"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra,
they may have taken as many as 5 separate
written tests (snip)


Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking about
the present (the three written tests).


"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in
the Class B. (snip)


I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of repeated
material. By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited
from building their own equipment also? If not, how would one really make
the test simplier?


And with the simplified structure, some of the
questions like subbands-by-license-class
would go away. (snip)


So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also? This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.


Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras
get Class A licenses automatically, or would they
have to retest?


Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new license
structure, Jim. Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra,
they may have taken as many as 5 separate
written tests (snip)

Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking about
the present (the three written tests).

We *are* talking about the present. Present-day Extras took a wide variety of
written tests. For example, Hans took a single 100 question written test to go
from General to Extra. I took two 50 question writtens to make the same
transition. An April-16-2000 Extra took a single 50 question written. But all
of us prenetly hold the same license with the same privileges.

"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in
the Class B. (snip)

I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of repeated
material.

Sure - but the emphasis would be different.

By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited
from building their own equipment also?

Just the opposite, I think! But it's Hans' proposal - ask him.

If not, how would one really make
the test simplier?

Take the current Tech test. Remove some of the RF exposure stuff (because Class
Bs can't use more than 50 W). Add in some HF and Class B rules stuff. Done.

Since Techs are authorized to design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur
gear using any mode and any technology, the Tech written test must be adequate
for homebrewing, right?

How different is homebrewing for HF from homebrewing for 6 meters? (If
anything, homebrewing for 6 meters is more critical because of the higher
frequency).

Remember that Novices and Tech Pluses are already authorized to
design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur gear using any CW and SSB on
10 meters, and CW on 80. 40, 1nd 15 meters, using any technology.

And with the simplified structure, some of the
questions like subbands-by-license-class
would go away. (snip)

So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also?

Nope.Haven't you read Hans' proposal?

Both Class B and Class A hams would have access to all amateur frequencies. For
example, on 40 meters/Region 2 they would have:

7000-7150 CW/data
7150-7300.CW/phone/image

Compare this to the current mess of subbands on 40 for Extras, Advanceds,
Generals, Tech Pluses and Novices.

This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.

Why "absurd"? Hans is proposing to dramatically simplify things for new hams.
Lots of privileges for new hams. No more big divide at 30 MHz. No more having
to memorize lots of little subbands which then become obsolete as one upgrades.


And existing hams don't have to give up anything they already have. If an
existing ham wants to join the new system, just take a test.

My Extra license is up for renewing soon. I'd take the Class A just to avoide
that little chore....

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras
get Class A licenses automatically, or would they
have to retest?

Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new license
structure, Jim.

Not according to Hans' answer to the above question.

Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).

Do you really think such a test would be a problem for most of us Extras? I say
"Bring it on!! - I got yer Class A right here!"

I don't agree with Hans' proposal in some areas, but I'd hardly call it
"absurd".

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there are
only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000 hams. Was that
an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the other 6 to
new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code test is
a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article et,
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra, they may have taken as
many as 5 separate written tests (snip)

Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking
about the present (the three written tests).

We *are* talking about the present. Present-day Extras took a wide
variety of written tests. For example, Hans took a single 100 question
written test to go from General to Extra. I took two 50 question
writtens to make the same transition. An April-16-2000 Extra took a
single 50 question written. But all of us prenetly hold the same
license with the same privileges.

"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in the Class B.
(snip)

I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of repeated
material.

Sure - but the emphasis would be different.

By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited from
building their own equipment also?

Just the opposite, I think! But it's Hans' proposal - ask him.

If not, how would one really make the test simplier?

Take the current Tech test. Remove some of the RF exposure stuff
(because Class Bs can't use more than 50 W). Add in some HF and Class B
rules stuff. Done.

Since Techs are authorized to design/build/modify/repair/align/operate
amateur gear using any mode and any technology, the Tech written test
must be adequate for homebrewing, right?

How different is homebrewing for HF from homebrewing for 6 meters? (If
anything, homebrewing for 6 meters is more critical because of the
higher frequency).

Remember that Novices and Tech Pluses are already authorized to
design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur gear using any CW and
SSB on 10 meters, and CW on 80. 40, 1nd 15 meters, using any
technology.

And with the simplified structure, some of the
questions like subbands-by-license-class would go away. (snip)

So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also?

Nope.Haven't you read Hans' proposal?

Both Class B and Class A hams would have access to all amateur
frequencies. For example, on 40 meters/Region 2 they would have:

7000-7150 CW/data
7150-7300.CW/phone/image

Compare this to the current mess of subbands on 40 for Extras,
Advanceds, Generals, Tech Pluses and Novices.

This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.

Why "absurd"? Hans is proposing to dramatically simplify things for new
hams. Lots of privileges for new hams. No more big divide at 30 MHz. No
more having to memorize lots of little subbands which then become
obsolete as one upgrades.


And existing hams don't have to give up anything they already have. If
an existing ham wants to join the new system, just take a test.

My Extra license is up for renewing soon. I'd take the Class A just to
avoide that little chore....

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras
get Class A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest?

Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new
license structure, Jim.

Not according to Hans' answer to the above question.

Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).

Do you really think such a test would be a problem for most of us
Extras? I say "Bring it on!! - I got yer Class A right here!"

I don't agree with Hans' proposal in some areas, but I'd hardly call it
"absurd".

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY



It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements. However, I think that
something ultimately will have to be done about the status of Novice and
Advanced licences. It is just too messy to maintain closed licence classes
indefinitely. I would have no problem with automatically upgrading them
all, but I know that many others would not like it. Maybe the way around
this is to have new (or at least re-named) licence classes. Someone who
objects to Advanced licencees getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to
both becoming Class As, for example. A rose by any other name would smell
as sweet?

Alun wrote in
:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article et,
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra, they may have taken as
many as 5 separate written tests (snip)

Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking
about the present (the three written tests).

We *are* talking about the present. Present-day Extras took a wide
variety of written tests. For example, Hans took a single 100 question
written test to go from General to Extra. I took two 50 question
writtens to make the same transition. An April-16-2000 Extra took a
single 50 question written. But all of us prenetly hold the same
license with the same privileges.

"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in the Class B.
(snip)

I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of
repeated material.

Sure - but the emphasis would be different.

By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited from
building their own equipment also?

Just the opposite, I think! But it's Hans' proposal - ask him.

If not, how would one really make the test simplier?

Take the current Tech test. Remove some of the RF exposure stuff
(because Class Bs can't use more than 50 W). Add in some HF and Class
B rules stuff. Done.

Since Techs are authorized to design/build/modify/repair/align/operate
amateur gear using any mode and any technology, the Tech written test
must be adequate for homebrewing, right?

How different is homebrewing for HF from homebrewing for 6 meters? (If
anything, homebrewing for 6 meters is more critical because of the
higher frequency).

Remember that Novices and Tech Pluses are already authorized to
design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur gear using any CW and
SSB on 10 meters, and CW on 80. 40, 1nd 15 meters, using any
technology.

And with the simplified structure, some of the questions like
subbands-by-license-class would go away. (snip)

So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also?

Nope.Haven't you read Hans' proposal?

Both Class B and Class A hams would have access to all amateur
frequencies. For example, on 40 meters/Region 2 they would have:

7000-7150 CW/data
7150-7300.CW/phone/image

Compare this to the current mess of subbands on 40 for Extras,
Advanceds, Generals, Tech Pluses and Novices.

This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.

Why "absurd"? Hans is proposing to dramatically simplify things for
new hams. Lots of privileges for new hams. No more big divide at 30
MHz. No more having to memorize lots of little subbands which then
become obsolete as one upgrades.


And existing hams don't have to give up anything they already have. If
an existing ham wants to join the new system, just take a test.

My Extra license is up for renewing soon. I'd take the Class A just to
avoide that little chore....

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class A
licenses automatically, or would they have to retest?

Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new
license structure, Jim.

Not according to Hans' answer to the above question.

Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).

Do you really think such a test would be a problem for most of us
Extras? I say "Bring it on!! - I got yer Class A right here!"

I don't agree with Hans' proposal in some areas, but I'd hardly call
it "absurd".

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now
there are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost
200,000 hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY



It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished
in theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will
go away when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid
actually taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the
Novice subbands to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be
mentionned anywhere in Part 97, the only other alternative would be to
take them away from those Techs who have them now, which would be very
unpalatable).

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I
oppose all time limits and time in grade requirements. However, I think
that something ultimately will have to be done about the status of
Novice and Advanced licences. It is just too messy to maintain closed
licence classes indefinitely. I would have no problem with
automatically upgrading them all, but I know that many others would not
like it. Maybe the way around this is to have new (or at least
re-named) licence classes. Someone who objects to Advanced licencees
getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to both becoming Class As,
for example. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?


