"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

"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

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

"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

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

"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