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

Of course - as usual.

But with the addy-tood that paper exhibits, I wonder how receptive the
"Gang" will be...

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.

Your opinion noted but there's a couple of other sides to it.

I think a BIG reason all that bandedge stuff has been in the writtens
for so long is that once-upon-a-time some hams had a problem staying
inside the bands. And if you look at the enforcement letters, some
still do.

But the *big* problem with the "should be readily available in
anyone's shack" idea is that if you accept that idea for band edge
rules, why not for other rules as well? Say, the power limit on
various bands, or who can be a control operator, etc. Why shouldn't
"I'll just look it up when I need to know that" be good enough for
*any* FCC rule, if it's good enough for band edges?

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.

I say it's inherently uunfair - but worse, if FCC did it, they'd be
saying there was nothing in the General test that a Tech really needed
to know in order to have General privileges. Bad precedent.

As to qualifications, I have
said all along that most license privileges bear little or no
relavence to what the license tests for.

Then why test for those things?

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.

Not at all!

I'm saying that except for those few parts of 4 HF bands, some vanity
callsign privs and some VE stuff, there's nothing that an Extra can do
that an Advanced can't. Extras don't get more power, or more modes, or
more bands - just some more kHz. Except for enforcing those few kHz,
it's not much work for FCC. When's the last time an Advanced was cited
for operating in the Extra subbands?

There's no question pools for those license classes anymore and no
administration of exams for them, so no work for VEs and VECs.

All existing Advanceds have had almost 4 years to upgrade without any
more code testing. Yet the number of Advanceds has dropped by only
about 16% in that time - and at least half of that drop is
expirations.

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.

Agreed.

My point is that there's no pressing need to make the "dead end"
license classes disappear. The KL7CC paper talks like it's a major
problem, but I can't see how that's true.

Tech Plus will simply disappear in (at most) 6 years, 5 months and 11
days even if no rules at all are changed, because FCC has been
renewing all Tech Pluses as Techs. And at the rate the number of
Novices is declining, they'll probably be gone by then too.

The "end goal" should be a better license structure.

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.

Then why legislate it?

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.

Again, why legislate it?

Consider - anyone can build their own receiver, too. In the vacuum
tube era, voltages of several hundred were common in receivers. So
were AC-DC supplies, voltage doublers, etc. So under those proposed
rules, it would be OK for a ham to have an old hot-chassis AC-DC rx
like the Hallicrafters S-38B, or a homebrew receiver on an open
chassis with hundreds of volts B+ - but not a manufactured rig with 50
volts on the transistor finals...

Doesn't make any sense.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

"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!

I assume you've read the KL7CC paper, Hans

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.

Bingo.

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.

Or not replaced by anything.

If he had
his way, math and theory questions would only be part of
Amateur Extra examinations.

If at all.

While I can't remember the last "fully homebrew" shack I saw

I can. It's downstairs.... ;-)

Actually, it's not 100% homebrew - some nonhomebrew test gear, a little
surplus, and of course the K2. And I didn't build any of the telegraph keys.

But the main rig, power supplies, antenna tuner, antenna, table, shelves,
cables and control system are all homebrew. You and 366 others worked this
station during SS.

(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.

'zactly. Also kits and semi-kits.

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.

There's also the widespread use of Morse code for communications purposes....

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.

(devil's advocate mode=ON)

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

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.

Not at all. Just certification that a design was sound. Canada has this
already, and so does the UK.

How many rigs made in the past 20 years would not qualify for certification?

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.

Doesn't all new equipment have to be certified anyway?

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

(devil's advocate mode=OFF)

On that we are agreed 100%

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

One of the proposed ideas for the "Communicator" license is to remove most of
the "radio law" questions from the test and instead simply require that
applicants certify that they have a copy of Part 97, read and understand it.
Where'd they get that idea?

You watch, Hans - those of us who resist these ideas will be called "elitist"
and "stuck in the past" etc.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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.

Hans

N2EY wrote:

You watch, Hans - those of us who resist these ideas will be called "elitist"
and "stuck in the past" etc.

Aren't we already?

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.

Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

Of course I read it. But rather than fixate on it, I dismissed it as
unworkable and without sufficient weight to gain any traction.

73, de Hans, K0HB

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.


Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing
that point up.

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 -

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

Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

Of course I read it.

OK

But rather than fixate on it, I dismissed it as
unworkable and without sufficient weight to gain any traction.

I hope you're right about that, and that the FCC agrees with you.
Otherwise we could have quite a bit of a pool-pah to deal with.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote

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!

The paper is a self-admitted strawman, for Christ's sake!!!! Have you read
it?

Here is a direct quote: "It is intended as a way to help fellow Amateur
Radio operators understand some of the thought processes that led
us to where we are today. It is not a statement of the way things will
end up, but rather it is simply a plan, subject to change and
improvement. It is, in a word, someplace to start."

If that isn't the classic definition of a strawman then I don't know what
is!

73, de Hans, K0HB

"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.

I have to agree with Hans on this. I have asked Jim privately to please
stop harping on the argument that the written tests are equally invalid
as the Morse tests (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 ...)

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



Apparently you didn't read the KL7CC paper, Hans.

I thought he did. I think what he wants you to do is to quit bringing
that point up.

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" ... 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.

Let's just stop advertising something we don't want to sell - there will
be plenty of time to comment vigorously against it if the FCC ever were
to lend any credence to such a proposal.

73,
Carl - wk3c