"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
news
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Wow. Good point, Dwight. Maybe that
idea of a term limitation license makes more
sense than ever. I haven't been in favor of
it...but maybe there's a part of it I haven't
thought of, such as your comment above.


Learning is one aspect of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service, not the total sum. When discussing term limits on license class,
all aspects of that should be considered. And, when it comes to those
other
aspects, there is no real benefit from term limits. Indeed, one could
argue
that it may actually harm those other things (reducing our overall
numbers,
for example).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Well, what I would support would be something like a pretty simple test--I
mean darned simple--with a minimal operating privilege built in with it. At
the end of something like a year or 2 years, then one would either have to
upgrade with a more technical and knowledge-based test and a higher,
permanent license class. I still would leave CW out of the mix, too...

However, I don't think there's going to be any major changes to the
licensing or testing structure for another couple of years. Jim, I think it
was, had a thread going with the predictions of when CW would be taken out
and I think I had a couple of years while others were guessing pretty quick.
I think CW testing is here to stay for a while.

Kim W5TIT

N2EY wrote:

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

snippage

Your proposal
would intentionally take that away by setting the bar to upgrade even higher
(the Extra class test). And, if newcomers fail to reach that higher bar, out
they go - their non-renewable license is gone.


Exactly.

But they would have 10 years to do it.

In the bad old days, a new ham had to pass the old General written (which was
split into the Tech and General writtens in 1987) to get a permanent/renewable
license of any class. The old Novice was meant as a learning tool, not a
permanent license.

Just because an idea was old, doesn't mean it wasn't bad! 8^) I would
have to suspect that the old Novice non-renewable was probably to allow
the prospective "permanent" ham to hone his or her Morse CW skills
rather than learn the writtens of the time. So the big question is what
is going to be different about this new class gap that ten years is an
appropriate time lag.

For a hobby, ten years is just too long a time. If there are going to be
limits, they should be reasonable ones.


And if this isn't all about assigning newcomers to a subordinate class,
why don't you change the names of those new licenses you propose - Class A
for the entry license class and Class B for the other license class? As it
is, it's clear only someone who has taken an Extra class-like test can be a
"Class A" Amateur Radio Operator.


Yup!

It's clear to me that you haven't even taken
the time to read the proposal I've made to
the FCC. (snip)

I've read the proposal and what you've said about the proposal in this
newsgroup. I stand by what I've said here and in the previous message.


I think you missed the major contradiction/paradox of Hans' proposal, Dwight.

He proposes a simplified test for the LP license, yet all LPs would be allowed
all frequencies and modes.

So the simplified test has to be adequate for the LPs to use all freqs and
modes - just not full power.

How can a simplifed test do that?

And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses. A
forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person that only does
public events, and uses the local repeater once in a while is not going
to be very popular with them. And "they" are a pretty large percentage.
Yes of course that is among people already licensed, but my point is
that this proposal is very HF-centric.

And if the simplified test *is* adequate, why should the higher-class test
require more than the additional stuff needed to run high power?

And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:


On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of
amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee,
just at
a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?

- Mike KB3EIA -


Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or even
monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more dollars
and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kim W5TIT

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Morse code is uniquely necessary. (snip)


Saying so doesn't make it true, Dee. Within the goals and purposes of
the
Amateur Radio Service, and to justify a unique testing requirement, how is
Morse code uniquely necessary today? Do remember recreational use is not
sufficient enough to justify a unique testing requirement (recreational
use
is equally applicable to all modes and they don't have a unique testing
requirement).


Well Dwight saying it isn't doesn't make that true either Dwight. I speak
from personal experience. How much HF experience have you had? How much
weak signal VHF experience have you had? Again keep in mind that I have
said Morse is necessary. While I happen to believe that testing should be
maintained that is NOT the point I am debating at this time and you keep
trying to drag it back to testing. I am stating that Morse code itself is
necessary.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

None of the other modes requires any skill
at all beyond connecting the pieces per the
diagrams and typing on the keyboard or
pushing a mike button. (snip)


Really? You mean all those things I did to get a properly operating
station (putting coax and connectors together, waterproofing, antenna
tuning, SWR tests, ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a microphone,
equipment grounding, lightning protection, RF exposure level estimates,
and
so on) wasn't really needed and didn't really require any skills to do
properly? Well, I guess I'll just forget about all that stuff in the
future.


Soldering requires some modest skill but one can hire that done if desired.
The other items are necessary but no skill is required just taking the time
to do it.


