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

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper?

No, is it on a web site?.

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

Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"

You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on
that.
What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should
happen to
the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, et al;

Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals.

I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are
looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC)
has certainly stirred the pot.

Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator"
entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs
some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that
would lay out the rules for Communicator license. I have always felt
memorizing
band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed
over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a frequency
chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for
his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is
provided. Other basic questions probably should require some
recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.)

If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you
can find it:

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

One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the
free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake
in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me at
all
if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with
regard
to privileges vs requirements. The other two alternatives a
(1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track
record on that as we saw in 1968) or
(2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and
wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants
for enforcement and rules simplification.

Further commentary ad discussion welcome.

And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon
of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper?

No, is it on a web site?.

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

Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"

You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on
that.
What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should
happen to
the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, et al;

Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals.

I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are
looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC)
has certainly stirred the pot.

Agreed - but not in the best way, IMHO.

Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator"
entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs
some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that
would lay out the rules for Communicator license.

If anything needs to be a part of the test, it's the rules and regs.

I have always felt
memorizing
band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed
over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a frequency
chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for
his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is
provided. Other basic questions probably should require some
recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.)

Power levels, modes allowed, knowing you can't cuss or jam others, etc.

I think there is some sort of legal precedent that if something isn't in the
test syllabus, a licensed violator may have an out wrt prosecution.

If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you
can find it:

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

One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the
free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake
in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me at
all
if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with
regard
to privileges vs requirements.

Free upgrades have a lot of downsides. For example, suppose that a tech gets a
free upgrade to General without ever taking Element 3 or its equivalent.
Doesn't that prove that Element 3 contains nothing that is essential for
General class privileges? Couldn't somebody claim that requiring new hams to
pass Element 3 (or 4) but not requiring existing hams to do the same is
discriminatory?

The other two alternatives a
(1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track
record on that as we saw in 1968) or
(2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and
wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants
for enforcement and rules simplification.

I don't see what the problem is with (2). FCC has kept three "cul de sac"
license classes active for almost 4 years now (Tech Plus/Novice/Advanced) with
no real problems. They're just entries in a database.

And FCC turned down ARRL's idea of free General upgrades for existing Novices
and Tech Pluses.

Further commentary ad discussion welcome.

And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon
of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate.

AGREED!

There's also the part about the "no homebrew no voltages over 30" for the
Communicator. Not good ideas at all - nor are they realistic.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
link.net...

One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the
free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake
in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me
at
all
if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with
regard
to privileges vs requirements. The other two alternatives a
(1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track
record on that as we saw in 1968) or
(2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and
wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants
for enforcement and rules simplification.


But with the fact that the renewals are pretty much automated, there is very
little burden on the FCC as it is. So why bother with changing the existing
over to whatever new ones they come up with. Regardless of what they do
about the code, the current three tier license system seems quite
appropriate as is. I got my Extra under the 5 level system and even then I
thought three would be the most appropriate. The current Tech, General, and
Extra seem about right to me and also seem about right if the system should
go codeless. Tech covers a decent range of the basics for someone to get
started for a wide range of amateur activities. General is well within the
reach of anyone with a only a moderate amount of effort. Naturally Extra
should require a significant "extra" effort.

As far as enforcement being complicated by tracking the old Novice &
Advanced in addition to the current three classes, it really doesn't seem to
be much of a problem. If you read the published FCC enforcement letters,
you see almost none of them going to Novice or Advanced licensees. That's
probably because the majority of the Novice licensees are inactive while the
Advanced category doesn't contain as many licensees as the others.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper?

No, is it on a web site?.

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

Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"

You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on
that.
What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should
happen to
the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, et al;

Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals.

I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are
looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC)
has certainly stirred the pot.

Agreed - but not in the best way, IMHO.

Are you saying discussion or stawman proposals are bad???

Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator"
entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs
some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that
would lay out the rules for Communicator license.

If anything needs to be a part of the test, it's the rules and regs.

I agree...to a point as noted below.

I have always felt
memorizing
band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed
over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a
frequency
chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for
his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is
provided. Other basic questions probably should require some
recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.)

