"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Lacking any evidence either way, it is my opinion that it is fact.

Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't try to confuse me with facts."

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot be certain of the meaning
of your words either."

"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right."

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead
of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their
views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the
facts that needs altering."




..

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

What about vanity calls?

No change from current rules.

That means Class As could get a call from any callsign block. But what about
Class Bs?

Exactly the idea. A person would have to get a passing grade in each
subject
area on the same test, so it would still be one test, not three.

I'd even suggest doing the something similar to the Class B test.

No, my vision for the Class B test is similar to the original Novice exam.

OK

Some basic stuff to ensure the applicant has an acquaintence with the
subject matter, and not heavily weighted in any single area, and not such a
tight screen that it blocks those with 'casual interest'.

That makes sense and agrees with the stated goals.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Not according to Hans' answer to the
above question.

Hans' answer is not in his proposal.

OK, fine.

In fact, a lot of what Hans has said
in this newsgroup is not in the proposal.

It will be, if FCC acts on it in any way.

Instead, he just seems to be
making up answers as he goes along.

Is that bad? His answers are all in agreement with the stated goals and
philosophy of his proposal. I haven't found a single case where Hans has
contradicted himself in this proposal thing.

Hans has suggested his idea to FCC at least twice - but always in the form of
comments to others' proposals. Seems to me it would make sense for him to
submit it to FCC and get an RM number, just like the other 14 petitions.

He could just take the various answers he's given here and work them into the
proposal (to answer the same questions which are bound to be asked by FCC and
commenters) and ship the expanded proposal to FCC.

Even though I disagree with some parts of his proposal, it seems to me that
such a formal submission is the next step if Hans is serious about it. And I
think he is.

Plus it's good to see a proposal that at least tries to address the situation
as a whole, rather than simply trying to slap another patch on the 1951 system.

btw, some of the concepts in Hans' proposal are also part of the KL7CC "21st
Century" proposal - like the very-easy-to-get entry license with a low power
limit. But Hans had those ideas first!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra?

All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed.

If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

I'd do it just to avoid having to renew.

Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for
full-privileges ham licenses.

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Just a name.

For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and General
even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General privileges.
For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the amateur
radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC).

So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today.

--

I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight of the
main goals of Hans' proposal:

1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license
2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license so that
new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer - except high power
transmitters.
3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical knowledge
and qualify for full privilege licenses within a reasonable time
4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than three
tests, anyway)

Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all pretty
good goals?


73 de Jim, N2EY

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

FEELING that something is true or false
doesn't make it so. You have made an
assertion that you claim to be fact

therefore it IS up to you, even in a casual

discussion to back it up with data. (snip)



Nonsense. I've never seen anybody asked to provide statistical data in a
casual discussion.

Can you provied statistical data on that Qwight? 8^)


-couldn't help meself! - Mike KB3EIA -

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:




I do NOT accept the premis that a person can know what they like without
trying something. While there are many valid reasons for not trying
these
things, you cannot know if you would like them or not. For example, the
fear of heights and the potential risk factor stops me from trying
parachuting. Thus I can never know whether I would actually like it.
In
the case of the 5th item on your list, it could be downright unhealthy
and
should NOT be tried even if you think you would like it.

There's lots of things in life that I thought I would not like until
experience proved me wrong. I originally got into ham radio simply
because
my husband at that time insisted I do this with him. Of course I "knew"
that I wouldn't like it and was only doing it to please him but in the
end I
was proven wrong. It is one of my favorite pastimes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I have never tried drinking lye and I know I wouldn't
like it. By your reasoning I should try it as I might like dying.


Negative. I've already stated that high risk levels of danger are
justification for NOT trying something. Such a risk level overrides the
potential of liking or disliking something. You just are NOT reading what I
write.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

FEELING that something is true or false
doesn't make it so. You have made an
assertion that you claim to be fact
therefore it IS up to you, even in a casual
discussion to back it up with data. (snip)


Nonsense. I've never seen anybody asked to provide statistical data in a
casual discussion.


Unless you have statistical data on this,
your statement is an OPINION and
nothing more.


No kidding!!! Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along?
Lacking
any evidence either way, it is my opinion that it is fact.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


You are being deliberately obtuse. Your opinion that it is a fact does not
make it so. And even in casual discussions, I've seen many statements
challenged and the proponent asked to prove it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Lacking any evidence either way, it is my opinion that it is fact.

Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't try to confuse me with facts."

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot be certain of the
meaning
of your words either."

"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right."

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead
of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit
their
views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the
facts that needs altering."


Some great quotes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class
A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest?

My inclination would be for current Extras to remain Extras unless they took
the new test.

The FCC would not dare to do anything to alter the "status" of current
Amateur Extra-class licensees, particularly those who attained that
class in the Pre-Restructuring Era. We've already made it to the top,
under a significantly more comprehensive and challenging set of
testing requirements, including Morse code tests at speeds up to
20 WPM. Uncle Charlie won't muck around with that, considering it
is the white-hot resentment of the General-class licensees of the
Pre-Incentive Licensing Era which started the whole debate over
licensing standards in the first place. Had the FCC taken the simple
precaution of "grandfathering" those hams to the then-new Extra
class, we may not be having this debate now.

