In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you
really want?

One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain.

It is a "TIRED" radio structure.

Not at all!

It's a "tried and true" license structure.

When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about 250,000
US hams. Today there are about 680,000.

If you want Merit Badges, join the
BSA (or CAP).

License class is not a merit badge.

There is no need to have class distinctions between
hams artificially created by the FCC.

License class is not about class distinctions. It's about qualification for
privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the Extra
is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges.

This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur
radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has
demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges.

Allow the ham to distinguish
himself or herself, based upon actual achievements.

Such as?

Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the
Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one
of "self-training".

I do.

Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF?

-Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once
you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop.
There is nothing more to be learned!

Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said Extra has
demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges.

You couldn't be more wrong. Again.

A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain.

It does. Unless you believe that once you obtain Amateur Extra that
all learning stops because ther is nothing new to be learned.

See above.

A tiered one does.

No more than a one license ARS.

Depends on the license.

Was that too difficult for you?

Trying hard to keep your position at the top of the hill is sooo
transparent.

Allow the ham to show the world his real achievements, not some
government supported and forced Merit Badge system of false
achievements.

Such as what? Number of antennas not erected? Number of details forgotten about
an alleged DX operation?

You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it:

First, put aside the code test issue and concentrate on the writtens.

Second, close off the Tech and General to new issues.

Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one
large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech or
General license classes because they won't be issued new any more.

Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the
combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become
hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges.

Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically extended
to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No renewals.

Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class"
test within the next 10 years or leave the air.

At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have passed
the same test to get it.

Why not?

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:28:40 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:

Keep the written exam, nix all CW or alternative mode testing,

So far I agree with you, with the caveat that the content of the
exams at each level be of significance.

and increase the license fee to at least that of the GMRS fee of
$75.00 (not sure for how long that $75.00 is good for).

There's where we differ. At present there is no license fee paid to
the U S Treasury via the FCC. The League worked very hard to make
sure that the politicians didn't have such a route to our wallets
and I feel strongly that it should remain that way. Unfortunately,
we were not successful in keeping the so-called "vanity call sign"
program fee-free - even the sobriquet "vanity" was imposed by The
Congress. I would have liked it called something else, like
"selected".

Note that the FCC doesn't get a nickel of license fees - they go
directly into the Treasury's General Fund. The requirement for
levying such fees is mandated by act of Congress and the FCC just
jumps and asks "how high" on the way up.

The exam fee paid to the private-sector VE teams is something else,
and can only be imposed on a reimbursement level.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:30:17 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:

Speaking of which, the FCC needs to update the whole section on ham radio
R&R. ESPECIALLY the Basis and Purpose. That portion is so far removed from
the spirit and letter of reasons why people are in ham radio these days, and
that's a pity of course--but a reality nevertheless.

I have a brilliant solution for you, Kim.

Draft a document called a Petition for Rule Making and in it say:

I request that Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations be amended
to read as follows:

and then write what YOU think the exact wording of each section that
you want changes should say. Add to that the reasons for each change
and your standing and qualfications for them to give serious
consideration to your request.

Send it to the Secretary of the Commission, original and 11 copies.

Then sit back and wait. I wish you luck.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:30:17 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:

Speaking of which, the FCC needs to update the whole section on ham radio
R&R. ESPECIALLY the Basis and Purpose. That portion is so far removed
from
the spirit and letter of reasons why people are in ham radio these days,
and
that's a pity of course--but a reality nevertheless.

I have a brilliant solution for you, Kim.

Draft a document called a Petition for Rule Making and in it say:

I request that Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations be amended
to read as follows:

and then write what YOU think the exact wording of each section that
you want changes should say. Add to that the reasons for each change
and your standing and qualfications for them to give serious
consideration to your request.

Send it to the Secretary of the Commission, original and 11 copies.

Then sit back and wait. I wish you luck.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Oh, no, no, no. I didn't say I want to or would pick up the torch for
change. I've got other irons in the fire dealing with things much closer to
my heart than ham radio...

So, I assume you're of the opinion that even if someone petitioned, it would
not be worth the while?

Kim W5TIT

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
[major snip] I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat
of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but
not mode.

Supporting a "learner's permit" license contradicts the concept of not
having class distinctions as discussed in the earlier part the post. Once
you have more than one license class for any reason, you have a class
distinction, which according to your posts is undesirable.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you
really want?

One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain.

It is a "TIRED" radio structure.

Not at all!

It's a "tried and true" license structure.

When "incentive licensing" was re-established in 1968, there were about
250,000
US hams. Today there are about 680,000.

But CW testing was implemented to limit the number of amateurs, not
grow the number.

Where did you get that idea?

Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting the
number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements for full
amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code tests, the
number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of stagnation at the
quarter-million mark.

If you want Merit Badges, join the
BSA (or CAP).

License class is not a merit badge.

Not even when you puff out your chest and declare, "I'm a 20wpm
Extra!"

When have I done that?

Besides, 20 wpm isn't that fast. I can do at least 35 wpm.

There is no need to have class distinctions between
hams artificially created by the FCC.

License class is not about class distinctions.

Are you positively sure abaout that?

Yep.

It's about qualification for
privileges. In order to have full privileges, the knowledge to pass the
Extra
is required. Same for the other classes. More knowledge, more privileges.

Is that like when the General licence holder had all priveleges?

