"N2EY" wrote

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'....

Somebody is always hollering 'discrimination' --- BFD. Life's a bitch, and
then you die and they give all your toys away.

It's clear that you don't like my "up or out" proposal, and it's clear that
I'll not persuade you to like it, and it's **really** certain that you'll
not persuade me to change it. Now all we're left doing is picking the fly
**** out of the pepper pot. I don't play that non-productive game. Have a
nice day.

73, de Hans, K0HB

N2EY Wrote:

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.

And I count that as one of largest mistakes the FCC ever made, even worse
than dis-incentive licensing in 1968.

In my mind the non-renewable nature of the Novice license was the very
reason ham radio still survives today. People were given an almost-free
pass into the hobby, and they flocked in by the droves. If they liked it,
they were forced to qualify for a real license or hit the bricks. I know
that notion spins you up big time, something about "we can't afford to lose
them", but frankly my dear, we never had them in the first place if they
couldn't manage to take the next baby step up to
General/Conditional/Technician. (When Technician meant "technician", not
"beginner".)

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

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'....

Somebody is always hollering 'discrimination' --- BFD. Life's a bitch, and
then you die and they give all your toys away.

Sometimes they're right to holler it, too.

It's clear that you don't like my "up or out" proposal, and it's clear that
I'll not persuade you to like it, and it's **really** certain that you'll
not persuade me to change it.

Doesn't matter whether I like it or not. I got my Extra 33 years ago and there
hasn't been a day since then that I couldn't pass the required tests to get
another one if that were required.

I'm actually trying to help you refine it, Hans. Because the problem isn't hams
like me, who would gladly retest every coupla years just to show we still got
it. The problem is how you're gonna sell the idea to FCC and the rest of the
ARS.

Have a
nice day.

You too, Hans. And think about sending that proposal to FCC for an RM number.
Who knows - it might gain widespread support and I'd be dead wrong about it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

N2EY Wrote:

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.

And I count that as one of largest mistakes the FCC ever made, even worse
than dis-incentive licensing in 1968.

How were the changes in 1968 a "dis-incentive"?

In my mind the non-renewable nature of the Novice license was the very
reason ham radio still survives today.

How so? That feature went away a quarter century ago.

People were given an almost-free
pass into the hobby, and they flocked in by the droves.

So 5 wpm code is an "almost-free pass"? I agree! ;-)

oh wait - back in those days we had to send *and* receive....

Plus a 25 question written that was mostly about the regs.

As for the droves, back in those days the number of Novices was about
15,000-18,000 per year.

If they liked it,
they were forced to qualify for a real license or hit the bricks.

You mean the Novice wasn't a real license? If so, then those Novices weren't
real hams?

I know
that notion spins you up big time, something about "we can't afford to lose
them", but frankly my dear, we never had them in the first place if they
couldn't manage to take the next baby step up to
General/Conditional/Technician. (When Technician meant "technician", not
"beginner".)

I had one of those 2 year one-shot Novices. I got my Advanced (ahem) less than
a year after passing the Novice. I was 14. Yer preachin' to the choir, Hans.

But ya still haven't told us how to sell your idea to the FCC and the rest of
the ARS.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.

Understood.

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.

All depends what's going on in those 10 years.

I know plenty of hams who were quite active until something significant
happened in their lives like military service, a major illness in the family,
marriage, divorce, children, relocation, new career, etc. Then, in accordance
with "The Amateur Is Balanced", they put amateur radio on hold for anywhere
from months to decades. Then, when their lives permitted, they came back in a
big way. A few let their licenses lapse, but most kept renewing and modifying.

Case in point: Amateur licensed in high school, got a bachelor's degree, worked
a year or two, then decided to become a doctor. For the next 7 years his life
was med school/residency/fellowship. Not a lot of time in there for ham radio,
but he had an HT and kept in touch. And now he's an M.D. and hamming in a big
way.