Lots of guys (Larry comes to mind) attach a certain cachet to
their current license, having "done it the old way". I've no problem with
honoring that.

The truth be known, I give relatively little thought to the fact that I am
the holder of an Amateur Extra-class license. About the only time I've
ever brought up the subject was to turn up the heat on the whining
no-coders. The hardest license class for me to achieve was my
Novice, which only came after 14 years wasted in my unwillingness
to knuckle down and learn the Morse code. Once I overcame that
personal character flaw, everything fell into place with surprising ease.

As far as "honoring" Extra-class amateurs who did it "the old way" is
concerned, that would probably not be an issue except for the
previously mentioned Inceltive Licensing debacle, and the fact that
CB Radio had the effect of "consumerizing" personal radio
communications to the point where a demand was created for that
capability. Now, in these days of cell phones and "wireless" digital
everything, amateur radio itself is all but irrelevant. So, in a way,
I guess there may now be some point in "honoring" those of us who
reached the pinnacle of the amateur radio licensing structure,
under the "old order" set of standards. Perhaps it could serve to
show newer hams what they have lost in the sense of true status
attained, and the good feeling of individual accomplishment that
it brings. This may possibly cause the trend to again reverse
itself, and create a demand for a return to a set of licensing
standards which reward increased knowledge and operating
skills with greater operating privileges.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"KØHB" wrote:

Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't try
to confuse me with facts."

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot
be certain of the meaning of your words either."

"My opinions may have changed, but not the
fact that I am right."

"The very powerful and the very stupid have
one thing in common. Instead of altering their
views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit
their views... which can be very uncomfortable
if you happen to be one of the facts that needs
altering."


All nice quotes, Hans. But not very relevant when there are no facts.
Lacking those facts, I can only go with what I believe to be fact. Of
course, those who don't agree are never going to accept that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You are being deliberately obtuse. Your opinion
that it is a fact does not make it so.


And you're being deliberately disputatious. I've never said it did make it
so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Hans' answer is not in his proposal.

OK, fine.

In fact, a lot of what Hans has said
in this newsgroup is not in the proposal.

It will be, if FCC acts on it in any way.

Instead, he just seems to be making
up answers as he goes along.

Is that bad? His answers are all in agreement
with the stated goals and philosophy of his
proposal. I haven't found a single case where
Hans has contradicted himself in this proposal
thing.


You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't
give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.

I've tried to give straightforward and responsive answers to every question
asked about my proposal. Since it is so far only a proposal (work in
process) and not yet a petition, it would be fair to say that some detail is
missing and I've done my best to supply that detail, often in a
contemporaneous manner. If that isn't definitive enough for you, I suggest
you QSY up 5.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote


I don't know what's so fascinating about it, Kim. It stands to reason
that
to make an "educated" decision regarding anything, one should be...well,
somewhat educated on the subject.

Sounds reasonable to me.

That includes some practical experience.

Not necessarily. I've made decisions to do (or not to do) many, many
things
without a lick of practical experience. I have decided not to be a
surfer,
I've decided not to eat chocolate covered insects, I've decided not to
engage in same-gender sex, I've decided not to be a vegetarian, I've
decided
not to be a Hindu, all with some 'education' on the subject but without a
bit of practical experience. I'm sure some folks make the same decision
about whether to learn Morse code.

Fair enough, Hans. However, in the case of the 5-wpm test, it's difficult to
fathom how so much effort can be placed on opposing it when such little
effort is actually needed to ace it. Does that apply to everyone, no. But at
5-wpm, I believe it applies to the majority. I suppose it's the absence of
the willingness to even try to learn something new that I find
objectionable. It's commonly hidden behind the "I know I won't like it so I
don't even want to learn the basics" defense.

However, many of these anti-code
folks are about to diminish the value (As a whole.) of a hobby I dearly
love...despite having a very generous chunk of no-code RF real estate.

Bert, with all due respect, how are they diminishing the value of Amateur
Radio? I truly enjoy Morse code, and use it frequently, but I'm not
persuaded that we need a Morse qualification test any longer. I'm a
member
of FISTS and I'm a member of NCI. I see both organizations as having
goals
which advance Amateur Radio for me. FISTS encourages people to use Morse
code, and NCI encourages regulatory agencies to modernize the
qualification
process for new licensees.

Well, to be honest, Hans...Amateur Radio is a whole lot more than just
regulatory to me. I believe that the regulatory agencies have sufficiently
modernized the qualification process with the removal of the 13 and 20-wpm
exams. Having said that, I further believe that many here, on both sides of
the debate, have actually forgotten what the debate is over...the 5-wpm
Element 1.

I personally don't think that the 5-wpm is a "barrier" to anybody except
those who are unwilling to try in the first place. Additionally, there's
been a no-code Amateur Radio license class available for over a decade now.
(Via 35 multiple-choice questions for which the Q&A pool is published?!)

I think Element 1 is the bare minimum to be part of a well rounded
curriculum, YMMV.

If some new guy/gal gets on HF without knowing Morse code, the value of
Amateur Radio has not been diminished for me.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Compared to you, I'm as green as Kermit the frog on the CW bands. But I have
noticed a thing or two. I've yet to hear a dit sent in anger. Jim, N2EY
assures me that I will eventually, but I'm still waiting. (And I'm on 30
and/or 40 every night now.) I have listened to some local (As well as some
distant.) VHF/UHF repeaters and some of what I've heard made me feel as if
Amateur Radio had been a tad diminished. I've heard the "F" word used on 20
and I won't even touch the subject of 75.

IOW, Hans...the trees are falling in out forest, but they're too far away
for us to hear them. But it's still our forest as a whole.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

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

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra?

All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed.

An unlikly license aspect since if there is no
renewal, then the FCC data base gets larger and larger
since no licenseever expires. That should really screw up the
statistics as to how many hams there are.

If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

I'd do it just to avoid having to renew.

Last time I renewed the ARRL sent me a nice letter,I signed it
and mailed it back. Sure wasn't any effort on my part worth
the effort involved in a 100 question test..studying, going to a test
session, taking the test. But, your mileage may vary.

Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for
full-privileges ham licenses.

In other words, bragging rights and stroking your own ego...
which do nothing for the hobby.

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Just a name.

For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and
General
even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General
privileges.
For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the
amateur
radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC).

So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today.

But, it would require "some" ongoing FCC effort, etc. The how much
is unquantifiable by anyone other than the FCC.

--
I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight of
the
main goals of Hans' proposal:

1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license
2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license so
that
new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer - except high
power
transmitters.
3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical
knowledge
and qualify for full privilege licenses within a reasonable time
4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than three
tests, anyway)

Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all
pretty
good goals?

I agree. My comments above are directed at aspects that I think will need
to be addressed. Frankly, I don't give a hoot about retaing an existence
license name
just to show others I passed or did certain requirements that newer hams
didn't.
I think those that deliberately don't upgrade to Extra from Advanced, just
to
show others they once passed a 13 wpm test have a personal self esteem
problem.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"KØHB" wrote:

Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't try
to confuse me with facts."

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot
be certain of the meaning of your words either."

"My opinions may have changed, but not the
fact that I am right."

"The very powerful and the very stupid have
one thing in common. Instead of altering their
views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit
their views... which can be very uncomfortable
if you happen to be one of the facts that needs
altering."


All nice quotes, Hans. But not very relevant when there are no facts.
Lacking those facts, I can only go with what I believe to be fact. Of
course, those who don't agree are never going to accept that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Without data, in some endeavors (not ham radio) it can be downright
dangerous to act on what you believe to be fact. Without data, one should
tread with caution rather than certainty.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You are being deliberately obtuse. Your opinion
that it is a fact does not make it so.


And you're being deliberately disputatious. I've never said it did make
it
so.


The phrasing used in your posts attempt to make it so. Thus naturally I will
dispute the contention that you are trying to make it a fact without any
supporting data. Not only are you trying to call it a fact but attempting
to make others believe it, again without supporting data.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't
give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the
discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.

I've tried to give straightforward and responsive answers to every
question
asked about my proposal. Since it is so far only a proposal (work in
process) and not yet a petition, it would be fair to say that some detail
is
missing and I've done my best to supply that detail, often in a
contemporaneous manner. If that isn't definitive enough for you, I
suggest
you QSY up 5.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Working on answers to such questions is actually beneficial in that it
allows you to see where your proposal may need refinement before becoming a
petition. Although I don't agree with what you are proposing, I do agree
with refining your proposal so it doesn't have the gaps that have been
spotted.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

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

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra?

All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed.

An unlikly license aspect since if there is no
renewal, then the FCC data base gets larger and larger
since no licenseever expires. That should really screw up the
statistics as to how many hams there are.

I noted that some time ago, Bill, but nobody commented on it until you did.

Perhaps that's part of the plan! Imagine if the FCC database totals showed the
number of hams who had ever held a license, rather than the number of current
licenses.....

Japan's operator licenses are "for life", which is one reason their totals
appear to be so high.

The biggest downside I can see is that a lot of prime callsigns would be tied
up unless family members could be convinced to send in a license cancellation
letter.

If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

I'd do it just to avoid having to renew.

Last time I renewed the ARRL sent me a nice letter,I signed it
and mailed it back.

I got one of those, too. Now it can even be done online.

Sure wasn't any effort on my part worth
the effort involved in a 100 question test..studying, going to a test
session, taking the test. But, your mileage may vary.

I say "bring it on! I got yer 100 questions right here!"

Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for
full-privileges ham licenses.

In other words, bragging rights and stroking your own ego...

Is that bad?

which do nothing for the hobby.

That's one spin. Here's another: By getting a Class A instead of clinging to my
Extra, I'd be setting an example for others *and* reducing FCC's admin
workload.

After all, if every Extra got a Class A, there's be no problem. And one of the
simplest tests of any action's morality is "what if everyone did that?"

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Just a name.

For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and
General
even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General
privileges.
For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the
amateur
radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC).

So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today.

But, it would require "some" ongoing FCC effort, etc. The how much
is unquantifiable by anyone other than the FCC.

Sure. But obviously FCC though it worth doing for 15 years, and again today
with the Advanced and Novice.

Is it really almost four years since those changes?
--
I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight of
the main goals of Hans' proposal:

1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license
2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license so
that new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer - except

high power transmitters.
3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical
knowledge and qualify for full privilege licenses within a reasonable
time
4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than three
tests, anyway)

Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all
pretty good goals?

I agree. My comments above are directed at aspects that I think will need
to be addressed. Frankly, I don't give a hoot about retaing an existence
license name
just to show others I passed or did certain requirements that newer hams
didn't.
I think those that deliberately don't upgrade to Extra from Advanced, just
to
show others they once passed a 13 wpm test have a personal self esteem
problem.

Actually, they have a logic problem! Because the fact of possesing an
Advanced in and of itself does not prove that someone passed the 13 wpm test
any more than having an Extra proves someone passed the 20 wpm test, due to
medical waivers.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Nonsense. I've never seen anybody asked to provide statistical data in a
casual discussion.

...happens all the time in here... :-)

LHA

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Lacking any evidence either way, it is my opinion that it is fact.

Translation: "My mind is made up. Don't try to confuse me with facts."

We KNOW that is how you think...now PROVE that is how
others think...

LHA

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

You are being deliberately obtuse. Your opinion that it is a fact does not
make it so. And even in casual discussions, I've seen many statements
challenged and the proponent asked to prove it.

PROVE what you've said... :-)

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Alun
writes:


Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).


And also without any purpose.

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.


Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off
the
air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were
such
awful ideas.

I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit
though.

Why? It's my understanding that the 10-year idea is based partly on the current
license term and partly on the idea that we don't want to force anyone out
because of "life happens" events like education and family.

I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read
teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A.

BTDT.

Another
thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control
op at field day (or operate lower power)

Why would that be strange? It's the rule *today*.

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels: QRP,
50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article , Alun
writes:



Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).


And also without any purpose.


I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.


Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off

the

air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were

such

awful ideas.

I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit
though.


Why? It's my understanding that the 10-year idea is based partly on the current
license term and partly on the idea that we don't want to force anyone out
because of "life happens" events like education and family.

Its just too long. The license renewal period would just be another
number by that time, since the new A license would be forever. I'm busy
as all gitout, and it took me something over a week of hard study to get
ready for the Extra.

Plus I can't figure out what can make a person qualified to operate on
day 3652 of their licensing period and unqualified on day 3653. It takes
a lot less time than that to understand RF safety - the only real reason
I can think of for the second class license, so if we're going to do
this, it should make some timing sense.


I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read
teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A.

BTDT.

Not sure about BTDT.


Another
thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control
op at field day (or operate lower power)


Why would that be strange? It's the rule *today*.

I keep drawing parallels between the second class license and Generals.
We try to get people out to operate on field day, and you can get some
pretty strange setups. First a Ham with less than 2 years time in grade
would have to have a control op. We have hams what operate now at field
day that would suddenly have to have a control op (therefore taking
myself or another Extra away from a station) Of course the second class
ham could operate a 50 watt or less station, but that would mean that
either we change our setup - all stations except GOTA are full output -
or set up a special station just for the second class hams, a sort of
low power ghetto. Heck, the GOTA station can run more power. Maybe this
is no problem for you, but for others it isn't so good


Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels: QRP,
50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC.

Could be. But if we went back to that, the clubs could be forced to
make a decision to either run what they would like to run, take control
ops away from available stations for those who don't have time in grade.
(or the proper upgrade) or make that little ghetto for the second class
Hams. I really don't think that is a good way to welcome new people. YMMV.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

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

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra?

All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed.

An unlikly license aspect since if there is no
renewal, then the FCC data base gets larger and larger
since no licenseever expires. That should really screw up the
statistics as to how many hams there are.

I noted that some time ago, Bill, but nobody commented on it until you
did.

Perhaps that's part of the plan! Imagine if the FCC database totals showed
the
number of hams who had ever held a license, rather than the number of
current
licenses.....

Japan's operator licenses are "for life", which is one reason their totals
appear to be so high.

The biggest downside I can see is that a lot of prime callsigns would be
tied
up unless family members could be convinced to send in a license
cancellation
letter.

Very good point.

If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

I'd do it just to avoid having to renew.

Last time I renewed the ARRL sent me a nice letter,I signed it
and mailed it back.

I got one of those, too. Now it can even be done online.

Sure wasn't any effort on my part worth
the effort involved in a 100 question test..studying, going to a test
session, taking the test. But, your mileage may vary.

I say "bring it on! I got yer 100 questions right here!"

To each his or her own :-)

Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for
full-privileges ham licenses.

In other words, bragging rights and stroking your own ego...

Is that bad?

Maybe not bad, but insufficient reason for the FCC to retain
a separate license class.

which do nothing for the hobby.

That's one spin. Here's another: By getting a Class A instead of clinging
to my
Extra, I'd be setting an example for others *and* reducing FCC's admin
workload.

That's a concern to the FCC, not anyone else.

After all, if every Extra got a Class A, there's be no problem. And one of
the
simplest tests of any action's morality is "what if everyone did that?"

You're not going to make this a morality
issue are you :-( :-)

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Just a name.

For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and
General
even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General
privileges.
For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the
amateur
radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC).

So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today.

But, it would require "some" ongoing FCC effort, etc. The how much
is unquantifiable by anyone other than the FCC.

Sure. But obviously FCC though it worth doing for 15 years, and again
today
with the Advanced and Novice.

Not the same since there are distinct privileges with those licenses
which differentiate them from the others. IF the FCC had made Advanced
privileges exactly the same as Extra, then I fully believe they would have
just changed all Advanced to Extra when they were individually
renewed.

Is it really almost four years since those changes?

Time flies when you're having fun.

--
I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight
of
the main goals of Hans' proposal:

1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license
2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license
so
that new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer -
except

high power transmitters.
3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical
knowledge and qualify for full privilege licenses within a
reasonable
time
4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than
three
tests, anyway)

Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all
pretty good goals?

I agree. My comments above are directed at aspects that I think will
need
to be addressed. Frankly, I don't give a hoot about retaing an existence
license name
just to show others I passed or did certain requirements that newer hams
didn't.
I think those that deliberately don't upgrade to Extra from Advanced,
just
to
show others they once passed a 13 wpm test have a personal self esteem
problem.

Actually, they have a logic problem! Because the fact of possesing an
Advanced in and of itself does not prove that someone passed the 13 wpm
test
any more than having an Extra proves someone passed the 20 wpm test, due
to
medical waivers.

Agreed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote

Not the same since there are distinct privileges with those licenses
which differentiate them from the others. IF the FCC had made Advanced
privileges exactly the same as Extra, then I fully believe they would have
just changed all Advanced to Extra when they were individually
renewed.

From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional,
General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same. We all used the
same frequencies with the same authorized power, and from our call sign you
couldn't tell one from the other. Life was good.

Then some dump huck social-engineering gummint dudes, cheered on by a radio
club in West Hartford, CT., decided to set up a bunch of arbitrary exclusive
band segments as 'rewards' for advancing amongst the various classes, and
then later drove wider wedges between the classes with the 'reward' of
distinctive call signs for the higher licenses. Whatever good came of this
is long since lost in the damage caused by 'class wars' which still rage.

My proposal is based first on the notion that there should be two classes of
license --- "Learners Permit" and "Fully Qualified", and second on the
notion that those learners should operate in the mainstream with experienced
hams, not segregated off into little ghettos populated with mostly other
learners.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

The phrasing used in your posts
attempt to make it so. Thus naturally
I will dispute the contention that you
are trying to make it a fact without
any supporting data. Not only are
you trying to call it a fact but attempting
to make others believe it, again
without supporting data.


You're not going to let it go, are you, Dee? I said what I believe to be
fact. Lacking any real data, that is all I could possibly do.

I based that on the fact that Morse code has been widely featured in
movies (Titantic to War Movies), television (Hogan's Heros to Westerns to
Sci-Fi), books, children's toys, the military decades ago, youth
organizations, and so on. So, again, I do think it is a fact that most
people in this country today know about Morse code. They may not know what
it's called, how to do it, or whatever, but only a truly isolated person
would not know at least something about it. That is especially true for
anyone interested in radio (shortwave listeners, potential new hams, and so
on).

You haven't provided anything beyond your own opinion to dispute any of
that. Instead, you assault my choice of words and then insist, even if true,
that is not enough - that one must have practical experience to truly make a
choice. Of course, that's nonsense. One does not have to murder someone to
know that murder is not something one would particularly like to do. Indeed,
we make choices in our lives each day without personal experience to back it
up. Your demand for more here shows a serious lack of respect for people's
ability to make their own choices.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

The phrasing used in your posts
attempt to make it so. Thus naturally
I will dispute the contention that you
are trying to make it a fact without
any supporting data. Not only are
you trying to call it a fact but attempting
to make others believe it, again
without supporting data.


You're not going to let it go, are you, Dee? I said what I believe to be
fact. Lacking any real data, that is all I could possibly do.

I based that on the fact that Morse code has been widely featured in
movies (Titantic to War Movies), television (Hogan's Heros to Westerns to
Sci-Fi), books, children's toys, the military decades ago, youth
organizations, and so on. So, again, I do think it is a fact that most
people in this country today know about Morse code. They may not know what
it's called, how to do it, or whatever, but only a truly isolated person
would not know at least something about it. That is especially true for
anyone interested in radio (shortwave listeners, potential new hams, and
so
on).

You haven't provided anything beyond your own opinion to dispute any of
that. Instead, you assault my choice of words and then insist, even if
true,
that is not enough - that one must have practical experience to truly make
a
choice. Of course, that's nonsense. One does not have to murder someone to
know that murder is not something one would particularly like to do.
Indeed,
we make choices in our lives each day without personal experience to back
it
up. Your demand for more here shows a serious lack of respect for people's
ability to make their own choices.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Dwight...

