FCC version of the problem would be.)

First off, the FCC *is* an issue, because there are some things they simply
won't enact. IMHO, they won't enact a nonrenewable nonretakeable ham license.

Second, you're pretty vague about the test requirements. How much test for each
license? How many questions, and from what pools? If the entry license is kept
simple and easy, then the step to Extra is gonna be a *big* one.

But that's not what you asked.

Let's say your idea catches on and the FCC enacts it pretty much as you
propose. And let's say the learner's permit (LP) license is popular, because it
gives lotsa choices for just a simple written test.

Some folks will upgrade, of course. Some will drop out. The problem will be
with the third group - those who are active hams but who are satisfied with
their "LP" licenses. If the jump from "LP" to Extra is not trivial, and
requires some real learning (just like the old Novice-to-General written jump
did), you're gonna have active hams forced off the air at the end of their 10
year terms because they just won't be able to pass the Extra written. Or they
won't try, or they can't get to a VE session, yada yada yada.

And the cry will arise: "why are active hams with clean records being forced
off the air?" Then you'll see history repeat itself, as the "LP" license
becomes renewable, just like the old Novice, to avoid losing those hams.

Since the only difference between your two proposed classes is the power level,
there will be quite logical arguments that such a system forces hams who don't
want to run high power to "jump through a written test hoop" to gain privilges
they have no intention of using. That's gonna be a tough argument to defeat.

Then there's the whole issue of the conversion of existing ham licenses to the
two new classes. How many will drop out rather than take the test?

Just my opinion. But it's based on historical fact and long-term trends.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Let's say your idea catches on and the FCC enacts it pretty much as you
propose. And let's say the learner's permit (LP) license is popular,
because it
gives lotsa choices for just a simple written test.

Some folks will upgrade, of course. Some will drop out. The problem will
be
with the third group - those who are active hams but who are satisfied
with
their "LP" licenses. If the jump from "LP" to Extra is not trivial, and
requires some real learning (just like the old Novice-to-General written
jump
did), you're gonna have active hams forced off the air at the end of their
10
year terms because they just won't be able to pass the Extra written. Or
they
won't try, or they can't get to a VE session, yada yada yada.

This is precisely why I suggest a 10-year term. Right from the get-go,
these new hams know that they have 10 years to prepare to "re-enlist", and
that it will require some real learning. If they can't cut it after a
10-year apprenticeship, then they weren't meant to be hams. The FCC didn't
"stick to their guns" on the original Novice concept, and I lay that at the
feet of the "entitlement" mentality of the 60s-70s.

And the cry will arise: "why are active hams with clean records being
forced
off the air?" Then you'll see history repeat itself, as the "LP" license
becomes renewable, just like the old Novice, to avoid losing those hams.

This will sound cold, and the IOoDHW (International Order of Dismayed Hand
Wringers) will convene a special session to condemn me, but who really CARES
if we lose those learners-permit holders.

Since the only difference between your two proposed classes
is the power level, there will be quite logical arguments that such
a system forces hams who don't want to run high power to "jump
through a written test hoop" to gain privilges they have no intention
of using.

Sorry Jim, but you're waving the same old roadkill again.

Then there's the whole issue of the conversion of existing ham licenses to
the
two new classes. How many will drop out rather than take the test?

Read my proposal again, Jim. You'll see how I've completely avoided that
problem.

As a closing note....... I really don't have a problem with a high dropout
rate among newcomers. I'd be happy to see a million people "have a look at
ham radio" and if just 20% stick around, well so be it. That would give us
200,000 new qualified hams. To the 800,000 who left, I say "I hope you had
a good time, and it's been nice meeting you. Sorry this ham radio thing
wasn't your bag." They're not "bad people" or "quitters" --- they just
don't have the same interest in hobbies that you and I do.

73, de Hans, K0HB

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo

That is how I read it also. You (we) are being told to just keep quiet,
and that if we say anything, it will be our fault if the things we are
warning about come to pass.

To which I would ask Carl and Hans:

Do you really think people are so stupid that they won't think of
something unless Jim Miccollis says it?

And I was always told that there is no such thing as a stupid question!
Good thing I was set straight on this! ;^)



Nothing ever stands still. If the political currents happen to make the
entrance requirements for getting into the ARS easier, do those currents
stop once the original goal is met?

Face it, the people who want drastically reduced entrance requirements
or no requirements at all are a subset of those who want no Morse code
testing. Can you deny that?

Did you ask KL7CC and the other authors of that paper to shut up?


Jim, please listen to Hans if you won't listen to me ...