Power levels, modes allowed, knowing you can't cuss or jam others, etc.

I think there is some sort of legal precedent that if something isn't in
the
test syllabus, a licensed violator may have an out wrt prosecution.

No such legal precedent..rather, just the opposite...to wit,
ignorance of the lasw is not a valid defense to a violation charge.

If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you
can find it:

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

One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the
free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake
in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me
at
all
if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with
regard
to privileges vs requirements.

Free upgrades have a lot of downsides. For example, suppose that a tech
gets a
free upgrade to General without ever taking Element 3 or its equivalent.
Doesn't that prove that Element 3 contains nothing that is essential for
General class privileges?

It proves nothing that definitive.

Couldn't somebody claim that requiring new hams to
pass Element 3 (or 4) but not requiring existing hams to do the same is
discriminatory?

Someone can claim anything they want.

The other two alternatives a
(1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track
record on that as we saw in 1968) or
(2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and
wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants
for enforcement and rules simplification.

I don't see what the problem is with (2). FCC has kept three "cul de sac"
license classes active for almost 4 years now (Tech Plus/Novice/Advanced)
with
no real problems. They're just entries in a database.

They are more than just database entries. They also have specific
privileges which
differentiate them from the "lower" level licenses. IF the FCC granted
identical
privileges to Advanced rather than doing a "free upgrade" of Advanced to
Extra,
THEN the old licenses would be just a database differentiator.

And FCC turned down ARRL's idea of free General upgrades for existing
Novices
and Tech Pluses.

The FCC once was looking for a consensus of hams before it would
entertain dropping code speeds.

Further commentary ad discussion welcome.

And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon
of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate.

AGREED!

There's also the part about the "no homebrew no voltages over 30" for the
Communicator. Not good ideas at all - nor are they realistic.

They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual
"homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

(Avery Fineman) wrote in message ...

It proposes HF access after taking a 20 question quiz that is passable
by an "average" 6th grader.

There is NO age restriction in US amateur radio. Sixth graders are
12 years old. The youngest hams were only 6 years old.

No thanks to a certain "radio engineering professional" who TRIED
to lobby the FCC into setting one despite 80+ years of successful and
productive licensure of children.

Well, if you are "married" to your hobby, I'm sure you would be
insulted one way or the other by allowing others to intrude on
your very private domain.

But why should THAT matter to YOU, Lennie...?!?! You've
certainly made no bones about invading the "private domain" of others
for decades with no intention of using the front door.

"Morse will probably retain most of it’s exclusive band segments, at
least for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time. This
may change in the future."

I give them half a point for being half honest - whoops, maybe only a
quarter point for being only half right! Just how many "exclusive band
segments" are there for Morse? Which is telling me that as soon as they
have their way with getting the qualifications reduced for HF access,
they will be going after getting the narrowband segments opened up for
SSB. and if that isn't what they mean to do, why would they put that in
the piece?

Have your ears and eyes checked again. There are NO black
helicopters of conspirators waiting to attack old, cherished values.

And the only two "CW exclusive" segments are at 6 and 2 meters.
Funny how all the No Code proponents holler about how CW is employed
on HF, a part of the spectrum they have no privileges, yet there's not
been ONE attempt to have those two segements on 6 and 2 "re-farmed".

You tell us, mighty keeper of the private domain that only belongs
to old-values, anal retentive long-timers.

Nice example of "civil debate", Lennster.

Someone who make a statement like this has no place throwing out the
gratuitous insults they make towards those who believe that the Morse
tests should be retained. It is plain stupid, can't sugar coat that one!

Tsk, tsk, tsk...how dare those 20 WPM code-tested Extras
insult all you Extra-Lites, right?

Why insult "Extra-lites", who have passed the PRESENT licensure
structure to get there, when we have an UNlicensed creep like you to
kick around, Putzmaster?

Have you been in another universe for a decade? In HERE, there
was a MIGHTY HUE & CRY about age restrictions proposed by
someone in 1999! CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!! cried the multitude!

No, we can't.

The system has worked well the way it's been for 80
years...Unless YOU know of some secret government plot to hide all
those pre-pubescent offenders from us?

