"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

N2EY wrote:

Good luck on selling your ideas to FCC

Luck will have nothing to do with it.

73, de Hans, K0HB