I've never seen you guys more eager to get someone to be quiet about
something.
Tell it to W5YI. Oh, no, Fred's sacred - no one must criticize Fred - he's
the Maximum Leader.


Or KL7CC.

And his views do not reflect those of NCI...yeah, I know.


No, they do not.

NCI's mission in the USA is to get rid of Element 1, nothing else. If/when FCC
dumps all code testing in the USA, NCI will cease to function in the USA.

So I've heard. We shall see. Organizations have a way of morphing, and
are notoriously resistant to organizational self dissolving.

That mission is demonstrated by NCI's petition, which asks FCC to drop all code
testing as a requirement, merge Tech and Tech Plus, and....nothing else.

Why isn't he, if not asked to shut up, at least be asked to provide a
disclaimer. Instead, all we get is that his views do not reflect, yadayada.


Fred et al ain't on rrap.

True enough Jim. Remember I was replying to your rhetorical question
with another one!



If you guys have an answer that simply quashes the KL7CC paper's bad ideas,
why are you so afraid?

ahem....


You didn't ask Hans to shut up with his 2 license class proposal.

nope....


Hans' proposal is nothing like what's in the KL7CC paper. But Hans' proposal
has at least one major problem: forced upgrading.

I doubt FCC would ever again enact a ham license that wasn't renewable. They
dumped that feature of the old Novice more than a quarter century ago.

But even if FCC *did* make the entry-level class nonrenewable, it wouldn't stay
that way.

You didn't ask Len to shut up with his age-requirement nonsense.

nope....


Len wants just one class of license.

From what I can gather, I'm not so sure he wants any license, or at
least the equivalent of that.



You haven't asked KL7CC et al to shut up with their bad ideas.

nope....


Only me. Interesting.

Do you want to know why Jim? What you are saying is:


T H E T R U T H

And that makes some people very very uncomfortable.

I hear Hans telling you about his losing respect for you. I hear Carl
setting you up for taking the blame when the FCC starts seriously
looking at massive reductions in knowledge needed to get a license.

And how's this for getting the great unwashed worked up?:

"Testing for the Amateur Radio Service is an anachronism, a relic of
previous days of left wing Socialist ideas. Much of the regulatory
morass that such thinking has inflicted on us has already been swept
aside, witness the great success with deregulation in the broadcast
bands. It is time we complete the process, and eliminate such regressive
policies in the rest of the radio spectrum." This will truly turn the
Amateur bands into the..............


Who the heck wrote *that*?? Not me! Not Hans or Carl, either!

Where's it from??

That is something that I came up with while I was typing out the reply.
It has a number of qualities that would appeal to some people that are
in power now:

It speaks to lowering or elimination of regulations. This is a very big
thing with some people. It relates itself to the "The government that
governs best governs least" worldview.

It speaks to the continuance of a process that has been going on for a
few years now where less constraints have been put on radio
broadcasters. A disaster IMO, but to some a great thing. I'm talking
about relaxation of broadcaster regs, leading to outfits like Clear
channel owning all the radio stations in town. But as I say, there are
plenty who would think that this would be good.

Spin city, IOW. It is ridiculous, but ridiculous can sell big sometimes.



You think THAT wouldn't sell with some people in power? Another chance
to diss the hated regulators.



Is it a strawman when there is a paper,suggesting that the testing
requirement be radically reduced?



It's there, the proposal has been made, and the authors rely on their
credentials, despite protestations to the contrary. Some strawman!

- Mike KB3EIA -

The FCC has determined the ARS to be "primarily a technically oriented
service"



Right. Now what the heck does that actually mean? How does it somehow prove
the
need for multiple license classes and written tests such as we have now?
Why
can't hams be left free to choose what parts of amateur radio to pursue?

Here is what I think it means (to some):

I know people who think that they are "high tech" because they use a
cell phone. Or a computer. Or a GPS reciever. They might not be able to
explain how any of those things work, but by just using them, they
consider themselves high tech. I never asked, but I would be that they
would take one look at my IC-745 with it's 30 some buttons and knobs,
and conclude that just knowing how to operate it was a major bit of
"primarily a technically oriented service"


They oughta try to use the Southgate Type 7....


Oh-Oh! A percon of average intelligence could indeed learn to operate my
rig if they read the manual. NO test required!


No test to use a computer....

... I really don't see ANY "no theory" proposal getting a lot of
traction there ... and I will be right in there with Jim and most others
fighting that one.

How will we fight it? Saying amateur radio is primarily a technical service
doesn't prove anything more than the old "trained pool or operators"
mantra.

We won't be able to fight it, will we?


Sure we will - the question is how? That's what I want to know, so we're ready.


Perhaps I should have said "fight successfully"


How on earth can Pro-Coders fight
it when we lost the last war against the arguments presented by the No
Coders, and how are the No-Coders going to fight against the same
arguments that they had once used so successfully?


My questions exactly.

And that leads us back to a question I posed a while back. Why didn't
the peolpe who were officially agitating for the elimination of the
Morse code test have some simultaneous proposals to fill the vacuum that
would be created when the requirement went away?. It's called
responsibillity.

And here we DO have some people with some ideas, who ARE making
proposals. Who are they?

Has taking and passing all those written exams caused anyone to decide to
build
a radio or be "more technical" than they would have been otherwise?


Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell -



Sounds to me like you're afraid that there are plenty of folks out there
who will *agree* with KL7CC.....


No doubt there ARE plenty.


I hope there aren't. I don't see how my discussing a paper that is already in
the public domain on a website is going to change people's minds to agree with
said paper.

Of course it doesn't. The whole concept of your devil's advocacy
serving as the seed for a no-test movement is at best amusing.

More likely you are making some people feel very uncomfortable.
Certainly my questions make some people unconfortable.


But Jim, I think you are just being set up to
take the blame here. Once the movement has gained momentum, it will just
be one more thing to blame upon those arrogant "Pro-coders".


And it can be said that they were told to be quiet....

And that and 50 cents will get you a down payment on a cup of coffee.
It will be much too late by that time.


there will
be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were
to lend any credence to such a proposal.



It's probably already too late.

I don't see what else there is to say. I've been working up a response to the
KL7CC paper.


I'll be happy to publish said paper on the web.

- Mike KB3EIA -

--
ô¿ô 73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Help support youth involved in Amateur Radio.
http://www.mnyarc.org
http://www.k0bsa.org
"N2EY" wrote

In the early-to-mid 1970s, the Novice went through a period of quick
changes.
First, the FCC allowed folks who had been unlicensed for at least a year
to get
a Novice, regardless of prior licensure. This meant a ham could be a
Novice
forever - two years on, one year off, new callsign and license each time.
Again
the reason given was "too many dropouts".

See my other post about "too many dropouts".

Then the one-year-unlicensed requirement was dropped. And the reason given
was...

Finally the Novice was made 5 years renewable, like all the other license
classes of the time. That was more than a quarter century ago.

You're right, Jim, it was more than a quarter century ago. And over a
quarter century ago FCC thought that 13 and 20 WPM code tests were a good
idea, and a no-code license was a bad idea. Seems FCC no longer holds those
views, so I think we can safely ignore your argument about what they thought
back then on this matter also.

Do YOU think learners permits ought to be renewable beyond 10 years?

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
--
ô¿ô 73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Help support youth involved in Amateur Radio.
http://www.mnyarc.org
http://www.k0bsa.org
"N2EY" wrote

In the early-to-mid 1970s, the Novice went through a period of quick
changes.
First, the FCC allowed folks who had been unlicensed for at least a year
to get
a Novice, regardless of prior licensure. This meant a ham could be a
Novice
forever - two years on, one year off, new callsign and license each time.
Again
the reason given was "too many dropouts".

See my other post about "too many dropouts".

Will do.

Then the one-year-unlicensed requirement was dropped. And the reason given
was...

Finally the Novice was made 5 years renewable, like all the other license
classes of the time. That was more than a quarter century ago.

You're right, Jim, it was more than a quarter century ago. And over a
quarter century ago FCC thought that 13 and 20 WPM code tests were a good
idea, and a no-code license was a bad idea.

And a lot of other things, like secret tests given by FCC examiners,
extreme limits on vanity calls and repeaters, yada yada yada.

Seems FCC no longer holds those
views, so I think we can safely ignore your argument about what they thought
back then on this matter also.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is to note that since that time, FCC has
consistently made it *easier* and *more convenient* to get and keep an
amateur radio license - of *any* class. As long as said changes mean
less work for FCC, that is.

That's been a consistent policy from then to now. Forced upgrading
would go against that tide.

One thing I'm not clear on, though. If an LP reached the end of the 10
years but couldn't pass the upgrade test, could they take the LP test
and get another 10 years (as with driver's license LPs) or is it
one-LP-to-a-customer, as the old Novice was?

Do YOU think learners permits ought to be renewable beyond 10 years?

I think *all* amateur licenses are essentially "permits to learn". And
I think *all* classes of amateur license should be renewable. Just my
opinion.

