"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

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.

No, that's not exactly correct.

The period described started in February of 1953, not 1951.

Before then, hams needed an Extra or Advanced to use 'phone on the HF bands
between 3 and 25 MHz. This is one reason 10 meter 'phone was so popular.

More important, however, is the fact that the basic concept of "incentives"
wasn't a new '60s idea, but a rehash of a much older practice from at least the
1930s. Except that the 1930s version had only two levels (Class B/Class A) and
was by mode, not subband.

We all used the
same frequencies with the same authorized power, and from our call sign you
couldn't tell one from the other.

You could, however, usually tell the oldtimers from the newbies by the license
class, but that was about all. Except that there was a very limited program
where hams could get specific callsigns.

Life was good.

So they tell me!

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.

All of which was only done after over 5 years of debate and discussion. I think
the whole thing was a case of "Sputnik fever" by those guvmint dudes, who had
seen one too many hamshacks owned by QCAO charter members.

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.

Exactly!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional,
General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same.

No, that's not exactly correct.

The period described started in February of 1953, not 1951.


Whatever.

You could, however, usually tell the oldtimers from the newbies by the
license
class, but that was about all.

Unless someone told you their license class, there was no way of knowing.
There was no 'QRZ.COM' to go check, the CallBook didn't show license class,
and all you could tell by their call sign was where their station was
located. We all played together in the ether as equals.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional,
General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same.

No, that's not exactly correct.

The period described started in February of 1953, not 1951.

Whatever.

Point is, FCC spent years developing the new structure, announced it on 1951,
but then just when the tough part of the new rules (requiring an Extra for
amateur HF phone on 80 thru 15), they dumped those rules and gave everybody
except Novices and Techs everything.

You could, however, usually tell the oldtimers from the newbies by the
license class, but that was about all.

Unless someone told you their license class, there was no way of knowing.
There was no 'QRZ.COM' to go check, the CallBook didn't show license class,
and all you could tell by their call sign was where their station was
located. We all played together in the ether as equals.

Except for Novices, whose distinctive callsigns were unmistakeable.

Except for Techs.who had no HF at all and originally no 6 or 2 meters either.

And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a newbie.
W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT. K3NYT was
an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway.

If everything was so nice, why was FCC so unhappy with the way things were
going? As early as 1958, FCC wanted to know why there were so few Extras. They
asked again in 1963 and made it clear they wanted to bigtime changes.

Personally, I think it was "Sputnik fever". They, like many others in the USA,
were spooked by the early Soviet achievements in space (first artificial
satellite, first animal in space, first pictures of the far side of the moon,
first man in space, first woman in space.....the list goes on and on) and
perceived the USA to need "incentive" in all things technological.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"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


Hans, I'm in full agreement with your 3rd paragraph.

But what radio club in West Hartford are you referring to?

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.

But that was 35+ years ago and times have changed. I'd bet the
FCC won't do that again and has, to a certain degree already
shown its mindset with the lack of differentiation
between tech and tech+...even though there is a difference
in operating bands permmitted.

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.

Other than my beliefs at how FCC would likly treat existing
licenses...I generally agree with your proposal.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK