In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Hans' proposal is nothing like what's in the KL7CC paper. But Hans'
proposal has at least one major problem: forced upgrading.

Is forced upgrading a "major problem"?

It was for the old Novice.

The Novice license is widely
acknowledged to have been the best licensing idea the FCC ever had.

Wasn't FCC's idea, but that's beside the point.

If it was such a great idea, why was it closed to new license issues in 2000?

It
admitted people to the hobby with a sort of "learner permit" in which they
could learn some skills and meet other experienced hams "on the air". It
expired after one year and was not renewable.

Only from 1951 to 1967. And not only was it nonrenewable, it was
"nonretakeable" - one Novice license to a customer, and if you'd ever had any
class of ham license before, you couldn't have a Novice.

In 1967, the Novice went to 2 years, nonrenewable, still "nonretakeable". The
reason given back then was "too many dropouts"

In the early-to-mid 1970s, the Novice went through a period of quick changes.
First, the FCC allowed folks who had been unlicensed for at least a year to get
a Novice, regardless of prior licensure. This meant a ham could be a Novice
forever - two years on, one year off, new callsign and license each time. Again
the reason given was "too many dropouts".

Then the one-year-unlicensed requirement was dropped. And the reason given
was...

Finally the Novice was made 5 years renewable, like all the other license
classes of the time. That was more than a quarter century ago.

If it had any fault, it was
that it tended to isolate newcomers into little "ghettos" mostly frequented
by other newcomers.

The reasons for the limited privileges we

- to simplify the "ideal" Novice station. 75 watts, xtal control, 3 HF bands CW
only meant that almost anybody could have a half-decent station that wasn't
much worse than anybody else's. High point was reached with Heathkit's $100
HW-16 "shack in a box" that needed only a key, speaker, xtals and antenna.

- to encourage homebrewing/tinkering (what a concept). Lot of newbies built
their own rigs, either from scratch (ahem) or simple kits.

- to minimize the chances of Novices straying outside the ham bands. Thus the
xtals. This was not well-thought-out by FCC, because while the xtal requirement
kept Novices inside the bands on the fundamentals, the harmonics fell outside
the bands. Also required a different xtal for each band.

- to keep the level of activity high. Novices could count on other Novices
being on the air on nearby frequencies almost 24/7.

My "learner permit" is different than the old Novice license in 4 ways:

1) Rather than isolate the newcomers into narrow little band segments
crowded with mostly other newcomers, it gives them expanded privileges
on all bands.

I thought it gave them all privileges on all modes on all bands - just limited
power.

The old Novice license got higher power and VFO control in the '70s, too. More
bands and modes in the '80s. Didn't help much.

2) Rather than expiring in 1 year, it would expire after 10 years, giving
them more time to "gain their wings".

Sure. And that's the problem. See below.

3) Power would be limited to 50 watts (in line with prevailing RF exposure
doctrine.)

Not many non-QRP rigs out there limited to 50 watts out. Would it be acceptable
to simply reduce the power level on a 100 W rig?

What "major problem" lies in that? (Give me **your**version of the problem,
not what you think the FCC version of the problem would be.)

First off, the FCC *is* an issue, because there are some things they simply
won't enact. IMHO, they won't enact a nonrenewable nonretakeable ham license.

Second, you're pretty vague about the test requirements. How much test for each
license? How many questions, and from what pools? If the entry license is kept
simple and easy, then the step to Extra is gonna be a *big* one.

But that's not what you asked.

Let's say your idea catches on and the FCC enacts it pretty much as you
propose. And let's say the learner's permit (LP) license is popular, because it
gives lotsa choices for just a simple written test.

Some folks will upgrade, of course. Some will drop out. The problem will be
with the third group - those who are active hams but who are satisfied with
their "LP" licenses. If the jump from "LP" to Extra is not trivial, and
requires some real learning (just like the old Novice-to-General written jump
did), you're gonna have active hams forced off the air at the end of their 10
year terms because they just won't be able to pass the Extra written. Or they
won't try, or they can't get to a VE session, yada yada yada.

And the cry will arise: "why are active hams with clean records being forced
off the air?" Then you'll see history repeat itself, as the "LP" license
becomes renewable, just like the old Novice, to avoid losing those hams.

Since the only difference between your two proposed classes is the power level,
there will be quite logical arguments that such a system forces hams who don't
want to run high power to "jump through a written test hoop" to gain privilges
they have no intention of using. That's gonna be a tough argument to defeat.

Then there's the whole issue of the conversion of existing ham licenses to the
two new classes. How many will drop out rather than take the test?

