"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/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

And I think Hans is barking up the wrong tree with his idea.

I don't bark, and I'm not a dog.

I don't see any benefit whatsoever.

That bothers me not at all. It's the Commission I need to persuade.

Hans also seems to be basing his idea on the faulty premise that one must
advance in license class to learn.....

I don't support that premise at all. Where did you read such off-target
drivel? For more than 40 years I've been an outspoken critic of
(dis)incentive licensing. My plan calls for a very simplified license
structure of a broad-privileged learners permit to gain qualification, and a
single license class after becoming qualified.


Finally, I think Hans' idea would have a chilling effect on the Amateur
Radio Service - assigning newcomers (once again) to an outside the
mainstream......

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. No more limited-mode isolated and
restricted ghettos like the former Novice class, and greatly expanded
privileges beyond those enjoyed by todays entry-level Technicians.

It's clear to me that you haven't even taken the time to read the proposal
I've made to the FCC. You can view a copy at my website
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb .... click on the left hand column
link to 'FCC Comments'. When you've taken the trouble to actually read what
I've proposed, come back here with reasoned arguments against it. Until
then you are not prepared and ill-qualified to comment.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Hans also seems to be basing his idea
on the faulty premise that one must
advance in license class to learn.....

I don't support that premise at all. Where
did you read such off-target drivel? (snip)


Well, lets see where I could have gotten that from. First, you propose a
non-renewable license with a specific time limit to upgrade to a higher
license class. That certainly fits what I said. Second, you justify the
entire proposal by claiming the current tests are "not adequate to insure a
high level of expertise in new applicants." This introduces the idea of
raising the level of learning. And, finally, you set the license test all
must take to upgrade at "a difficulty level similar to the current Extra
class test." Those three together only suggest one thing - you don't think
the lower class operators today re knowledgeable enough, you feel all should
be forced to improve on that, and you offer the most difficult license test
available today as the sole means to accomplish it. Perhaps you can explain
where I'm wrong in that.


(snip) My plan calls for a very simplified
license structure of a broad-privileged
learners permit (snip)


The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all. You
introduced the proposal by claiming the current tests "are not adequate to
insure a high level of expertise in new applicants." But you later propose a
greatly simplified test for those new applicants (much more basic than
today's Technician test). How can you "insure a high level of expertise in
new applicants" by offering a even more simplified test?


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. (snip)


More modest power levels? That 50 watts you propose is 1,450 watts less
than what Technicians can use today. That's a pretty significant hit, not a
modest one. As for privileges, once the code test is gone, Technicians can
gain considerable HF privileges by taking the General written. 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.

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.


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.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Hans also seems to be basing his idea
on the faulty premise that one must
advance in license class to learn.....

I don't support that premise at all. Where
did you read such off-target drivel? (snip)


Well, lets see where I could have gotten that from. First, you propose a
non-renewable license with a specific time limit to upgrade to a higher
license class.

Just like the old Novice class license that brought hundreds of thousands of
new hams into amateur radio. Hans' proposal recycles that old idea.

That certainly fits what I said. Second, you justify the
entire proposal by claiming the current tests are "not adequate to insure a
high level of expertise in new applicants." This introduces the idea of
raising the level of learning. And, finally, you set the license test all
must take to upgrade at "a difficulty level similar to the current Extra
class test." Those three together only suggest one thing - you don't think
the lower class operators today re knowledgeable enough, you feel all should
be forced to improve on that, and you offer the most difficult license test
available today as the sole means to accomplish it. Perhaps you can explain
where I'm wrong in that.

Looks right to me. Point is, newcomers would have a decade to do so.

(snip) My plan calls for a very simplified
license structure of a broad-privileged
learners permit (snip)

The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all. You
introduced the proposal by claiming the current tests "are not adequate to
insure a high level of expertise in new applicants." But you later propose a
greatly simplified test for those new applicants (much more basic than
today's Technician test). How can you "insure a high level of expertise in
new applicants" by offering a even more simplified test?