His 10 years as a ham hit somewhere towards the end of medical school. Under
today's rules, he just renewed and kept on going. Under your proposal, he would
have lost his license and had to go all the way to Extra in one go if he ever
wanted to be a ham again.

Is that really what's best for the ARS?

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

Same deal here, AFAIK. So why not the same deal for hams?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

You mean the Novice wasn't a real license? If so, then those Novices
weren't
real hams?

Leading question noted. And dismissed without response.


But ya still haven't told us how to sell your idea to the FCC and the rest
of
the ARS.

Since you've expressed nothing but disdain for the idea, you wouldn't sell
it to the FCC even if I told you how, so the best advice I can give you is
"hide and watch".

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote

Doesn't matter whether I like it or not.

Correct.

I got my Extra 33 years ago

Didn't know we were running a seniority contest here, but if we are you lose
by 7 years.

...and there hasn't been a day since then that I couldn't pass
the required tests to get another one if that were required.

The point being? I'd expect that's true of most licensees.

I'm actually trying to help you refine it, Hans.

It's already refined, thank you very much.

The problem is how you're gonna sell the idea to FCC and the rest of the
ARS.

At least it's a problem in **your** mind, but you don't count. The FCC
counts.

And think about sending that proposal to FCC for an RM number.
Who knows - it might gain widespread support and I'd be dead wrong about
it.

You are dead wrong about it, and it doesn't need "widespread support", just
the support of FCC.

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
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.

I think they mean it.

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.

Just ask Carl or Bill.



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.

In a recent post where I pointed out that Len wants amateur radio to
essentially become a multiband high power version of cb, he denied wanting no
license at all. Then he railed about multiple license classes. Logical
conclusion (if one can ever apply logic to his posts here) is that he wants one
class of license.

Look up the post - couple days ago, aimed at me, something about needing
multiple classes of license for egos or some tripe like that.


"Testing for the Amateur Radio Service is...(snip)

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:

Put it away before the wrong person reads it and takes it seriously!

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.

Yep.

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.

Mike Powell is one of them.

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

To some people it's not ridiculous. Look how many books Ann Coulter and Rush
Limbaugh have sold....

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

boo...hissss....


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!

There ya go!

No test to use a computer....

Perhaps I should have said "fight successfully"

We'll sure try.

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.

Because they didn't think it needed to be replaced with anything.

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

A committee of NCVEC.

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.

In the words of the great Flip Wilson (as Geraldine Jones):

"the DEVIL made me do it!"

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.

And at worst, possible.

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

If you want to make people hate you, cause them to think....

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.

Might be already. The trend is in place - has been for a long time.

I've been working up a response to
the KL7CC paper.


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

When I get it done I'll send it to KL7CC and post it here.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:


(One "L" in the name)

Oops, Sorry Jim. But what about Jim Miccollis?

He'd probably agree with me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"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.

Understood.

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.

All depends what's going on in those 10 years.

I know plenty of hams who were quite active until something significant
happened in their lives like military service, a major illness in the
family,
marriage, divorce, children, relocation, new career, etc. Then, in
accordance
with "The Amateur Is Balanced", they put amateur radio on hold for
anywhere
from months to decades. Then, when their lives permitted, they came back
in a
big way. A few let their licenses lapse, but most kept renewing and
modifying.

You can put me in that catagory from about 1961 until 1990 or so. I always
renewed the license, sometimes subscribed and/or bought CG or QST, but
was not on the air at all.

Case in point: Amateur licensed in high school, got a bachelor's degree,
worked
a year or two, then decided to become a doctor. For the next 7 years his
life
was med school/residency/fellowship. Not a lot of time in there for ham
radio,
but he had an HT and kept in touch. And now he's an M.D. and hamming in a
big
way.

His 10 years as a ham hit somewhere towards the end of medical school.
Under
today's rules, he just renewed and kept on going. Under your proposal, he
would
have lost his license and had to go all the way to Extra in one go if he
ever
wanted to be a ham again.

Is that really what's best for the ARS?

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

Same deal here, AFAIK. So why not the same deal for hams?

Works for me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK