Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |