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