If you don't mind, lemmee see if this works for you. Here's a post I'll use
for an example:

::::::::::
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get _phone_
subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the beginning.

Sure there is. Here it is, though you may argue that it doesn't hold much
water
today:


In addition, anyone one who thinks they took the code tests to get phone
subbands isn't really viewing it from the right perspective anyway. The
code test, as well as the additional writtens, was to get HF privileges or
should have been. It happens that phone privileges are included when one
earns HF privileges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
::::::::::

Now to counter Dee on the point that she made, where she essentially states
to you that you presented something as fact (which isn't exactly clear that
you did...by the way; she *interpreted* something you said as fact), then
there's a lot to be said for her needing to present "statistical data" to
show that anyone--*anyone*--who took the code test...was to get HF
privileges. Now, in defense of her statement, she did qualify that
statement with the phrase, "or should have been." But, the qualifier does
not negate that she emphatically states "anyone who thinks they took the
code tests to get phone subbands isn't really viewing it from the right
perspective anyway." The implication between the conclusion that is derived
from the two combined statements is that Dee is--we could say, as she has
done with you--stating that it is a fact that anyone who takes the code test
did so to get HF privileges. Period.

Where's *that* statistical data?

This could be done over and over. So, in true debate form--at least as far
as I see it--the counter would be to fight fire with fire.

Fact is, though, you did open yourself up with the statement, "Few people
today (especially boys and men) have not learned code, or at least played
around with it, at some point in their lives." I mean, after all, you have
to see that such a statement would tend to be disagreed with. I would
disagree with it, wholeheartedly, if I was inclined to nitpick--or if I was
inclined to feel like I had nothing else to argue. It's a statement that is
quite arguable. There are not many people who have "learned code" as you
say. That's, uh, not a fact by the way.

Kim W5TIT

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

I based that on the fact that Morse code has been widely featured in
movies (Titantic to War Movies), television (Hogan's Heros to Westerns to
Sci-Fi), books, children's toys, the military decades ago, youth
organizations, and so on. So, again, I do think it is a fact that most
people in this country today know about Morse code.

Well, I simply disagree. Most people in the USA don't really know what Morse
code is.

btw, the 1997 James Cameron film had no significant Morse code in it at all.
Nor any real mention of the role played by radio. You have to see the 1956
flick "A Night To Remember" for that.

They may not know what
it's called, how to do it, or whatever, but only a truly isolated person
would not know at least something about it.

If they do't even know what it's called, they can hardly make an informed
judgement about it.

That is especially true for
anyone interested in radio (shortwave listeners, potential new hams, and so
on).

Not from what I've seen whenever I've demonstrated Morse code.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

Not the same since there are distinct privileges with those licenses
which differentiate them from the others. IF the FCC had made Advanced
privileges exactly the same as Extra, then I fully believe they would have
just changed all Advanced to Extra when they were individually
renewed.

From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional,
General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same.

No, that's not exactly correct.

The period described started in February of 1953, not 1951.

Before then, hams needed an Extra or Advanced to use 'phone on the HF bands
between 3 and 25 MHz. This is one reason 10 meter 'phone was so popular.

More important, however, is the fact that the basic concept of "incentives"
wasn't a new '60s idea, but a rehash of a much older practice from at least the
1930s. Except that the 1930s version had only two levels (Class B/Class A) and
was by mode, not subband.

We all used the
same frequencies with the same authorized power, and from our call sign you
couldn't tell one from the other.

You could, however, usually tell the oldtimers from the newbies by the license
class, but that was about all. Except that there was a very limited program
where hams could get specific callsigns.

Life was good.

So they tell me!

Then some dump huck social-engineering gummint dudes, cheered on by a radio
club in West Hartford, CT., decided to set up a bunch of arbitrary
exclusive
band segments as 'rewards' for advancing amongst the various classes, and
then later drove wider wedges between the classes with the 'reward' of
distinctive call signs for the higher licenses. Whatever good came of this
is long since lost in the damage caused by 'class wars' which still rage.

All of which was only done after over 5 years of debate and discussion. I think
the whole thing was a case of "Sputnik fever" by those guvmint dudes, who had
seen one too many hamshacks owned by QCAO charter members.

My proposal is based first on the notion that there should be two classes of
license --- "Learners Permit" and "Fully Qualified", and second on the
notion that those learners should operate in the mainstream with experienced
hams, not segregated off into little ghettos populated with mostly other
learners.

Exactly!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Hans' answer is not in his proposal.

OK, fine.

In fact, a lot of what Hans has said
in this newsgroup is not in the proposal.

It will be, if FCC acts on it in any way.

Instead, he just seems to be making
up answers as he goes along.

Is that bad? His answers are all in agreement
with the stated goals and philosophy of his
proposal. I haven't found a single case where
Hans has contradicted himself in this proposal
thing.


You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.

Hans has only submitted his proposal as a comment to others' petitions.