If your proposed LP is going to allow all authorized modes on all
authorized freqs from 1.8 MHz on up, it's going to need a rather
considerable written test, doncha think? The power limit removes the
need for lots of RF exposure and other safety questions, and the VE
stuff, but what about almost all the rest?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

One thing I'm not clear on, though. If an LP reached the end of the 10
years but couldn't pass the upgrade test, could they take the LP test
and get another 10 years (as with driver's license LPs) or is it
one-LP-to-a-customer, as the old Novice was?

One to a customer. If you can't "get it" in 10 years, then you probably
aren't going to be able to "get it" in 20 or 30 years.

BTW, drivers license permits are not renewable here, although you can retest
for a new one.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

Let's say your idea catches on and the FCC enacts it pretty much as you
propose. And let's say the learner's permit (LP) license is popular,
because it
gives lotsa choices for just a simple written test.

Some folks will upgrade, of course. Some will drop out. The problem will
be
with the third group - those who are active hams but who are satisfied
with
their "LP" licenses. If the jump from "LP" to Extra is not trivial, and
requires some real learning (just like the old Novice-to-General written
jump
did), you're gonna have active hams forced off the air at the end of their
10
year terms because they just won't be able to pass the Extra written. Or
they
won't try, or they can't get to a VE session, yada yada yada.

This is precisely why I suggest a 10-year term. Right from the get-go,
these new hams know that they have 10 years to prepare to "re-enlist", and
that it will require some real learning.

OK, fine. No surprises.

If they can't cut it after a
10-year apprenticeship, then they weren't meant to be hams.

Try to sell *that* to the amateur community (including the FCC)!!

The FCC didn't
"stick to their guns" on the original Novice concept, and I lay that at the
feet of the "entitlement" mentality of the 60s-70s.

I think you're just toying with us, Hans...;-)

FCC "stuck to their guns" for almost 25 years with the "no renewal, no
retake" Novice.

As for "entitlement mentality of the 60s-70s", those were the times
that gave us incentive licensing and significantly raised the
requirements (both code and written) for a full-privs license. In fact
the written requirements were raised more than the code....

But that's all ancient history. The main question is how you're gonna
sell the "up or out" concept to FCC and the amateur community.


And the cry will arise: "why are active hams with clean records being
forced
off the air?" Then you'll see history repeat itself, as the "LP" license
becomes renewable, just like the old Novice, to avoid losing those hams.

This will sound cold, and the IOoDHW (International Order of Dismayed Hand
Wringers) will convene a special session to condemn me, but who really CARES
if we lose those learners-permit holders.

Those who don't want to see them leave the air and the ARS will care.
And if there are enough of them, they may simply outvote everyone
else.

Since the only difference between your two proposed classes
is the power level, there will be quite logical arguments that such
a system forces hams who don't want to run high power to "jump
through a written test hoop" to gain privilges they have no intention
of using.

Sorry Jim, but you're waving the same old roadkill again.

How is that argument not valid?

Then there's the whole issue of the conversion of existing ham licenses to
the
two new classes. How many will drop out rather than take the test?

Read my proposal again, Jim. You'll see how I've completely avoided that
problem.

I did and you did. Which means FCC will have to keep the existing
database going. It also sets up the unique situation where a new ham
faces a challenge/requirement that no existing ham has to face.
Somebody may holler 'discrimination'....

As a closing note....... I really don't have a problem with a high dropout
rate among newcomers. I'd be happy to see a million people "have a look at
ham radio" and if just 20% stick around, well so be it. That would give us
200,000 new qualified hams. To the 800,000 who left, I say "I hope you had
a good time, and it's been nice meeting you. Sorry this ham radio thing
wasn't your bag." They're not "bad people" or "quitters" --- they just
don't have the same interest in hobbies that you and I do.

OK, fine. The problem is, how you gonna get those million people to
take the look? We've had an easy-to-get nocodetest ham license for
12-1/2 years now, the old Novice for half a century, and we've gotten
maybe 30,000 new hams per year tops. (check AH0A stats on new
licenses).

In ten years that works out to maybe 300,000 "taking a look", not
1,000,000. If your 20% rate is correct, we'll see drastic reductions
in the size of the ARS in the USA 10 years down the road as LPs
expire. Is that a good thing?

Most of all, how you gonna sell the idea to the FCC and the rest of
ham radio?

Perhaps you should send the ideas directly to FCC and see if you can
get an RM number for it. I know you used it in a comment, but why not
go for the RM? One more on top of the existing 14 won't hurt anything.

73 de Jim, N2EY