In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're
really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

I'm still not so hot on the idea.

All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As it stands
right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Were you "average" Jim?

In some things yes, in others no.

I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.

Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is quite
different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere.

Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus and test
should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the
sixth-grade level in order to understand the material".

Next:


Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner’s class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named “Communicator� or
simply left as Technician. Let’s assume it gets the name
“Communicator�. All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay

for

a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.


Exactly!


That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's OK
to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made!

hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)

"They remember a past that never was"

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In
March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for
General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should know
how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake in
the paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the


KL7CC paper)


So, there are no “Morse code haters� on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no “black plan� from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses – what a concept!

and:

A few final words:
There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!

I recycle.

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn’t that be an odd reason for doing what they are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my
license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that for
just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the form,
sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had
renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at all.
They
thought I needed "help".

Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)

Maybe?

snippage

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?


Who, me?

Yeah, you!!

More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"?

more snippage

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he
or she had read and understood part 97.

I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't believe it
the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!!

Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service. Didn't
work very well.

Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!

Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that approach
is valid for the rules, why not the whole test?

But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime author
admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the license he
holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that fact. As
dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're
really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

I'm still not so hot on the idea.

All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As it
stands
right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF.

I agree and of all the licensing decisions made under 98-143,
the ending of Novice was, IMHO, not a good idea. That said,
I think once the dust settles from the code "test" issue, then
perhaps ARRL may wish to take a top down look at licensing,
licensing requirements and the concurrent privileges associated
with each.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Were you "average" Jim?

In some things yes, in others no.

I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.

Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is quite
different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere.

Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus and
test
should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the
sixth-grade level in order to understand the material".

Next:


Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner's class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named "Communicator" or
simply left as Technician. Let's assume it gets the name
"Communicator". All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay

for

a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.


Exactly!


That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's
OK
to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of
the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made!

hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)

"They remember a past that never was"

What are they remembering that wasn't? The tech written was the same as
the General as someone wrote above up to 1987 as you note below.

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In
March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for
General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should
know
how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake
in
the paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the


KL7CC paper)


So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no "black plan" from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses - what a concept!

and:

A few final words:
There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!

I recycle.

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn't that be an odd reason for doing what they
are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such
great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my
license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that
for
just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the
form,
sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had
renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at
all.
They
thought I needed "help".

Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)

Maybe?

snippage

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?


Who, me?

Yeah, you!!

More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"?

more snippage

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill
Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as
the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he
or she had read and understood part 97.

I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't believe
it
the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!!

Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service.
Didn't
work very well.

The real problem with CB at the time and to this day was the "buy it
anywhere"
ability at prices net to nothing. Even in the early 70s CBs were less than
$50. Same is true today for FRS...but the good thing about FRS is the
lack of any real DX ability.

Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!

Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that
approach
is valid for the rules, why not the whole test?

But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime
author
admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the license
he
holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that
fact. As
dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal.

One problem we have discused before is the stupid focus on some
testing on elements of the rules that very few hams ever engage in...space
communications for example. Better to test on what we really want
most hams to be knowledgeable on that VEC qualifications, etc.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All they're
really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

I'm still not so hot on the idea.

All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As it
stands
right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF.

I agree and of all the licensing decisions made under 98-143,
the ending of Novice was, IMHO, not a good idea.

But...but...Bill, the FCC thought it was a good idea! Are you saying
FCC made a mistake? ;-)

That said,
I think once the dust settles from the code "test" issue, then
perhaps ARRL may wish to take a top down look at licensing,
licensing requirements and the concurrent privileges associated
with each.

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

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Were you "average" Jim?

In some things yes, in others no.

I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.

Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is quite
different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere.

Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus and
test
should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the
sixth-grade level in order to understand the material".

Next:


Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen, assuming
that the idea of a beginner's class license is even accepted at all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what it
is now to the basic license. It may be named "Communicator" or
simply left as Technician. Let's assume it gets the name
"Communicator". All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and pay

for

a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.


Exactly!