If a 6-year-old can pass an Extra exam, they are QUALIFIED!
That's been said by the multitude in here, too.

Duuuuuh....Maybe because it's TRUE, Lennie...?!?!

Really rubs your hide to know there are pre-teens with more
access to the electromagnetic spectrum than you, Eh, "Mr. Radio
Professional"...?!?!

Maybe we can get one of them to let you on the air...but
remember, THEY will be supervising YOU, so BE-HAVE!

159-year-old morse code hasn't "turned on" many new folks...

And you know this from WHAT practical experience in the Amateur
Radio Service, Lennie?

Why don't you go argue with Broose, the "Extra-Lite CB-plusser?"

As much as it chaps MY hide to say it, at least Bruce TOOK the
test, Lennie...

You have WHAT class of AMATEUR license...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

Lennie whinned and cried:

If a 6-year-old can pass an Extra exam, they are QUALIFIED!
That's been said by the multitude in here, too.


Duuuuuh....Maybe because it's TRUE, Lennie...?!?!

It really gets under Lennieboy's skin that a 6 year old can pass the
test and he, a so self professed professional in electronics, can't.

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

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

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper?

No, is it on a web site?.

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

Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"

You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on
that.
What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should
happen to
the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, et al;

Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals.

I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are
looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC)
has certainly stirred the pot.

Agreed - but not in the best way, IMHO.

Are you saying discussion or stawman proposals are bad???

No!

I'm saying that some of the proposal's ideas (not talking about the code test -
that's old news!) are not the best way to reach the desired results.

Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator"
entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs
some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that
would lay out the rules for Communicator license.

If anything needs to be a part of the test, it's the rules and regs.

I agree...to a point as noted below.

I have always felt
memorizing
band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed
over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a
frequency
chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for
his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is
provided. Other basic questions probably should require some
recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.)

Power levels, modes allowed, knowing you can't cuss or jam others, etc.

I think there is some sort of legal precedent that if something isn't in
the
test syllabus, a licensed violator may have an out wrt prosecution.

No such legal precedent..rather, just the opposite...to wit,
ignorance of the lasw is not a valid defense to a violation charge.

My point is that if the govt. grants licenses that require tests, it makes
sense that the rules for that license be on the test.

If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you
can find it:

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

One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the
free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake
in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me
at
all
if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with
regard
to privileges vs requirements.

Free upgrades have a lot of downsides. For example, suppose that a tech
gets a
free upgrade to General without ever taking Element 3 or its equivalent.
Doesn't that prove that Element 3 contains nothing that is essential for
General class privileges?

It proves nothing that definitive.

See below.

Couldn't somebody claim that requiring new hams to
pass Element 3 (or 4) but not requiring existing hams to do the same is
discriminatory?

Someone can claim anything they want.

Consider this:

Prospective ham reads about the upcoming changes. Reads that on Date X, all
Techs will get free upgrade to General. Crams for Tech and takes it a day or
two before Date X. Passes Tech, gets General as a freebie. Is that fair? Does
said newbie really have General class qualifications?

The other two alternatives a
(1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track
record on that as we saw in 1968) or
(2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and
wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants
for enforcement and rules simplification.

I don't see what the problem is with (2). FCC has kept three "cul de sac"
license classes active for almost 4 years now (Tech Plus/Novice/Advanced)
with
no real problems. They're just entries in a database.

They are more than just database entries. They also have specific
privileges which
differentiate them from the "lower" level licenses. IF the FCC granted
identical
privileges to Advanced rather than doing a "free upgrade" of Advanced to
Extra,
THEN the old licenses would be just a database differentiator.

Only difference is a few lines of rules - particularly the difference between
Advanced and Extra.

And FCC turned down ARRL's idea of free General upgrades for existing
Novices
and Tech Pluses.

The FCC once was looking for a consensus of hams before it would
entertain dropping code speeds.

But that wasn't the issue - ARRL proposed 5 wpm for General, so all Tech Pluses
and Novices met that already. The sticking point was the written testing.

Further commentary ad discussion welcome.