Just my opinion. But it's based on historical fact and long-term trends.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Let's say your idea catches on and the FCC enacts it pretty much as you
propose. And let's say the learner's permit (LP) license is popular,
because it
gives lotsa choices for just a simple written test.

Some folks will upgrade, of course. Some will drop out. The problem will
be
with the third group - those who are active hams but who are satisfied
with
their "LP" licenses. If the jump from "LP" to Extra is not trivial, and
requires some real learning (just like the old Novice-to-General written
jump
did), you're gonna have active hams forced off the air at the end of their
10
year terms because they just won't be able to pass the Extra written. Or
they
won't try, or they can't get to a VE session, yada yada yada.

This is precisely why I suggest a 10-year term. Right from the get-go,
these new hams know that they have 10 years to prepare to "re-enlist", and
that it will require some real learning. If they can't cut it after a
10-year apprenticeship, then they weren't meant to be hams. The FCC didn't
"stick to their guns" on the original Novice concept, and I lay that at the
feet of the "entitlement" mentality of the 60s-70s.

And the cry will arise: "why are active hams with clean records being
forced
off the air?" Then you'll see history repeat itself, as the "LP" license
becomes renewable, just like the old Novice, to avoid losing those hams.

This will sound cold, and the IOoDHW (International Order of Dismayed Hand
Wringers) will convene a special session to condemn me, but who really CARES
if we lose those learners-permit holders.

Since the only difference between your two proposed classes
is the power level, there will be quite logical arguments that such
a system forces hams who don't want to run high power to "jump
through a written test hoop" to gain privilges they have no intention
of using.

Sorry Jim, but you're waving the same old roadkill again.

Then there's the whole issue of the conversion of existing ham licenses to
the
two new classes. How many will drop out rather than take the test?

Read my proposal again, Jim. You'll see how I've completely avoided that
problem.

As a closing note....... I really don't have a problem with a high dropout
rate among newcomers. I'd be happy to see a million people "have a look at
ham radio" and if just 20% stick around, well so be it. That would give us
200,000 new qualified hams. To the 800,000 who left, I say "I hope you had
a good time, and it's been nice meeting you. Sorry this ham radio thing
wasn't your bag." They're not "bad people" or "quitters" --- they just
don't have the same interest in hobbies that you and I do.

73, de Hans, K0HB

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

Let's say your idea catches on and the FCC enacts it pretty much as you
propose. And let's say the learner's permit (LP) license is popular,
because it
gives lotsa choices for just a simple written test.

Some folks will upgrade, of course. Some will drop out. The problem will
be
with the third group - those who are active hams but who are satisfied
with
their "LP" licenses. If the jump from "LP" to Extra is not trivial, and
requires some real learning (just like the old Novice-to-General written
jump
did), you're gonna have active hams forced off the air at the end of their
10
year terms because they just won't be able to pass the Extra written. Or
they
won't try, or they can't get to a VE session, yada yada yada.

This is precisely why I suggest a 10-year term. Right from the get-go,
these new hams know that they have 10 years to prepare to "re-enlist", and
that it will require some real learning.

OK, fine. No surprises.

If they can't cut it after a
10-year apprenticeship, then they weren't meant to be hams.

Try to sell *that* to the amateur community (including the FCC)!!

The FCC didn't
"stick to their guns" on the original Novice concept, and I lay that at the
feet of the "entitlement" mentality of the 60s-70s.

I think you're just toying with us, Hans...;-)

FCC "stuck to their guns" for almost 25 years with the "no renewal, no
retake" Novice.

As for "entitlement mentality of the 60s-70s", those were the times
that gave us incentive licensing and significantly raised the
requirements (both code and written) for a full-privs license. In fact
the written requirements were raised more than the code....

But that's all ancient history. The main question is how you're gonna
sell the "up or out" concept to FCC and the amateur community.


And the cry will arise: "why are active hams with clean records being
forced
off the air?" Then you'll see history repeat itself, as the "LP" license
becomes renewable, just like the old Novice, to avoid losing those hams.

This will sound cold, and the IOoDHW (International Order of Dismayed Hand
Wringers) will convene a special session to condemn me, but who really CARES
if we lose those learners-permit holders.

Those who don't want to see them leave the air and the ARS will care.
And if there are enough of them, they may simply outvote everyone
else.

Since the only difference between your two proposed classes
is the power level, there will be quite logical arguments that such
a system forces hams who don't want to run high power to "jump
through a written test hoop" to gain privilges they have no intention
of using.