That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If it's
OK
to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most of
the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were made!

hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)

"They remember a past that never was"

What are they remembering that wasn't? The tech written was the same as
the General as someone wrote above up to 1987 as you note below.

Direct quote:

"Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM."

That sentence, and the lack of other clarification, says that the
General and Tech writtens were the same right up to when the Tech lost
its code test in 1991. That's simply not the case - the written was
split almost 4 years earlier.

Note that the paper wants to give *all* Techs a free upgrade to
General! It also ignores the fact that any Tech who got that license
before March 1987 is already able to upgrade to General with no
additional testing. And it's been that way since April 15, 2000. And
that's not a giveaway because those folks *did* pass the same written
as Generals.

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written. In
March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B for
General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper should
know
how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual mistake
in
the paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the

KL7CC paper)

So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no "black plan" from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses - what a concept!

and:

A few final words:
There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!

I recycle.

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn't that be an odd reason for doing what they
are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't* want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're such
great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when my
license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying that
for
just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the
form,
sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and had
renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at
all.
They
thought I needed "help".

Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)

Maybe?

snippage

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?


Who, me?

Yeah, you!!

More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"?

more snippage

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill
Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license (save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers as
the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how he
or she had read and understood part 97.

I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't believe
it
the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!!

Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service.
Didn't
work very well.

The real problem with CB at the time and to this day was the "buy it
anywhere"
ability at prices net to nothing. Even in the early 70s CBs were less than
$50.

I never saw them that cheap, but then again, I wasn't looking.

But what you are effectively saying, Bill, is that the real problem
with cb was "lack of investment" by many who used it. They did not
take it seriously because they had invested only a few dollars and
practically no time or effort into getting set up.

Does that mean if cb sets had cost, say, $500 back then instead of
$50, that service would not have become such a mess?

Almost sounds like a new version of "what isn't worked for isn't
valued"

Same is true today for FRS...but the good thing about FRS is the
lack of any real DX ability.

Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!

Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that
approach
is valid for the rules, why not the whole test?

But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime
author
admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the license
he
holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that
fact. As
dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal.

One problem we have discused before is the stupid focus on some
testing on elements of the rules that very few hams ever engage in...space
communications for example. Better to test on what we really want
most hams to be knowledgeable on that VEC qualifications, etc.

It used to seem to me that the one thing we could all agree on was
that the basic regulations (not talking about the fine-print stuff,
just the basics) were one subject that absolutely had to be tested
for. But the KL7CC paper suggests doing away with most of that!
Surreal...

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Yep - with reduced privileges. Not necessarily a bad idea. All
they're
really
doing is reinventing the Novice.

I'm still not so hot on the idea.

All depends on what the balance of requirements vs. privileges is. As
it
stands
right now, our "entry level" license is heavily weighted to VHF/UHF.

I agree and of all the licensing decisions made under 98-143,
the ending of Novice was, IMHO, not a good idea.

But...but...Bill, the FCC thought it was a good idea! Are you saying
FCC made a mistake? ;-)

Please point to any statement I have made that indicates
I agree with every FCC decision. :-) :-)

That said,
I think once the dust settles from the code "test" issue, then
perhaps ARRL may wish to take a top down look at licensing,
licensing requirements and the concurrent privileges associated
with each.

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

No, is it on a web site?.

Especially charming is the idea that people with a 6th grade
education
are going to supply us with fresh ideas.

I got started in ham radio between 6th and 7th grades.....

Were you "average" Jim?

In some things yes, in others no.

I was involved in electronics when I was in 5th
grade, but no one else around me was. I'm not at all against kids of
any particular age being involved in Ham radio, but that "average 6th
grader thing is bothersome.

Heck, the "average" sixth grader in some American neighborhoods is
quite
different from his/her "average" counterpart elsewhere.

Perhaps a better way to word that idea is "the entry level syllabus
and
test
should not require a knowledge of math, science or English above the
sixth-grade level in order to understand the material".

Next:


Whatever we come up with, it will have to fit within the FCC
budget.
This probably means that in all likelihood what will happen,
assuming
that the idea of a beginner's class license is even accepted at
all,
is that they (the FCC) will juggle the existing 3 classes to
accommodate the new structure. Technician will change from what
it
is now to the basic license. It may be named "Communicator" or
simply left as Technician. Let's assume it gets the name
"Communicator". All existing Techs will be upgraded to General.
Assuming that the Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion
is that most of the Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the
element
3 exam as soon as they can, thus becoming General class licensees.

Assuming indeed! They figure that people are going to study and
pay

for

a test in order to get priveleges they will get anyhow? If a
Technician
flunks the test, all he or she has to do is wait a while, than
he/she
will get the priveleges anyhow.


Exactly!


That sounds a LOT like simplification to me.


Sounds like a giveaway to me. And it sets a very bad precedent: If
it's
OK
to
give all Techs a free upgrade to General, why not throw away most
of
the
General question pool and use the Tech one instead?

Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM.

But its not that way now.

And it wasn't that way back when the Tech code test changes were
made!

hehe, things aren't like they used to be, and they never were! 8^)

"They remember a past that never was"

What are they remembering that wasn't? The tech written was the same as
the General as someone wrote above up to 1987 as you note below.

Direct quote:

"Remember, that before the changes that created the present no-code
tech, the General and Tech exams were identical. Only the code
separated them, and even there it was only the difference between
5 and 13 WPM."

That sentence, and the lack of other clarification, says that the
General and Tech writtens were the same right up to when the Tech lost
its code test in 1991. That's simply not the case - the written was
split almost 4 years earlier.

OK and understood.

Note that the paper wants to give *all* Techs a free upgrade to
General! It also ignores the fact that any Tech who got that license
before March 1987 is already able to upgrade to General with no
additional testing. And it's been that way since April 15, 2000. And
that's not a giveaway because those folks *did* pass the same written
as Generals.

IF (and it is a big IF) the FCC ever entertains some type of
license changes of the type being discussed there will be two
choices as to the affected hams already licensed. You can repeat
the 1968 approach and take away privileges or you can give
some people a "pass" while still impacting all new hams or
hams not already licensed at a particular level. Time will tell.

Quick history:

From 1951 to March 1987, the General and Tech had the same written.
In
March of
1987 the General was split into two elements, 3A for Tech and 3B
for
General.
Almost four years later (February 1991), the Tech lost its code
test.

This isn't ancient history, and anybody writing a policy paper
should
know
how
the previous system came to be. And it's not the only factual
mistake
in
the paper.

And finally, before I forget about how I was charmed about the
glasses
reference, I have to congratulate the authors on their humorous
treatment of Pro coders:

(more from the

KL7CC paper)

So, there are no "Morse code haters" on the committee.
There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no "black plan" from the ARRL, no anything. Just
some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper
for
the next hundred years, or longer.

and (I had to put this in again):

You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see
their radios without having to put on glasses - what a concept!

and:

A few final words:
There are no black helicopters.

I guess those who believe in the Morse code test believe there are?

See what I mean about undertone?

I bet they love their families more than PCTA's too!

I recycle.

Do you suppose the committee members just want to see our
wonderful
hobby prosper? Wouldn't that be an odd reason for doing what
they
are
doing?

Apparently those of us who believe in a Morse code test *don't*
want to
see our wonderful hobby prosper!

If the ideas are good ideas, they will stand on their merit. The
person
histories of the committee members is not the issue. If they're
such
great
folks, why don't they let the merits of their ideas convicne us?

Quick aside: I first became aware of W5YI about ten years ago when
my
license
needed to be renewed. I got this official looking letter saying
that
for
just
$5 they'd help me renew my license. All I had to do was fill in the
form,
sign
it, write a check for $5 and send it to them.

Never mind that I'd been dealing with the FCC since I was 13 and
had
renewed
and modified my license at least 9 times before with no problems at
all.
They
thought I needed "help".

Perhaps their target audience needs the help? 8^)

Maybe?

snippage

And the answer to the question of who I'm going to talk to if there
are
no manufacturers...... Well you know , don't ya Jim?


Who, me?

Yeah, you!!

More folks like me? Who don't "take the practical approach"?

more snippage

I'm not talking about Carl either. I know that neither he nor Bill
Sohl
are in favor of reductions in the qualifications to get a license
(save
removal of the Morse code test)

And they've been very clear about that.

That's really nice. It also *may* mean that they will someday be
considered the Luddites along with us troglodyte Pro code testers
as
the
requirements to get a license are relaxed more and more.

You got my point exactly.

I may have proposed this once (quite tongue in cheek) but one of the
proposals was that the prospective amateur sign a paper stating how
he
or she had read and understood part 97.

I had to read that part of the KL7CC paper twice because I didn't
believe
it
the first time! And they're talking about the *rules and regs*!!

Once upon a time, FCC tried that approach with another radio service.
Didn't
work very well.

The real problem with CB at the time and to this day was the "buy it
anywhere"
ability at prices net to nothing. Even in the early 70s CBs were less
than
$50.

I never saw them that cheap, but then again, I wasn't looking.

But what you are effectively saying, Bill, is that the real problem
with cb was "lack of investment" by many who used it. They did not
take it seriously because they had invested only a few dollars and
practically no time or effort into getting set up.

Does that mean if cb sets had cost, say, $500 back then instead of
$50, that service would not have become such a mess?

Probably because the sets wouldn't have found such a wide
market of accepatance for that price. Clearly the other
factor was the "no license" other than send in the
application approach.

Almost sounds like a new version of "what isn't worked for isn't
valued"

Cute, but no cigar.

Same is true today for FRS...but the good thing about FRS is the
lack of any real DX ability.

Why not extrapolate that to the
whole test? Just think how easy the testing process would be! By
gosh,
we could get [people to sign that they had the equivalent knowlege of
anything. The ARS could be populated by geniuses!

Exactly! No more need for VEC sessions and all that paperwork. If that
approach
is valid for the rules, why not the whole test?

But the part of that paper I found most "amusing" was where the prime
author
admitted that he could not pass the current written test for the
license
he
holds. It is written in such a way that he almost sounds proud of that
fact. As
dear departed N0BK would say: Surreal.

One problem we have discused before is the stupid focus on some
testing on elements of the rules that very few hams ever engage
in...space
communications for example. Better to test on what we really want
most hams to be knowledgeable on that VEC qualifications, etc.

It used to seem to me that the one thing we could all agree on was
that the basic regulations (not talking about the fine-print stuff,
just the basics) were one subject that absolutely had to be tested
for. But the KL7CC paper suggests doing away with most of that!
Surreal...

I'll have to find that paper and read it.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

"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

Bill Sohl wrote:

A whole litany of stuff snipped

I'll have to find that paper and read it.

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

I think it is pretty important to read it, Bill. It is a very
interesting piece.

One of the emost interesting parts is that while the NCVEC claims it is
not "official" policy, the name of the doc is NCVECplan.doc.

and:

"First, who is this committee, this “Gang of Four”? Who are these people,
and who elected them as “God”? They are the NCVEC “Rules Committee”.
This group of 4 persons consists of: Fred Maia, W5YI, John Johnstone, W3BE,
Scott Neustatder, W4WW, and myself, Jim Wiley, KL7CC.

So this isn't official, but it comes from the committee, it's namedwhat
it is. But they tell us it isn't...................

Just one of the reasons that a few of us are kind of uneasy about the thing.

It takes a few gratuitous potshots at those who believe in the Morse
Code test, as well as a patricularly bizzare dig at homebrewers.

Oddly enough, it wants to encourage people who do not wear glasses to
join the hobby. That little jab was almost certainly at people who do
not wear bifocals, but as a wearer of glasses since the second grade, I
can tell you it was neither funny or appropriate.

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

It proposes the applicant sign a statement that they have read and
understood part 97 - This is a hoot! I envision a "click here" like we
get when we install software and the terms of use screen pops up. And we
all read all of those, don't we? 8^)

It wants to take out "some of the math" two or more of the theory
questions because "we aren't making engineers - yet"

It offers some questions like:

"What do you think is better for our hobby – lots of enthusiastic
newcomers, or an ever-declining number of increasingly older hams?"