(snip) Virtually anyone can put set up & run in
an afternoon once they have acquired the
equipment. (snip)


In an afternoon? You mean I wasted all those days it took to get
everything in my station working just right, not counting all the time
I've
spent fiddling around to get even better performance since then. Well,
you're obviously a much more gifted operator than I am.


Doesn't require a gift merely knowing what to do and when to do it. Most
people don't try to set up the station and all the options at once. They
generally work at it in stages gaining experience as the go.

You will find that most experienced hams could set up a complete station,
including antennas, digital modes etc within a matter of hours. Many do so
for single station operation in Field Day.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

And it has the unique characteristic that
you can't take advantage of it until you
have acquired a basic skill level.

Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode
which
you can use without some basic skill level in that mode.

What's unique is that most people old enough to pass the amateur radio
license
exams do not already have Morse skills, and will have to learn Morse
skills in
order to use the mode. But the vast majority of those same people already
posess the skills to use other modes.

So what it comes down to is that a little serious skill-learning is
required to
use Morse on the air, except for a very few people who have learned Morse
elsewhere. I think that plain, simple fact bothers some of the most
vociferous
and abusive anti-code-test folks.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Excellent summary there, Jim. I think that is what many of us are trying to
say but not finding the right words.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...
[snip]
The same can be said for morse...unless you want to operate at
other than a basic level. For some reason, this discussion always
seems to presume one must be code literate at speeds well above
even 5 wpm for code to be useful to anyone. If one can "hunt & peck"
via a keyboard, the same can be done for morse using a "cheat sheet"
to send and receive morse at slow speeds.


No 5wpm is useful just a tedious for the listener. Learning it to a
higher speed simply makes it easier to communicate and increases the
probability that the person will not forget his/her code over time.

However, using a "cheat sheet" won't even let you go 5wpm as it takes too
long to look up the letters.

I've operated both RTTY and packet and other
digital modes and found them totally boring but I have had experience
with
them and there simply is no specific skill required.

Even "hunt & peck" requires an ability to use the keyboard
at a very minimal level. You may not think that it is any
skill level at all, but it is.


In today's world, most people have to learn that skill at a minimmal anyway
whether or not they wish to be radio Amateurs so do not include that as
something unique to Amateur Radio.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:


On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of
amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee,
just at
a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy. You
have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength
measurements. Just reading the signal strength from another station won't
do it as we've all experienced working a QRP station when propagation was
good and receiving them at 10 over S9.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com:


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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

And it has the unique characteristic that
you can't take advantage of it until you have acquired a basic
skill level.

Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode
which you can use without some basic skill level in that mode.

What's unique is that most people old enough to pass the amateur radio
license exams do not already have Morse skills, and will have to learn
Morse skills in order to use the mode. But the vast majority of those
same people already posess the skills to use other modes.

So what it comes down to is that a little serious skill-learning is
required to use Morse on the air, except for a very few people who
have learned Morse elsewhere. I think that plain, simple fact bothers
some of the most vociferous and abusive anti-code-test folks.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Excellent summary there, Jim. I think that is what many of us are
trying to say but not finding the right words.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have
the desire to use the skill. Learning the theory of modes you don't want
to use is not too onerous, but having to pass a typing test to use phone
would be just as annoying and stupid as having to pass a code test to use
phone, for example. Besides, having to know about other modes is
reasonable, but actually learning to use them is another matter. Also, if
I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty,
but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
news

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Morse code is uniquely necessary. (snip)


Saying so doesn't make it true, Dee. Within the goals and purposes
of the
Amateur Radio Service, and to justify a unique testing requirement,
how is Morse code uniquely necessary today? Do remember recreational
use is not sufficient enough to justify a unique testing requirement
(recreational use is equally applicable to all modes and they don't
have a unique testing requirement).


Well Dwight saying it isn't doesn't make that true either Dwight. I
speak from personal experience. How much HF experience have you had?
How much weak signal VHF experience have you had? Again keep in mind
that I have said Morse is necessary. While I happen to believe that
testing should be maintained that is NOT the point I am debating at
this time and you keep trying to drag it back to testing. I am stating
that Morse code itself is necessary.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I don't know about Dwight, but I use HF a lot, and I have done weak signal
work on VHF in the past. For the former I have never found CW to be
necessary, as it has never been necessary that I make any particular QSO.
As for the latter, I have never even heard any CW above 30 MHz, except
repeater IDs! This includes VHF contests. You may be using it, but I guess
I can't hear your sigs.