He can take the discussion here, and the answers he's given, revise the
proposal into a petition and submit it to FCC for an RM number.

Even though I disagree with some parts of it, and would oppose those parts, I
think his proposal has been much improved and clarified by the discussion here.


The end result could be something that FCC and much of the amateur commnunity
would support.

--

Do GROLs have to be renewed?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit
though.


Why? It's my understanding that the 10-year idea is based partly on the
current
license term and partly on the idea that we don't want to force anyone out
because of "life happens" events like education and family.

Its just too long.

Is it really too long, particularly considering the two-year experience
requirement?

One of the problems with the old 1 and 2 year Novices was that if a new ham ran
into "life happens" situations, their upgrade schedule would be seriously
disprupted.

Example: A few weeks after a teenager gets the Novice license his folks inform
him that the family is moving across the country. New house isn't quite ready
so they'll be living in temporary quarters for a while. Meanwhile most of their
stuff is in storage. "A while" becomes "a few months"..

Finally they get into the new house and there's a flurry of activity to get set
up - and the parents say ham radio isn't a top priority. By the time Our Hero
is back on the air, there's not much time left on his one-year license.

Look how long it's taken some *adults* (alleged adults, anyway) in this NG to
upgrade, or even get licenses.

The license renewal period would just be another
number by that time, since the new A license would be forever. I'm busy
as all gitout, and it took me something over a week of hard study to get
ready for the Extra.

Very true!

Plus I can't figure out what can make a person qualified to operate on
day 3652 of their licensing period and unqualified on day 3653.

The same principle that makes a General or Advanced class ham qualfied to
operate on 3526 kHz but not on 3524 kHz.

The same principle that makes a Tech Plus ham qualified to operate a
transmitter of 1500 W output using any authorized mode on 6 meters but not 10
meters.

It takes
a lot less time than that to understand RF safety - the only real reason
I can think of for the second class license, so if we're going to do
this, it should make some timing sense.

There's a lot more to it than RF safety.

I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read
teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A.

BTDT.

Not sure about BTDT.

Been There, Done That

Another
thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control
op at field day (or operate lower power)


Why would that be strange? It's the rule *today*.

I keep drawing parallels between the second class license and Generals.
We try to get people out to operate on field day, and you can get some
pretty strange setups. First a Ham with less than 2 years time in grade
would have to have a control op.

Why?

As long as the power level is less than 50 W, that Class B ham could operate
any freq, any mode, as the control op.

We have hams what operate now at field
day that would suddenly have to have a control op (therefore taking
myself or another Extra away from a station)

Not at all! Existing hams would retain their existing privs under Hans'
proposal.

Of course the second class
ham could operate a 50 watt or less station, but that would mean that
either we change our setup - all stations except GOTA are full output -
or set up a special station just for the second class hams, a sort of
low power ghetto.

You mean you folks operate 1500 W on FD? (that's "full output")

Heck, the GOTA station can run more power. Maybe this
is no problem for you, but for others it isn't so good

Try QRP some time ;-)

The fact is that if a non-Extra wants to operate FD, there has to be a control
op present whenever the non-Extra exceeds his-her subband restrictions. That's
a lot more onerous than turning down the power to 50 W.

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels:
QRP, 50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC.

Could be. But if we went back to that, the clubs could be forced to
make a decision to either run what they would like to run, take control
ops away from available stations for those who don't have time in grade.
(or the proper upgrade) or make that little ghetto for the second class
Hams. I really don't think that is a good way to welcome new people. YMMV.

There's another option: Change the rules so that different power levels could
be used for different stations in the same multi setup. (It used to be this
way!)

In fact, these changes should be done anyway. Right now there are three power
levels on FD:

"QRP/battery", which requires 5 W or less output *and* non-generator power,
(multiplier 5)

"Low power" which allows up to 150 W and requires a power source independent of
mains (multiplier 2)

"High Power" (multiplier 1)

Multi transmitter setups are categorized at the power level of the *highest
power* transmitter.

I'd do it this way:

"QRP", would require 10 W or less output (multiplier 5) and a power source
independent of mains

"Low Power" would would allow up to 50 W and requires a power source
independent of mains (multiplier 3.5)

"Medium power" would allow up to 200 W and requires a power source independent
of mains (multiplier 2)

"High Power" (multiplier 1)

"Battery" multiplier (instead of a weenie 100 point bonus) for non-fossil-fuel
energy sources

Multi transmitter setups would be categorized at the power level of the
*highest power* transmitter but scored by the transmitters actually used on
each band/mode. So 40 CW might run Low while 40 phone ran High, etc.

It used to be that way - and it was a good thing!

(Yes, I've suggested this to ARRL)

It seems that a major objection to the 50 watt rule is based on the fact that
there aren't a lot of 50 watt rigs for sale today. That's a pretty sad
commentary on the technical state of things, I think.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Bill Sohl" wrote

Not the same since there are distinct privileges with those licenses
which differentiate them from the others. IF the FCC had made Advanced
privileges exactly the same as Extra, then I fully believe they would have
just changed all Advanced to Extra when they were individually
renewed.