Sorry Jim, but you're waving the same old roadkill again.

How is that argument not valid?

Then there's the whole issue of the conversion of existing ham licenses to
the
two new classes. How many will drop out rather than take the test?

Read my proposal again, Jim. You'll see how I've completely avoided that
problem.

I did and you did. Which means FCC will have to keep the existing
database going. It also sets up the unique situation where a new ham
faces a challenge/requirement that no existing ham has to face.
Somebody may holler 'discrimination'....

As a closing note....... I really don't have a problem with a high dropout
rate among newcomers. I'd be happy to see a million people "have a look at
ham radio" and if just 20% stick around, well so be it. That would give us
200,000 new qualified hams. To the 800,000 who left, I say "I hope you had
a good time, and it's been nice meeting you. Sorry this ham radio thing
wasn't your bag." They're not "bad people" or "quitters" --- they just
don't have the same interest in hobbies that you and I do.

OK, fine. The problem is, how you gonna get those million people to
take the look? We've had an easy-to-get nocodetest ham license for
12-1/2 years now, the old Novice for half a century, and we've gotten
maybe 30,000 new hams per year tops. (check AH0A stats on new
licenses).

In ten years that works out to maybe 300,000 "taking a look", not
1,000,000. If your 20% rate is correct, we'll see drastic reductions
in the size of the ARS in the USA 10 years down the road as LPs
expire. Is that a good thing?

Most of all, how you gonna sell the idea to the FCC and the rest of
ham radio?

Perhaps you should send the ideas directly to FCC and see if you can
get an RM number for it. I know you used it in a comment, but why not
go for the RM? One more on top of the existing 14 won't hurt anything.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

I did and you did. Which means FCC will have to keep the existing
database going. It also sets up the unique situation where a new ham
faces a challenge/requirement that no existing ham has to face.
Somebody may holler 'discrimination'....

Somebody is always hollering 'discrimination' --- BFD. Life's a bitch, and
then you die and they give all your toys away.

It's clear that you don't like my "up or out" proposal, and it's clear that
I'll not persuade you to like it, and it's **really** certain that you'll
not persuade me to change it. Now all we're left doing is picking the fly
**** out of the pepper pot. I don't play that non-productive game. Have a
nice day.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

I did and you did. Which means FCC will have to keep the existing
database going. It also sets up the unique situation where a new ham
faces a challenge/requirement that no existing ham has to face.
Somebody may holler 'discrimination'....

Somebody is always hollering 'discrimination' --- BFD. Life's a bitch, and
then you die and they give all your toys away.

Sometimes they're right to holler it, too.

It's clear that you don't like my "up or out" proposal, and it's clear that
I'll not persuade you to like it, and it's **really** certain that you'll
not persuade me to change it.

Doesn't matter whether I like it or not. I got my Extra 33 years ago and there
hasn't been a day since then that I couldn't pass the required tests to get
another one if that were required.

I'm actually trying to help you refine it, Hans. Because the problem isn't hams
like me, who would gladly retest every coupla years just to show we still got
it. The problem is how you're gonna sell the idea to FCC and the rest of the
ARS.

Have a
nice day.

You too, Hans. And think about sending that proposal to FCC for an RM number.
Who knows - it might gain widespread support and I'd be dead wrong about it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Doesn't matter whether I like it or not.

Correct.

I got my Extra 33 years ago

Didn't know we were running a seniority contest here, but if we are you lose
by 7 years.

...and there hasn't been a day since then that I couldn't pass
the required tests to get another one if that were required.

The point being? I'd expect that's true of most licensees.

I'm actually trying to help you refine it, Hans.

It's already refined, thank you very much.

The problem is how you're gonna sell the idea to FCC and the rest of the
ARS.

At least it's a problem in **your** mind, but you don't count. The FCC
counts.

And think about sending that proposal to FCC for an RM number.
Who knows - it might gain widespread support and I'd be dead wrong about
it.

You are dead wrong about it, and it doesn't need "widespread support", just
the support of FCC.

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Doesn't matter whether I like it or not.

Correct.

I got my Extra 33 years ago

Didn't know we were running a seniority contest here, but if we are you lose
by 7 years.

Were you in high school when you got yours? ;-)

...and there hasn't been a day since then that I couldn't pass
the required tests to get another one if that were required.

The point being?

That it's no big deal to my license. Or your license. But it may be a big deal
to prospective hams.

I'd expect that's true of most licensees.

The author of the paper which is the this thread's title says he couldn't. He
almost sounds proud of the fact.