And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon
of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate.

AGREED!

There's also the part about the "no homebrew no voltages over 30" for the
Communicator. Not good ideas at all - nor are they realistic.

They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual
"homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen?

I've seen plenty! ;-)

The "no voltages over 30" means no line-powered rigs, no antenna tuners.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , JJ
writes:

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

Lennie whinned and cried:

If a 6-year-old can pass an Extra exam, they are QUALIFIED!
That's been said by the multitude in here, too.


Duuuuuh....Maybe because it's TRUE, Lennie...?!?!

It really gets under Lennieboy's skin that a 6 year old can pass the
test and he, a so self professed professional in electronics, can't.

Remember the old saying "can't means won't"?

To my knowledge, no 6 year old has passed the Extra.

A 6 year old being homeschooled at the first-grade level passed the General
recently.

Several years back, befoe restructuring, an 8 year old in 3rd grade passed the
Extra - all 5 written tests and 20 wpm code. I have worked that amateur a few
times on CW - excellent operator.

And this isn't a new phenomenon. Way back in 1948, before there was a Novice or
Technician level license, a 9 year old passed the old Class B exam at the
Philadelphia FCC office. That exam required 13 wpm receiving and sending, plus
a written test that was not from a public pool that required essay-type answers
as well as multiple choice, and the drawing of schematic and block diagrams.

On the last page of his voluminous reply comments to the restructuring NPRM
back in 1999, Len requested that the FCC enact a minimum age requirement of 14
years for any class of amateur license. When challenged, however, he could not
give a single example of on-air violations by licensed radio amateurs under the
age of 14.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper?

No, is it on a web site?.

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

Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"

You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree
on
that.
What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what
should
happen to
the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, et al;

Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals.

I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks
are
looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC)
has certainly stirred the pot.

Agreed - but not in the best way, IMHO.

Are you saying discussion or stawman proposals are bad???

No!

I'm saying that some of the proposal's ideas (not talking about the code
test -
that's old news!) are not the best way to reach the desired results.

Hence the discussion and, I presume, you'll
offer better alternatives?

Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator"
entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs
some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that
would lay out the rules for Communicator license.

If anything needs to be a part of the test, it's the rules and regs.

I agree...to a point as noted below.

I have always felt
memorizing
band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have
changed
over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a
frequency
chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for
his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart
is
provided. Other basic questions probably should require some
recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.)

Power levels, modes allowed, knowing you can't cuss or jam others, etc.

I think there is some sort of legal precedent that if something isn't
in
the
test syllabus, a licensed violator may have an out wrt prosecution.

No such legal precedent..rather, just the opposite...to wit,
ignorance of the lasw is not a valid defense to a violation charge.

My point is that if the govt. grants licenses that require tests, it makes
sense that the rules for that license be on the test.

I agree, but I don't much worry about memorizing band edges which
I believe should be readily available in anyone's shack. If you asked me
where the phne segment starts on 15 meters I have no idea,
but I can and would look it up before operatng phone on 15.
Even the band edges change over time as we saw with 80M novice
segment some years back.

If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you
can find it:

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

One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the
free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake
in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother
me
at all
if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense
with
regard
to privileges vs requirements.

Free upgrades have a lot of downsides. For example, suppose that a tech
gets a
free upgrade to General without ever taking Element 3 or its
equivalent.
Doesn't that prove that Element 3 contains nothing that is essential
for
General class privileges?

It proves nothing that definitive.

See below.

Couldn't somebody claim that requiring new hams to
pass Element 3 (or 4) but not requiring existing hams to do the same is
discriminatory?

Someone can claim anything they want.

Consider this:

Prospective ham reads about the upcoming changes. Reads that on Date X,
all
Techs will get free upgrade to General. Crams for Tech and takes it a day
or
two before Date X. Passes Tech, gets General as a freebie. Is that fair?
Does
said newbie really have General class qualifications?

Is it fair? Depends on your outlook. As to qualifications, I have
said all along that most license privileges bear little or no
relavence to what the license tests for.

The other two alternatives a
(1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track
record on that as we saw in 1968) or
(2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and
wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants
for enforcement and rules simplification.

