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 there it is. WHY?

Mike, I know it scares the bejeebers out of the professional-entry-level
licensees out there who have essentially zero interest in whatever
electrical thing happens when they mash the PPT switch, but by their license
grant they are responsible for a ensuring that their transmitted signal
meets a set of technical parameters beyond what the little blinky digits on
the faceplate read.

The current qualification process is woefully inadequate to ensure they can
fulfill that responsibility. The current rules have kept most of these QCAO
members in parts of the spectrum which have mostly local propagation, even
with 1.5KW output.

However, we can soon expect rules changes which may extend their turf to
parts of the spectrum where their ignorance can have worldwide visibility
and consequences. And that scares the bejeebers out of me.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Pee equals eye-squared are. It's not just a good idea, it's the law!

"KØHB" wrote:

(snip) ...by their license grant they are
responsible for a ensuring that their
transmitted signal meets a set of technical
parameters beyond what the little blinky
digits on the faceplate read.

The current qualification process is
woefully inadequate to ensure they can
fulfill that responsibility. (snip)


Yet there are no widespread problems, reported by the FCC or other
organizations, relating to that. How can that be, Hans? Perhaps you're wrong
about your assessment of a large portion of this radio community.


The current rules have kept most... (snip)
...in parts of the spectrum which have
mostly local propagation, even with 1.5KW
output.


Out of band emissions, and so on, are not dependant on HF, Hans. Again, no
widespread problems relating to that.


However, we can soon expect rules changes
which may extend their turf to parts of the
spectrum where their ignorance can have
worldwide visibility and consequences. And
that scares the bejeebers out of me.


Yet that very thing is happening in many countries around the world, with
none yet reporting any problems whatsoever. Or is it just American operators
(their "ignorance") that scares the "bejeebers" out of you?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


Or is it just American operators (their "ignorance") that scares the
"bejeebers" out of you?

I am not eligible to petition the regulators in other countries, so my
proposal will only affect license applicants under FCC jurisdiction.
Hopefully there are responsible hams in other countries who will attempt to
ensure adequate qualification levels are maintained in most countries.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Or is it just American operators (their
"ignorance") that scares the "bejeebers"
out of you?

I am not eligible to petition the regulators in
other countries, so my proposal will only
affect license applicants under FCC
jurisdiction. (snip)


I'll leave that answer to speak for itself.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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