I'm actually trying to help you refine it, Hans.

It's already refined, thank you very much.

You're welcome. Then I won't comment on it any more.

The problem is how you're gonna sell the idea to FCC and the rest of the
ARS.

At least it's a problem in **your** mind, but you don't count.

I don't count? Sounds a bit hostile and elitist to me.

The FCC counts.

So let's see what they do.

And think about sending that proposal to FCC for an RM number.
Who knows - it might gain widespread support and I'd be dead wrong about
it.

You are dead wrong about it, and it doesn't need "widespread support", just
the support of FCC.

I doubt FCC will enact such a radical change without widespread support in the
amateur radio community. So far I haven't seen a single rrapper in favor of it.
But FCC may be different.

Note that if FCC did enact your LP idea, they'd have to maintain a permanent
database of everyone who ever held an LP license, to make sure they didn't get
another one. Extra admin work for FCC - to solve what problem?

Good luck on selling your ideas to FCC

73 de Jim, N2EY

--
ô¿ô 73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Help support youth involved in Amateur Radio.
http://www.mnyarc.org
http://www.k0bsa.org
"N2EY" wrote

In the early-to-mid 1970s, the Novice went through a period of quick
changes.
First, the FCC allowed folks who had been unlicensed for at least a year
to get
a Novice, regardless of prior licensure. This meant a ham could be a
Novice
forever - two years on, one year off, new callsign and license each time.
Again
the reason given was "too many dropouts".

See my other post about "too many dropouts".

Then the one-year-unlicensed requirement was dropped. And the reason given
was...

Finally the Novice was made 5 years renewable, like all the other license
classes of the time. That was more than a quarter century ago.

You're right, Jim, it was more than a quarter century ago. And over a
quarter century ago FCC thought that 13 and 20 WPM code tests were a good
idea, and a no-code license was a bad idea. Seems FCC no longer holds those
views, so I think we can safely ignore your argument about what they thought
back then on this matter also.

Do YOU think learners permits ought to be renewable beyond 10 years?

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
--
ô¿ô 73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Help support youth involved in Amateur Radio.
http://www.mnyarc.org
http://www.k0bsa.org
"N2EY" wrote

In the early-to-mid 1970s, the Novice went through a period of quick
changes.
First, the FCC allowed folks who had been unlicensed for at least a year
to get
a Novice, regardless of prior licensure. This meant a ham could be a
Novice
forever - two years on, one year off, new callsign and license each time.
Again
the reason given was "too many dropouts".

See my other post about "too many dropouts".

Will do.

Then the one-year-unlicensed requirement was dropped. And the reason given
was...

Finally the Novice was made 5 years renewable, like all the other license
classes of the time. That was more than a quarter century ago.

You're right, Jim, it was more than a quarter century ago. And over a
quarter century ago FCC thought that 13 and 20 WPM code tests were a good
idea, and a no-code license was a bad idea.

And a lot of other things, like secret tests given by FCC examiners,
extreme limits on vanity calls and repeaters, yada yada yada.

Seems FCC no longer holds those
views, so I think we can safely ignore your argument about what they thought
back then on this matter also.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is to note that since that time, FCC has
consistently made it *easier* and *more convenient* to get and keep an
amateur radio license - of *any* class. As long as said changes mean
less work for FCC, that is.

That's been a consistent policy from then to now. Forced upgrading
would go against that tide.

One thing I'm not clear on, though. If an LP reached the end of the 10
years but couldn't pass the upgrade test, could they take the LP test
and get another 10 years (as with driver's license LPs) or is it
one-LP-to-a-customer, as the old Novice was?

Do YOU think learners permits ought to be renewable beyond 10 years?

I think *all* amateur licenses are essentially "permits to learn". And
I think *all* classes of amateur license should be renewable. Just my
opinion.

If your proposed LP is going to allow all authorized modes on all
authorized freqs from 1.8 MHz on up, it's going to need a rather
considerable written test, doncha think? The power limit removes the
need for lots of RF exposure and other safety questions, and the VE
stuff, but what about almost all the rest?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

One thing I'm not clear on, though. If an LP reached the end of the 10
years but couldn't pass the upgrade test, could they take the LP test
and get another 10 years (as with driver's license LPs) or is it
one-LP-to-a-customer, as the old Novice was?

One to a customer. If you can't "get it" in 10 years, then you probably
aren't going to be able to "get it" in 20 or 30 years.

BTW, drivers license permits are not renewable here, although you can retest
for a new one.

73, de Hans, K0HB