I don't see what the problem is with (2). FCC has kept three "cul de
sac"
license classes active for almost 4 years now (Tech
Plus/Novice/Advanced)
with
no real problems. They're just entries in a database.

They are more than just database entries. They also have specific
privileges which
differentiate them from the "lower" level licenses. IF the FCC granted
identical
privileges to Advanced rather than doing a "free upgrade" of Advanced to
Extra,
THEN the old licenses would be just a database differentiator.

Only difference is a few lines of rules - particularly the difference
between
Advanced and Extra.

But then there's enforcement, etc. What you are
actually saying now is that an Advanced can operate as an Extra today and
never
expect to be called to task for operating in the Extra segments.

And FCC turned down ARRL's idea of free General upgrades for existing
Novices and Tech Pluses.

The FCC once was looking for a consensus of hams before it would
entertain dropping code speeds.

But that wasn't the issue - ARRL proposed 5 wpm for General, so all Tech
Pluses
and Novices met that already. The sticking point was the written testing.

My point is that what was decided could or could not change. It
depends on the end goal and the FCC's considerations.

Further commentary ad discussion welcome.

And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon
of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate.

AGREED!

There's also the part about the "no homebrew no voltages over 30" for
the
Communicator. Not good ideas at all - nor are they realistic.

They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual
"homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen?

I've seen plenty! ;-)

The "no voltages over 30" means no line-powered rigs, no antenna
tuners.....

Most folks use a 12 volt DC supply anyhow. Interesting point, however,
since anyone (ham/nonham) is allowed today to build there
own DC supply powered from 120 v AC. Perhaps the NO homebrew
would be limited to transmitters only.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote


They may be more realistic then we may think. How many actual
"homebrew" Novice or Tech rigs have you seen?


Realistic? Surreal-istic is more like it!

This is the same mantra sung by NCI's ex Executive Director,
W5YI, and his fingerprints are all over this thing. He has
stated publicly that he feels that since people
who acquire entry level ham tickets invariably purchase their
equipment assembled these days, and send them in for
repairs when broken, they no longer need to possess the
knowledge needed to build good "home-brew" stations, nor
the knowledge to determine if their repairs/adjustments result
in proper on-the-air signals. Because of this fact, he thinks that
the majority of questions regarding math and theory (knowledge
mainly needed to build/repair/adjust equipment) should
be removed from entry level tests, and simply replaced with
questions on operating technique and regulations. If he had
his way, math and theory questions would only be part of
Amateur Extra examinations.

While I can't remember the last "fully homebrew" shack I saw (probably KG6AIG
back in the 60's, and even Luis had *some* commercial test equipment items lying
about), it is extremely uncommon to find a shack where every item is commercial
(or in it's original commercial state.) Homebrewing and modification to
commercial designs is especially alive and well in the QRP, contesting,
satelite, and microwave communities.

The QCAO (Quarter Century Appliance Operators club) and ASSOOBA (Amalgamated
Simple Shacks On Our Belt Association) would love it, but this idea would put
our service on an immediate slide into nothing more than another consumer
orientated Family Radio Service, and the consequent abolishment of Amateur
Radio.

The *single* unique element which differentiates our service from all the other
radio services is our authority to experiment, build, modify, and generally
tinker around and operate equipment which is not type accepted. The "technical"
aspect of our hobby comprises 3 of the 5 reasons (paragraph 97.1) for the
existence of the ARS, and removal of this requirement for licensing would tear
the heart and soul out of the hobby.

If amateurs were to be licensed without any requirement for electronics
knowledge, then it follows that type acceptance of all amateur equipment would
be a requirement for sale. Used equipment, if sold to "no-Tech" amateurs would
need to be recertified and "mod-free", and repairs could only be accomplished by
FCC-approved service facilities. The cost of new equipment would rise to
commercial-service price levels, because of type-acceptance issues, and most
vendors would probably leave the market.

Sorry, but you guys are out to lunch with this cockeyed notion.

Code-Free, then Tech-Free .... what next, license free? CU on eleven, good
buddy.

73, de Hans, K0HB