"Mike Coslo" wrote


What would it accomplish?


At the end of a ten-year period with a learning permit, it would bottom-blow
those persons who through either lack of interest or lack of aptitude had
not met the qualifications for a standard ham license.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


What would it accomplish?



At the end of a ten-year period with a learning permit, it would bottom-blow
those persons who through either lack of interest or lack of aptitude had
not met the qualifications for a standard ham license.

True, although I think a large number of those would just simply not
renew their licenses.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote


True, although I think a large number of those would just simply not
renew their licenses.

In this case, as in the case of the original Novice "learners permit",
renewal would not be allowed. My plan is much more generous, giving the
novice a 10-year period to qualify as opposed to the 1-year term of the
original Novice license.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote


True, although I think a large number of those would just simply not
renew their licenses.

In this case, as in the case of the original Novice "learners permit",
renewal would not be allowed. My plan is much more generous, giving the
novice a 10-year period to qualify as opposed to the 1-year term of the
original Novice license.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Since the uninterested would generally let it lapse anyway, it's not worth
the effort to change to change the rules to have a 10 year non-renewable
"learner's permit."

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

In this case, as in the case of the original Novice "learners permit",
renewal would not be allowed. My plan is much more generous, giving the
novice a 10-year period to qualify as opposed to the 1-year term of the
original Novice license.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Since the uninterested would generally let it lapse anyway, it's not worth
the effort to change to change the rules to have a 10 year non-renewable
"learner's permit."

Dee,

It's not just about "interest" but about "qualifications".

Hans thinks that *all* hams should be qualified (eventually) at at least the
Extra class written level. The purpose of his proposed LP license is to give
newbies a sample of what ham radio is like, and a 10-year opportunity to learn
enough to get a full-privileges license. Just like the old 1 and 2 year
one-to-a-customer Novice licenses did.

IOW, upgrade or leave the amateur bands. Hans' proposal is that simple. LPs
would have an 8 year window of opportunity to do so.

Part of the concept is the idea that if somebody can't hack the Extra test -
for whatever reason - before their 10 year LP license runs out, too bad, game
over, thanks for playing. Of course at any future time after the LP license
runs out, such a person could take the Extra written and get the license.

The idea is that "LPs" are not really qualified hams - the license class would
exist so that they could become qualified.

Of course the only difference in privs would be power level - LPs would be
limited to 50 watts out. No word on vanity calls, tho.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) Hans thinks that *all* hams should
be qualified (eventually) at at least the
Extra class written level. The purpose of
his proposed LP license is to give newbies
a sample of what ham radio is like, and a
10-year opportunity to learn enough to get
a full-privileges license. (snip)


And I think Hans is barking up the wrong tree with his idea. I don't see
any benefit whatsoever. It doesn't really serve a specific need within the
Amateur Radio community. It doesn't serve the regulatory needs of the FCC.
And it doesn't really serve the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service.

Hans seems to be basing his idea on 97.1(c) and 97.1(d). The first talks
about, "Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules
which provide for advancing skills in both communications and technical
phases of the art." The second talks about, "Expansion of the existing
reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators,
technicians, and electronics experts." Neither of these even suggest the
need for a requirement to advance in license class or get out. And neither
suggests a need for a requirement to learn to a specific level or get out.

Hans also seems to be basing his idea on the faulty premise that one must
advance in license class to learn, advance skills, or increase the reservoir
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. Of course, that
premise is simply untrue. For example, one can learn about satellite
communications, at least all that one can learn though Amateur Radio, with a
Technician license (no license advancement required). The same with digital
communications. The same with microwave communications. And the same with
moonbounce, SSB, FM repeaters, and a long list of other skills, abilities,
and radio arts.

Finally, I think Hans' idea would have a chilling effect on the Amateur
Radio Service - assigning newcomers (once again) to an outside the
mainstream, subordinate, sub-class with sharp limits on their participation.
If I took my first look at Amateur radio, and saw that as my only option, I
would probably not so politely say where you could stick it. The 'advance or
get out' idea would make that almost a certainty (indeed, why even invest
time, or in radio equipment, if there is even the slightest possibility of
being forced out of something I know so little about at that particular
moment - a potential newcomer).

Luckily, I think the FCC would have enough common sense to realize this
idea is absurd. Sadly, it does seem to have it's supporters within the
Amateur Radio community.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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