Let's see, that sounds an awful lot like a "Have you quit beating your
wife?" sort of question.

"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?

Their proposal to "slide" the bands down to take over the Novice
segments and give the upper part of the bands to the "communicators"
isn't removing anything from the data bands is it?

Finally, in one of the most strange bits of reasoning I have ever seen:

"All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the
Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the
Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as
they can, thus becoming General class licensees."

They are telling us that the existing technicians will study for, test
for, and pay for something that they will get even if they flunk the
test, or not take it in the first place!!!!!!!!

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!

Some things I wonder about:

Is a person who is granted HF access on a 20 question very simple test
that the hypothetical average 6th grader going to be all that worried
about staying within the allotment given him or here? My guess is that
they will not be too worried about straying outside their allocations.
It happens already with generals in the Extra segments.

Will they be amenable to OO's? some will, and some probably won't. It
won't take too many to make a mess.

If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect if a plan like this is adopted,
there will be a rush of people getting the lowest level license. They
will be on HF, and won't feel much reason to upgrade. They will very
likely spread out from thier allotted segment of band, and talk where
they like.

"You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their
radios without having to put It pon (sic) glasses – what a concept!"

Sometimes fresh ideas are not what we may want them to be!


Will I be wrong? Great Gawd I hope so! But it will be an interesting
social experiment to see if we will improve a service by lowering the
entrance requirements.

In the meantime, I'll be here, wearing my glasses, homebrewing, and
enjoying myself.

My favorite quotes:

"There are no black helicopters."

"This is not a plot by ARRL or Fred (W5YI) or anyone else to sell more
books, antennas, radios, or (fill in the blank)."

"There is no conspiracy, no secret agenda, no kickback from the
manufacturers, no “black plan” from the ARRL, no anything. Just some
guys that want nothing more than to see our great hobby prosper for
the next hundred years, or longer."

Thing one:

Why do they go on so about conspiracies?

Thing two:

With a few notable exceptions, I think that those of us who wish to see
Morse CW testing continued DO care very much about our great hobby. I
take exception to the apparent belief on some NCTA's that we do not.

Final analysis:

If this isn't NCVEC opinion, they should get it off the title and quit
referring to it so much. This is like the person that says "not to
interrupt you as they interrupt you. If it isn't the NCVEC, then don't
talk about the NCVEC. But it is.

What's with the gratuitous potshots? Want to turn people off? Start
accusing us of seeing black helicopters or needing "It pon glasses" as
if it is something bad to wear them (maybe we're genetically inferior?)
Or even better, infer that the only people who care about Ham Radio are
those who want the code test removed.

This is a bold step, to improve something by radically simplifying the
requirements for admission. I haven't seen it work yet, but perhaps
there is something different here?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Bill Sohl wrote:

I'll have to find that paper and read it.

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

I think it is pretty important to read it, Bill. It is a very
interesting piece.

One of the emost interesting parts is that while the NCVEC claims it is
not "official" policy, the name of the doc is NCVECplan.doc.

ARRL cannot possibly "represent all radio amateurs" either, yet
they've said so for years.

and:

"First, who is this committee, this “Gang of Four�? Who are these
people,
and who elected them as “God�? They are the NCVEC “Rules Committee�.
This group of 4 persons consists of: Fred Maia, W5YI, John Johnstone,
W3BE, Scott Neustatder, W4WW, and myself, Jim Wiley, KL7CC.

So this isn't official, but it comes from the committee, it's namedwhat
it is. But they tell us it isn't...................

So...write them directly or, better yet, go comment on their
Proposal before the FCC. Let the world know how you feel.

Just one of the reasons that a few of us are kind of uneasy about the thing.

Yes, I'm sure you FEW are very disturbed.

Ask your doctor about a Xanax prescription. Very cheap and
good for those that get emotionally disturbed.

It takes a few gratuitous potshots at those who believe in the Morse
Code test, as well as a patricularly bizzare dig at homebrewers.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. ALL of them are 20 WPM code-tested Amateur
Extras.


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.

It proposes the applicant sign a statement that they have read and
understood part 97 - This is a hoot! I envision a "click here" like we
get when we install software and the terms of use screen pops up. And we
all read all of those, don't we? 8^)

You don't like to know and understand the LAW?

That sounds very lawless, Xena...

It wants to take out "some of the math" two or more of the theory
questions because "we aren't making engineers - yet"

Ah so, you think anything more complicated than Ohm's Law
is "rocket science?!?"

It offers some questions like:

"What do you think is better for our hobby – lots of enthusiastic
newcomers, or an ever-declining number of increasingly older hams?"

Let's see, that sounds an awful lot like a "Have you quit beating your
wife?" sort of question.

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.

"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.

Their proposal to "slide" the bands down to take over the Novice
segments and give the upper part of the bands to the "communicators"
isn't removing anything from the data bands is it?

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

Finally, in one of the most strange bits of reasoning I have ever seen:

"All existing Techs will be upgraded to General. Assuming that the
Morse requirement is removed first, our opinion is that most of the
Techs will take (and hopefully pass) the element 3 exam as soon as
they can, thus becoming General class licensees."

They are telling us that the existing technicians will study for, test
for, and pay for something that they will get even if they flunk the
test, or not take it in the first place!!!!!!!!

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?

Some things I wonder about:

Is a person who is granted HF access on a 20 question very simple test
that the hypothetical average 6th grader going to be all that worried
about staying within the allotment given him or here? My guess is that
they will not be too worried about straying outside their allocations.
It happens already with generals in the Extra segments.

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!

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

Will they be amenable to OO's? some will, and some probably won't. It
won't take too many to make a mess.

Your tinnitus must be very bad today, hearing all those black helos.

If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect if a plan like this is adopted,
there will be a rush of people getting the lowest level license. They
will be on HF, and won't feel much reason to upgrade. They will very
likely spread out from thier allotted segment of band, and talk where
they like.

How dare they?!?!?

And not even "approved" by the long-timer morsemen!

"You know, fresh ideas, new blood, people that can actually see their
radios without having to put It pon (sic) glasses – what a concept!"

Sometimes fresh ideas are not what we may want them to be!

Of course not. Old, aged, long-time-in-the-bottle vintage
morsemen can't possibly accept that!


Why do they go on so about conspiracies?

Tsk, tsk, you've named at least TWO such. :-)


With a few notable exceptions, I think that those of us who wish to see
Morse CW testing continued DO care very much about our great hobby. I
take exception to the apparent belief on some NCTA's that we do not.

NCTAs understand that you, as a PCTA, want a Living Museum of
the Airwaves to Preserve and Protect morsemanship forever and ever.


If this isn't NCVEC opinion, they should get it off the title and quit
referring to it so much. This is like the person that says "not to
interrupt you as they interrupt you. If it isn't the NCVEC, then don't
talk about the NCVEC. But it is.

For many more years ARRL has said it "represents ALL radio
amateurs" yet they obviously do NOT.

Last I looked there were 14 Volunteer Examiner Coordinators in the
USA. Four does NOT equal 14, does it?

I apologize for using mathematics too complicated for you...

What's with the gratuitous potshots? Want to turn people off?

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

Nobody in any VEC is required to kiss up to some long-timers who
think they own amateur radio and can use their squatters rights to
tell all they "know what is good for ham radio."

Start
accusing us of seeing black helicopters or needing "It pon glasses" as
if it is something bad to wear them (maybe we're genetically inferior?)

Let's see...YOU just accused THEM of "conspiracies." :-)

Or even better, infer that the only people who care about Ham Radio are
those who want the code test removed.

Oh, my, how COULD they, those heinous 20 WPM code-tested Extras?

This is a bold step, to improve something by radically simplifying the
requirements for admission. I haven't seen it work yet, but perhaps
there is something different here?

Oh? You do NOT believe amateur radio has ALREADY been "dumbed
down?"

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

LHA