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