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