"Dwight Stewart" wrote

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

I expect it would be a longer test than todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level), and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those
who are intimidated by lengthy exams or have weak bladders.

My Extra exam was 100 questions. You were allowed 3.5 hours to complete it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:

I expect it would be a longer test than
todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band
segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level),
and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken
in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those who are
intimidated by lengthy exams or have
weak bladders.


In the end, I've described several, what I consider, serious faults in
your proposal, and that's without even getting into what I think the FCC's
perspective might be. I don't even think you're being realistic at this
point. Because of that, I don't think your proposal has a chance in Hades of
getting any further than a passing discussion in this newsgroup. As such,
I'll pass on any further discussion about it until something more
substantial is added to the discussion.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

I'll pass on any further discussion about it until something more
substantial is added to the discussion.

Thank you. I was kind of hoping you might have something to add but so far
you've only been a detractor, so it's probably just as well that you have
decided to withdraw from the discussion.

Have a great holiday season.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:

Thank you. I was kind of hoping you might have
something to add but so far you've only been a
detractor, so it's probably just as well that you have
decided to withdraw from the discussion.


Didn't you say the proposal has already been submitted? If so, there
really isn't anything that can be added and therefore any further discussion
is pointless.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered
in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

I expect it would be a longer test than todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level), and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those
who are intimidated by lengthy exams or have weak bladders.

My Extra exam was 100 questions. You were allowed 3.5 hours to complete
it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra? If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra?

All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed.

If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

I'd do it just to avoid having to renew.

Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for
full-privileges ham licenses.

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Just a name.

For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and General
even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General privileges.
For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the amateur
radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC).

So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today.

--

I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight of the
main goals of Hans' proposal:

1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license
2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license so that
new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer - except high power
transmitters.
3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical knowledge
and qualify for full privilege licenses within a reasonable time
4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than three
tests, anyway)

Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all pretty
good goals?


73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra?

All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed.

An unlikly license aspect since if there is no
renewal, then the FCC data base gets larger and larger
since no licenseever expires. That should really screw up the
statistics as to how many hams there are.

If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

I'd do it just to avoid having to renew.

Last time I renewed the ARRL sent me a nice letter,I signed it
and mailed it back. Sure wasn't any effort on my part worth
the effort involved in a 100 question test..studying, going to a test
session, taking the test. But, your mileage may vary.

Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for
full-privileges ham licenses.

In other words, bragging rights and stroking your own ego...
which do nothing for the hobby.

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Just a name.

For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and
General
even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General
privileges.
For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the
amateur
radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC).

So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today.

But, it would require "some" ongoing FCC effort, etc. The how much
is unquantifiable by anyone other than the FCC.

--
I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight of
the
main goals of Hans' proposal:

1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license
2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license so
that
new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer - except high
power
transmitters.
3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical
knowledge
and qualify for full privilege licenses within a reasonable time
4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than three
tests, anyway)

Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all
pretty
good goals?

I agree. My comments above are directed at aspects that I think will need
to be addressed. Frankly, I don't give a hoot about retaing an existence
license name
just to show others I passed or did certain requirements that newer hams
didn't.
I think those that deliberately don't upgrade to Extra from Advanced, just
to
show others they once passed a 13 wpm test have a personal self esteem
problem.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra?

All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed.

An unlikly license aspect since if there is no
renewal, then the FCC data base gets larger and larger
since no licenseever expires. That should really screw up the
statistics as to how many hams there are.

I noted that some time ago, Bill, but nobody commented on it until you did.

Perhaps that's part of the plan! Imagine if the FCC database totals showed the
number of hams who had ever held a license, rather than the number of current
licenses.....

Japan's operator licenses are "for life", which is one reason their totals
appear to be so high.

The biggest downside I can see is that a lot of prime callsigns would be tied
up unless family members could be convinced to send in a license cancellation
letter.

If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

I'd do it just to avoid having to renew.

Last time I renewed the ARRL sent me a nice letter,I signed it
and mailed it back.

I got one of those, too. Now it can even be done online.

Sure wasn't any effort on my part worth
the effort involved in a 100 question test..studying, going to a test
session, taking the test. But, your mileage may vary.

I say "bring it on! I got yer 100 questions right here!"

Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for
full-privileges ham licenses.

In other words, bragging rights and stroking your own ego...

Is that bad?

which do nothing for the hobby.

That's one spin. Here's another: By getting a Class A instead of clinging to my
Extra, I'd be setting an example for others *and* reducing FCC's admin
workload.

After all, if every Extra got a Class A, there's be no problem. And one of the
simplest tests of any action's morality is "what if everyone did that?"

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Just a name.

For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and
General
even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General
privileges.
For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the
amateur
radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC).

So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today.

But, it would require "some" ongoing FCC effort, etc. The how much
is unquantifiable by anyone other than the FCC.

Sure. But obviously FCC though it worth doing for 15 years, and again today
with the Advanced and Novice.

Is it really almost four years since those changes?
--
I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight of
the main goals of Hans' proposal:

1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license
2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license so
that new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer - except

high power transmitters.
3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical
knowledge and qualify for full privilege licenses within a reasonable
time
4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than three
tests, anyway)

Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all
pretty good goals?

