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

"N2EY" wrote:

Why is such a written test necessary? The
use of any of those modes is entirely
optional.

Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the
overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when
using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules
associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly
obvious.

No, it isn't.

You're avoiding my question, Dwight.

Why must hams be forced to learn about *any* modes and technologies whose use
is strictly optional? Indeed, someone who cannot speak and is totally deaf
cannot use voice modes - yet the written exams are full of questions on AM,
SSB, FM, etc. Why are such tests *necessary*?

Why is *any* written test beyond the basics of rules, regulations and safety
*necessary*?

Or consider this:

Techs are permitted to use all authorized (amateur) modes and frequencies above
30 MHz - at full authorized power. This authorization is based on the
successful passing of a single 35 question written test. FCC says so - in fact,
almost four years ago they drastically reduced the written testing needed to
get a Tech license.

Yet to have full privileges, a ham must pass additional written tests. Sure,
the addtional tests include rules and regs a Tech doesn't need to know, as well
as some things like HF/MF propagation. Buty those tests go far beyond the
additional regs and propagation. Why is that sort of thing *necessary*, since a
Tech has already shown that he/she is qualified on all authorized modes at full
authorized power?

Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test?

Sure. Here goes:

Considering the many advantages of Morse code, the number of
frequencies and bands on which it is used, the number of amateurs who
use it on the air and their exemplary conformance to the rules, regulations
and operating procedures of the ARS, the necessity of the Morse code
exam is clearly obvious.

There you go.

Prove the necessity for a written test beyond
the most basic rules and regulations.

I've already explained the necessity of the written test in the previous
message and in the paragraph above.

No, you haven't. You've explained why *a* written test on the most basic rules
and regulations is desirable, and maybe even necessary, not why we must
have the written tests we have today..

Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must
go beyond those basics.


Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim?

Yes.

The point is that some folks apply a double standard when deciding which
tests to keep and which to get rid of.

This is a
discussion about the code test.

Sure. And I've shown that if the same criteria you are using to justify dumping
the code test can also be used to justify dumping almost all of the content of
the written tests.

And so far I haven't seen anything to disprove my argument. Just "it's
obvious".

I have no desire to expand that into a
discussion about the written exams, including a review of those exams.

I can understand why.

Further, I think the value of the written exams is bloody obvious to all.

So you really don't have a counter argument when someone doesn't find it
obvious.

Therefore, there is nothing to prove.

Just the opposite.

If what matters is the learning that happens
*after* the license is in hand, why all the fuss
about written tests?

Read my first paragraph above.

I have. Doesn't answer my question.

I don't want the written tests to go away or be watered down further. But I
cannot come
up with solid counterarguments *rpoving* that all of their content is
necessary. And I
suspect that others can't, either - or they would present those arguments.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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?

Same way all the other power limits are enforced.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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.

Which is why in an emergency situation, if voice is unusable, I would pick
CW rather than RTTY, PSK31, etc. There are more ops out there listening and
although some are rusty on their code since they don't use it much they
could still help even if the code had to be sent really slowly.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I
haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it and
found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an end--to
licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely lacking in any
pertinent application to the process of amateur radio, overall.


I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you did
not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM. There's
nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot of HF are
really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to use CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered wiring up a
key from time to time, but decided against it. Shortchanging myself? I
don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone. Now, I have met people who
don't like phone, and I'm fine with that. It just so happens that I don't
like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK
too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use
it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and
experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying
they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience
to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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^)

Watta concept!

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.

You suspect wrong!

The old Novice was meant as a learner's permit for both the code and written -
in fact, more for the written than the code. A Novice could upgrade to Tech
with no more written skills (both licenses always required just 5 wpm code).
But upgrading to *any* permanent/renewable license required the
General/Tech/Conditional written test, which was much more involved than the
old Novice written.

The old Novice privileges included 2 meters (145-147 MHz) code and AM voice
(until 1967). The idea was that some Novices would go on to General and others
to Tech, depending on whether they were primarily interested in HF or VHF.

So the big question is what
is going to be different about this new class gap that ten years is an
appropriate time lag.

The idea is that the jump will be all the way to Extra-level written testing.
The ten-year term is meant to be a generous allotment of time, plus the current
license term is ten years.

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

Why is 10 years unreasonable? I recall Hans saying that if someone can't or
won't reach the level required for a full-privs license in 10 years, they
probably aren't that interested. (Correct me if I'm mistaken on that, Hans).

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.