The idea isn't that they'll have a high level of expertise right off, but that
they'll reach that level through the 'incentive' of having to either upgrade or
leave the air.

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. (snip)

More modest power levels? That 50 watts you propose is 1,450 watts less
than what Technicians can use today. That's a pretty significant hit, not a
modest one.

Sure. But at the same time, they will have all frequencies and all modes.
That's a pretty significant increase.

As for privileges, once the code test is gone, Technicians can
gain considerable HF privileges by taking the General written.

Right now, Technicians can gain almost all priviliges by passing the General
written (only 35 questions) and the 5 wpm code receiving test. Been that way
for almost three years.

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.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

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 -

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

N2EY wrote:

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!

Thought you would like that.....

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.

Perhaps I am looking at it from a different view, because of my
difficulties with Morse, but from what I've seen, the new tests aren't
that hard - and well, what I've been able to glean is that the old tests
were'nt that har either. So I may be a prejudiced observer. But how many
people needed all that time to prepare for the writtens? And wasn't the
General 12 wpm?


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).

Because they will probably be disinterested a lot sooner than ten years.
Why not three? Why not one? Why not make the sorry you're out date the
same time as the time in grade?



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.

It is most *certainly* a problem with new hams who have the same goals
as those who are happy being technicians now.

So we get rid of Morse code because of the poor souls who are kept out
of it because it is there, and then we force them to upgrade because of
why? We kick them out because of why?

And there it is. WHY?

If a ham is perfectly capable of operating on HF at 10 years licensing,
whay is he/she not qualified at 10 years and one day?

WHY? It's arbitrary, and unfair. and in the end, a touch absurd.

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.

Uh-huh! The old Techs get to keep their licenses forever, (do they have
to reregister after ten years, or are they techs forever with no renewal
if they want to be) but the new class B's are this long-term one-shot deal.


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?

Go ahead and fire up that 5kW station! I bet you can be found fairly
quickly.

But seriously, the really big difference is that for you to run 5 kW,
you have to do something above and beyond the ordinary, like put
together or purchase an amplifier, tuner, and the like.

Class B person simply has to turn that little RF power knob up past 50
watts. Perhaps the manufacturers will be forced to limit the output
power to 50 watts?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

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.

And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license.

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.

I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free to
renew their current license.



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

There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we
enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF
frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice
sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we
enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current
200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on 219-220MHz?
How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce
the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do
we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard
all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!! (I
quit using the word 'stupid'.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


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.


And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license.

And new people that intend to operate in this fashiion will have a very
different set up.

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.


I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free to
renew their current license.

So you are saying that present licenses will continue with the ten year
operating cycle? This is beginning to look like there will be 5 classes
of license in the end.



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


There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we
enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF
frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice
sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we
enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current
200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on 219-220MHz?
How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce
the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do
we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard
all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!! (I
quit using the word 'stupid'.)

Just because an idea is bad, doesn't mean it isn't repeated, eh? BTW,
you forgot ro add the ERP power limit on 60 meters. Rolling back the
output power to 50 watts when most HF transcievers will do 100 watts is
simply not going to work (if you want it to work that is)

Perhaps it is just as easy to detect someone running at 100 watts as it
is at 3kilowatts?

But okay, perhaps you have the evidence of all the Technicians that
have been injured by using 100 watts of RF power? What is the basis for
50 watts? Is it safety? Or is it arbitrary?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) The idea isn't that they'll have a high
level of expertise right off, but that they'll reach
that level through the 'incentive' of having to
either upgrade or leave the air. (snip)


To me, the entire idea is a solution seeking a problem. Since I don't
think the current license holders are lacking, I don't see any real benefit
(and I don't think the FCC will either). Regardless, his proposal would
require a complete re-write of all the rules relating to license class, when
a single sentence added to the existing rules would accomplish virtually the
same thing - "All license holders, except Extra, must obtain the next higher
license class within five years of obtaining their current license." Another
sentence might describe what will happen if that doesn't occur.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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