From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional,
General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same. We all used the
same frequencies with the same authorized power, and from our call sign you
couldn't tell one from the other. Life was good.

Then some dump huck social-engineering gummint dudes, cheered on by a radio
club in West Hartford, CT., decided to set up a bunch of arbitrary exclusive
band segments as 'rewards' for advancing amongst the various classes, and
then later drove wider wedges between the classes with the 'reward' of
distinctive call signs for the higher licenses. Whatever good came of this
is long since lost in the damage caused by 'class wars' which still rage.

My proposal is based first on the notion that there should be two classes of
license --- "Learners Permit" and "Fully Qualified", and second on the
notion that those learners should operate in the mainstream with experienced
hams, not segregated off into little ghettos populated with mostly other
learners.

73, de Hans, K0HB


Hans, I'm in full agreement with your 3rd paragraph.

But what radio club in West Hartford are you referring to?

"N2EY" wrote

From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional,
General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same.

No, that's not exactly correct.

The period described started in February of 1953, not 1951.


Whatever.

You could, however, usually tell the oldtimers from the newbies by the
license
class, but that was about all.

Unless someone told you their license class, there was no way of knowing.
There was no 'QRZ.COM' to go check, the CallBook didn't show license class,
and all you could tell by their call sign was where their station was
located. We all played together in the ether as equals.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , Alun
writes:

snip
Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving, forward
to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States
sits back and watches.

What's the count now?

I think they include at least the UK, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Australia (not until
Jan 1st). New Zealand may actually do it before Australia, as they have
said it would be before the end of the year, but have given no date. I am
pretty sure I have missed a couple out, too.


Oddly enough, Japan hasn't changed a thing, even though Japan has been the
poster country for no-code-test HF licenses.

The number of Japanese hams is dropping like a stone, judged by the number of
station licenses.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Then, what special knowledge is imparted by being able to pass the General
and
Extra class written tests that is a minimum qualification for the
privileges
granted by those licenses *and* is not tested adequately by the Technician
test?

What difference was there between a 1953 Technician written test, and a 1953
General written test? Nothing, of course. They were exactly the same
examination.

But the 1953 General could beep 8WPM faster than the Tech. This 8WPM
qualified them to operate on 2-meters where the Tech had no privileges in
1953. Novices of that era also beeped at 8WPM less than a General, but they
*could* operate on 2-meters, and on 3 HF bands closed to Tech's. Didn't
make any sense then --- still doesn't.

My point? All these arbitrary differences in operating privileges are just
that --- arbitrary, based mostly on a misguided agenda of 'social
engineering' by the regulators.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip) Fact is, though, you did open yourself
up with the statement, "Few people today
(especially boys and men) have not learned
code, or at least played around with it, at
some point in their lives." (snip)


Is that sentence what this is all about, Kim (and Dee)? If so, lets forget
about debate rules and discuss how to write instead. I wrote a paragraph
which contained a lead, supposition or hypothesis, and a conclusion. The
"fact" mentioned in the lead of that paragraph is in the conclusion of that
paragraph, not in any single sentence leading up to that conclusion. The
sentence quoted above is supposition leading to the conclusion. The
conclusion of that paragraph, and the "fact" mentioned in the lead of that
paragraph, is, "...most adults today are familiar enough with code to know
whether they have any real interest in it." Based on what I wrote in that
paragraph, and in subsequent messages, I do believe that conclusion to be
fact.

And the conclusion of this message is, if that sentence is indeed the root
Dee's objection, we've spent several days arguing over two entirely
different things - that sentence in Dee's case and the overall conclusion in
my case.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
I based that on the fact that Morse code has
been widely featured in movies... (snip)

Well, I simply disagree. Most people in the USA
don't really know what Morse code is.


How can you say that, Jim? As I said, Morse code has been shown in some
form or another in perhaps several hundred movies, television shows, and
news broadcasts, over the last forty or fifty years. One would almost have
to live in a cave without electric power to have not heard code at least
several times and not know it is sent with a key (telegraph or other).
Because of that, I think it is absurd to suggest that most don't know what
Morse code is. They may not know the details, but they most certainly do
know what it is.


If they do't even know what it's called, they can
hardly make an informed judgement about it.


Why do they have to know what something is called to make an informed
judgement about it? I may not know what a certain crane is called (or how it
works), but can still make an informed judgement not to stand under any load
that crane may be moving.


That is especially true for anyone interested in radio
(shortwave listeners, potential new hams, and so
on).

Not from what I've seen whenever I've demonstrated
Morse code.


What are you basing that conclusion on? I don't doubt that those people
didn't know how to send code, but you'll never convince me that they didn't
even know what Morse code was.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) The end result could be something that
FCC and much of the amateur commnunity
would support.


I disagree. For the reasons already stated, most specifically that the
proposal doesn't serve a need not already addressed in the current licensing
system, I don't think the FCC would have any interest at all in his
proposal. When you consider the amount of changes needed to implement the
proposal (rule changes, licensing procedures, and so on), I suspect the FCC
would be dead set against it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/