I agree. My comments above are directed at aspects that I think will need
to be addressed. Frankly, I don't give a hoot about retaing an existence
license name
just to show others I passed or did certain requirements that newer hams
didn't.
I think those that deliberately don't upgrade to Extra from Advanced, just
to
show others they once passed a 13 wpm test have a personal self esteem
problem.

Actually, they have a logic problem! Because the fact of possesing an
Advanced in and of itself does not prove that someone passed the 13 wpm test
any more than having an Extra proves someone passed the 20 wpm test, due to
medical waivers.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Bill
Sohl"
writes:

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra?

All I can see is that Class A doesn't need to be renewed.

An unlikly license aspect since if there is no
renewal, then the FCC data base gets larger and larger
since no licenseever expires. That should really screw up the
statistics as to how many hams there are.

I noted that some time ago, Bill, but nobody commented on it until you
did.

Perhaps that's part of the plan! Imagine if the FCC database totals showed
the
number of hams who had ever held a license, rather than the number of
current
licenses.....

Japan's operator licenses are "for life", which is one reason their totals
appear to be so high.

The biggest downside I can see is that a lot of prime callsigns would be
tied
up unless family members could be convinced to send in a license
cancellation
letter.

Very good point.

If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

I'd do it just to avoid having to renew.

Last time I renewed the ARRL sent me a nice letter,I signed it
and mailed it back.

I got one of those, too. Now it can even be done online.

Sure wasn't any effort on my part worth
the effort involved in a 100 question test..studying, going to a test
session, taking the test. But, your mileage may vary.

I say "bring it on! I got yer 100 questions right here!"

To each his or her own :-)

Plus, I could then say I'd passed both the "old" and "new" tests for
full-privileges ham licenses.

In other words, bragging rights and stroking your own ego...

Is that bad?

Maybe not bad, but insufficient reason for the FCC to retain
a separate license class.

which do nothing for the hobby.

That's one spin. Here's another: By getting a Class A instead of clinging
to my
Extra, I'd be setting an example for others *and* reducing FCC's admin
workload.

That's a concern to the FCC, not anyone else.

After all, if every Extra got a Class A, there's be no problem. And one of
the
simplest tests of any action's morality is "what if everyone did that?"

You're not going to make this a morality
issue are you :-( :-)

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Just a name.

For 15 years the FCC retained the name difference between Advanced and
General
even though Advanced privileges were exactly the same as General
privileges.
For most of that time, the FCC "database" wasn't even computerized (the
amateur
radio data was first computerized in 1964, IIRC).

So I don;t think it would be much of a problem today.

But, it would require "some" ongoing FCC effort, etc. The how much
is unquantifiable by anyone other than the FCC.

Sure. But obviously FCC though it worth doing for 15 years, and again
today
with the Advanced and Novice.

Not the same since there are distinct privileges with those licenses
which differentiate them from the others. IF the FCC had made Advanced
privileges exactly the same as Extra, then I fully believe they would have
just changed all Advanced to Extra when they were individually
renewed.

Is it really almost four years since those changes?

Time flies when you're having fun.

--
I think in all the arguments about the details, we may be losing sight
of
the main goals of Hans' proposal:

1) Make it easier to get an entry-level amateur license
2) Convey a very large set of privileges with that entry-level license
so
that new hams can sample *anything* amateur radio has to offer -
except

high power transmitters.
3) Offer a real incentive for new hams to increase their technical
knowledge and qualify for full privilege licenses within a
reasonable
time
4) Simplify the rules and test procedures (two tests is simpler than
three
tests, anyway)

Of course there's disagreement about the methods. But aren't these all
pretty good goals?

I agree. My comments above are directed at aspects that I think will
need
to be addressed. Frankly, I don't give a hoot about retaing an existence
license name
just to show others I passed or did certain requirements that newer hams
didn't.
I think those that deliberately don't upgrade to Extra from Advanced,
just
to
show others they once passed a 13 wpm test have a personal self esteem
problem.

Actually, they have a logic problem! Because the fact of possesing an
Advanced in and of itself does not prove that someone passed the 13 wpm
test
any more than having an Extra proves someone passed the 20 wpm test, due
to
medical waivers.

Agreed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote

Not the same since there are distinct privileges with those licenses
which differentiate them from the others. IF the FCC had made Advanced
privileges exactly the same as Extra, then I fully believe they would have
just changed all Advanced to Extra when they were individually
renewed.

From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional,
General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same. We all used the
same frequencies with the same authorized power, and from our call sign you
couldn't tell one from the other. Life was good.

Then some dump huck social-engineering gummint dudes, cheered on by a radio
club in West Hartford, CT., decided to set up a bunch of arbitrary exclusive
band segments as 'rewards' for advancing amongst the various classes, and
then later drove wider wedges between the classes with the 'reward' of
distinctive call signs for the higher licenses. Whatever good came of this
is long since lost in the damage caused by 'class wars' which still rage.

My proposal is based first on the notion that there should be two classes of
license --- "Learners Permit" and "Fully Qualified", and second on the
notion that those learners should operate in the mainstream with experienced
hams, not segregated off into little ghettos populated with mostly other
learners.

73, de Hans, K0HB