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

"N2EY" wrote:

Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc.
are all non-necessities. (snip)

Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability
to
use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those
modes and the rules associated with them.

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

Which is also the reason why failing to correctly answer any one or two
questions about any individual mode does not result in failing the test.

Morse code should join those modes in that regard.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Certainly seems incnsitent to me....on a mode for mode
comparison basis.

In fact, except for the most basic of rules
and regulations, your argument leads to the
inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service at this point to mandate *any*
learning through a testing requirement.

Can you prove otherwise?

What is there to prove?

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

Noneed to. The FCC rules require it and I'm content with that.
If you (Jim N2EY) feel otherwise, then petition the FCC for the
change. Unless you or someone else does othat, this is just academic
futility. The code TEST however, has already been acknowledged by
the FCC as not being needed anymore...so the burden of proof to retain
a code test falls on those that wish to keep 5 wpm.

SNIP of additional comparisons of license requirements vs
license privileges

I have also noted that perhaps it is time for some "revamping"
of licensing such that the privileges bear some relationship
to the level of license granted. It will, if that path is
taken, be a protracted process (IMHO).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote

I have also noted that perhaps it is time for some "revamping"
of licensing such that the privileges bear some relationship
to the level of license granted. It will, if that path is
taken, be a protracted process (IMHO).

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

73, de Hans, K0HB

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

N2EY wrote:

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.

I think the old days were a bit different than today.

I don't think that people drove thier cars 30-35 miles per hour over
the speed limit as a routine thing. We just opend a new double laned
road in the area. Has a 40 mph speed limit. The first day, there were
something like ten people pulled over for going 75 mph and up on it. The
local bypass is 55. I am regularly passed by cars going 100 mph. At
least twice every trip. I'm going 70 and I'm a target. Going the speed
limit is tantamount to suicide.

My point is that if the radio can do 100 watts, that's where they are
going to put it. And that being the case, forgo the useless regulation.


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.....

And this hurts what?

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...

Perhaps, but it doesn't make it any less absurd.

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

Is this like 3 lefts make a right? 8^)


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.

True enough, kind of like JA

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