Hans' proposal would not affect any existing hams' privileges. Those with
existing licenses other than Extra could keep them, renew them and modify them
as long as they retain interest. Existing Techs could stay Tech forever - no
problem.

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.

They wouldn't have to change anything.

But it only applies to existing hams. Newbies might get ticked off that the
same options weren't open to them.

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.

What stops me from running 5 kW? or more than the allowed power on 30 meters or
the Novice bands?

73 de Jim, N2EY

I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW.

No problem ....

nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an end--to licensing in
amateur radio.

Evil .... Satan is evil .... I find no mention of CW in the Bible being the
preferred mode of the anti-Christ ....

I also found it uniquely lacking in any pertinent
application to the process of amateur radio, overall.

Pertenent as of pertaining to ...I suggest Kim that you turn on your
receiver and listen to the CW activity that is there ...albeit contesting.
Wall to wall signals and on 30 meters essentially likewise for those who
don't contest. I really get tired of the old CW is dead ...AKA pertinent to
ham radio. Especially since the squashing of this myth is just a turn of
the knob away for those who have the ambition to do so instead of repeating
untrue crap.

CW is a wonderful skill to have if one enjoys communicating with it.

What you don't use you loose but in a lot of ops cases they will never loose
it because they never had it to begin with ...... therein lies the real
sadness.

God Bless 73 Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon Pa

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


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


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I
haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it
and found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an
end--to licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely
lacking in any pertinent application to the process of amateur
radio, overall.


I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you did
not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM.
There's nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot of
HF are really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to use CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered wiring
up a key from time to time, but decided against it. Shortchanging
myself? I don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone. Now, I have met
people who don't like phone, and I'm fine with that. It just so
happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use
it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to
use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and
experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and
saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and
experience to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement
that is laughable.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:

A straightforward plan is already written and in the hands of the FCC.
http://tinyurl.com/wce9

It really isn't too bad a plan, although there are a few weaknesses
that are a bit bothersome.

That 50 watt limit for the class B license is simply unenforcable, save

some sort of training wheel governor device that they would have to put
on their transmitters.

Why would it be any more complex than what we have now?

And in the old days, there was no big deal about enforcing Novices' use of no
more than 75 watts input and crystal control.

If you want to put a time limit on upgrading, it really should be a lot

shorter, like 3 years. Ten years is simply way too long. The prospective
class A Ham almost certainly will upgrade in a year or two.

Maybe not! Look how many Tech Pluses are still on the books today, even though
for the past 42 months they've been able to upgrade with just a single written
- or in many cases, no test at all. And the number of Tech Pluses has also been
dropping by renewals as Techs.....

But I still don't like the idea of a forced retirement. It brings up an

absurdity like a person that operates exclusivly QRP having to upgrade
so that he/she is now allowed to use 1.5 kW. That's all they get. So
they are forced to upgrade and spend money for something that means
nothing to them - save keeping their license.

The same was true in the old days if a ham simply wanted to operate in the
Novice bands with xtal control and 75 watts...

When incentive licensing was reinstituted in 1968, a lot of hams had to upgrade
just to do what they'd been doing for years.

I really do like the idea of "time in grade". It is one of the best
ideas ever abandoned by the FCC.

Me too, but it's an uphill climb to get it back.

A lifetime grant license? Well, I'm not too sure. I guess it is a
pretty good thing. If you don't have to renew it, there aren't
processing costs.

The big problem is that the license won't expire even if its holder does. The
database will contain more and more entries of long-dead or lost-interest hams.


Perhaps that's part of Hans' plan - the number of hams with that class of
license will grow and grow and grow...

FCC will cancel a license if proper paperwork is done. Usually this takes the
form of a family member sending in a death certificate so that the SK's call
can be reassigned to a friend, club or relative.

Given the 10 year license term and such things as online renewal, I don't see
renewal costs as a big line item in the FCC budget.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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


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


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I
haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it
and found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an
end--to licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely
lacking in any pertinent application to the process of amateur
radio, overall.


I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you did
not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM.
There's nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot of
HF are really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to use CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered wiring
up a key from time to time, but decided against it. Shortchanging
myself? I don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone. Now, I have met
people who don't like phone, and I'm fine with that. It just so
happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use
it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to
use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and
experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and
saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and
experience to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement
that is laughable.

Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that
people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them.
Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and older
but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's weight
under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying more weight
than we should.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


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?


Same way all the other power limits are enforced.

I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running way
too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities
of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other hams
too.

But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is
detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the equipment
manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50 watts.

- Mike KB3EIA -