So maybe Class A (Extra/Advanced), B (General) and C (Tech/Novice)?

"Alun" wrote:

So maybe Class A (Extra/Advanced), B (General)
and C (Tech/Novice)?


Or how about no reference to class in the license names at all - such as
"Temporary" and "Operator" licenses?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Alun" wrote in message
...
[snip] However, I think that
something ultimately will have to be done about the status of Novice and
Advanced licences. It is just too messy to maintain closed licence classes
indefinitely. I would have no problem with automatically upgrading them
all, but I know that many others would not like it. Maybe the way around
this is to have new (or at least re-named) licence classes. Someone who
objects to Advanced licencees getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to
both becoming Class As, for example. A rose by any other name would smell
as sweet?

Why is it "just too messy?" Afterall the databases are computerized.
Renewals will have to be processed regardless of whether the person stays at
the same level or upgrades. There is no problem generated by having the old
classes and no advantage whatsoever to combining them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Alun
writes:

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY



It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).

And also without any purpose.

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.

Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off the
air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were such
awful ideas.

However, I doubt FCC will go for either. Just MHO.

However, I think that
something ultimately will have to be done about the status of Novice and
Advanced licences.

Why? They're just entries in a database. Since no new ones are being issued,
they involve no more admin work than other license classes.

At the end of 1952, FCC stopped issuing new Advanceds. They allowed existing
Advanceds to keep those licenses, renewing and modifying as needed. Most of the
approximately 40,000 Advanceds of that time did just that.

Then, almost 15 years later, FCC reopened the Advanced to new issues.

It is just too messy to maintain closed licence classes
indefinitely.

How is it messy?

I would have no problem with automatically upgrading them
all, but I know that many others would not like it. Maybe the way around
this is to have new (or at least re-named) licence classes. Someone who
objects to Advanced licencees getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to
both becoming Class As, for example.

I doubt that!

A rose by any other name would smell
as sweet?

Renaming isn't going to fool anyone that is against free upgrades.

Is the current 50 question Extra test so tough that it presents a serious
"barrier" to existing Advanceds?

What is the problem of keeping old license classes on the database and rules?

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , Alun
writes:


Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).


And also without any purpose.

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.


Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off the
air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were such
awful ideas.

I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit
though.

I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read
teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A. Another
thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control
op at field day (or operate lower power)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Alun
writes:


Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).


And also without any purpose.

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.


Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off
the
air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were
such
awful ideas.

I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit
though.

Why? It's my understanding that the 10-year idea is based partly on the current
license term and partly on the idea that we don't want to force anyone out
because of "life happens" events like education and family.

I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read
teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A.

BTDT.

Another
thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control
op at field day (or operate lower power)

Why would that be strange? It's the rule *today*.

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels: QRP,
50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article , Alun
writes:



Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).


And also without any purpose.


I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.


Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off

the

air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were

such

awful ideas.

I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit
though.


Why? It's my understanding that the 10-year idea is based partly on the current
license term and partly on the idea that we don't want to force anyone out
because of "life happens" events like education and family.

Its just too long. The license renewal period would just be another
number by that time, since the new A license would be forever. I'm busy
as all gitout, and it took me something over a week of hard study to get
ready for the Extra.

Plus I can't figure out what can make a person qualified to operate on
day 3652 of their licensing period and unqualified on day 3653. It takes
a lot less time than that to understand RF safety - the only real reason
I can think of for the second class license, so if we're going to do
this, it should make some timing sense.


I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read
teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A.

BTDT.

Not sure about BTDT.


Another
thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control
op at field day (or operate lower power)


Why would that be strange? It's the rule *today*.

I keep drawing parallels between the second class license and Generals.
We try to get people out to operate on field day, and you can get some
pretty strange setups. First a Ham with less than 2 years time in grade
would have to have a control op. We have hams what operate now at field
day that would suddenly have to have a control op (therefore taking
myself or another Extra away from a station) Of course the second class
ham could operate a 50 watt or less station, but that would mean that
either we change our setup - all stations except GOTA are full output -
or set up a special station just for the second class hams, a sort of
low power ghetto. Heck, the GOTA station can run more power. Maybe this
is no problem for you, but for others it isn't so good


Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels: QRP,
50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC.

Could be. But if we went back to that, the clubs could be forced to
make a decision to either run what they would like to run, take control
ops away from available stations for those who don't have time in grade.
(or the proper upgrade) or make that little ghetto for the second class
Hams. I really don't think that is a good way to welcome new people. YMMV.

- Mike KB3EIA -