1953 to 1968. Then FCC decided that it wasn't enough.

And when the Tech (General written w/o 13wpm Code) had VHF only.

This doesn't mean an Extra knows everyhting there is to know about amateur
radio because they passed the tests. It just means that said Extra has
demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges.

Then tell Steve about self-training.

He knows. You don't.

Even in the scheme of incentive
licensing, the lowest and the highest licensed individuals still have
a lot to learn.

Of course! No one with any sense denies that. The license is just the
beginning.

Allow the ham to distinguish
himself or herself, based upon actual achievements.

Such as?

Cop McDonald - SSTV.

45+ years ago. I've read the original articles. That work is so old that 11
meters was a ham band.

Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of
the
Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as
one
of "self-training".

I do.

Then why didn't you train yourself on practical antennas for HF?

Oh, I have.

I don't think so.

What I haven't done is train myself on EVERY practical
antenna for HF, especially those antennas applicable to low visual
impact in a restricted neighborhood, and cannot (or rather shouldn't
be placed against) a house sheathed in aluminum siding. So I looked
outside my personal breadth of knowledge for something new, and ran
into you and Brian Kelly. What a pair.

You wanted to be spoon-fed antenna theory and practice instead of
self-training. I pointed you to several websites. It's clear you didn't even
look.

Some would call that self-training, seeking information and knowledge
outside ones own experience.

Then why didn't you find the information on your own? It became clear to me
that you hadn't even tried googling. You wanted others to do the work for you,
then you'd insult those who tried to help you out.

-Espeically- "self-training." Obviously you believe that once
you obtain the "Amateur Extra" license that all learning must stop.
There is nothing more to be learned!

Nope, not at all. All it means to have passed the Extra is that said Extra
has
demonstrated the *minimum* knowledge required for full privileges.

You and Steve have a lot in common - being wrong.

How is that statement wrong? FCC set the standard. Pass the test, get the
license.

For Steve's assertion to be true, there would have to be a license
class above Amateur Extra, and when a person achieved that, to fufill
Steve's vision "self-training" there would have to be another level
above that. And so on.

Nonsense.

I.E., a merit badge system.

More nonsense.

You couldn't be more wrong. Again.

A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain.

It does. Unless you believe that once you obtain Amateur Extra that
all learning stops because ther is nothing new to be learned.

See above.

See below your see above.

A tiered one does.

No more than a one license ARS.

Depends on the license.

Amateur License.

Call it that.

Was that too difficult for you?

Trying hard to keep your position at the top of the hill is sooo
transparent.

Allow the ham to show the world his real achievements, not some
government supported and forced Merit Badge system of false
achievements.

Such as what? Number of antennas not erected? Number of details forgotten
about an alleged DX operation?

Again you try to make this personal.

You've personally refused to answer any questions on some alleged DX
operations.

I've built HF and VHF antennas,
some from a box, some from a reel of wire and bamboo poles. And I've
operated on HF from Nebraska, ROK, Guam, Illinois, Somalia, Florida,
and Ohio, in that order.

Who is puffing out his chest now?

But you can't seem to tell us anything about the /T5 operation.

Just don't be so jealous.

I'm not.

Besides, I don't see your name behind "Invented SSTV."

Nor yours besides "invented anything".

So, what mode, what l/o circuit, or even soldering technique has your
name on it?

A few articles in the amateur press. Several homebrew rigs. And some other
things...

How many JOTA stations have you hosted?

None. How many have you hosted?

How many intro-license classes have you hosted?

A few. Code and theory. Plus upgrade study groups. Plus online help to many
amateurs.

How many have you taught?

How many VE sessions have you hosted?

A few.

How many have you done?

Certainly you've done something other than DX and belittle you fellow
hams.

I'm not a DXer.

Where have I belittled any other hams?

Not all hams will distinguish themselves - you certainly haven't. So
let them just be hams, like 99% of all the other Extra class
licensees.

And like you?

You want one class of license, fine. Here's how to do it:

First, put aside the code test issue and concentrate on the writtens.

Second, close off the Tech and General to new issues.

What? No learners permit?

Nope. You said you want one class of license, no class distinctions, no merit
badges. A learner's permit would mean a two-tiered structure.

You said one license. That means one class of license - no learner's permit.

Or were you lying about wanting one class of license?

Third, combine the existing Tech, General and Extra question pools into one
large question pool. Eliminate any questions that are specific to the Tech
or General license classes because they won't be issued new any more.

Such as operating priveleges?

Exactly. If there's to be one license class, it would have to be for all
operating priviliges, so there's no need to test on where the old
subbands-by-license-class used to be. But that's about all that would be
removed.

Fourth, a single new 120 question written exam would be generated from the
combined question pool. All new hams would have to pass this test to become
hams. All would get "Amateur Class" licenses with all privileges.

Just leave out "Class" and call it "Amateur License."

Whatever.

Fifth, all existing hams would have their license terms automatically
extended
to 10 years beyond the date on which the new rules took effect. No
renewals.

Sixth, all existing hams would have to retest using the new "Amateur Class"
test within the next 10 years or leave the air.

You could even ask to have the pools FOUO, and/or increase the size to
12,000 questions. Just make the subject matter relavent.

What subject matter in the combined question pool that was just described is
not relevant?

At the end of 10 years we'd all have the same license class and all have
passed the same test to get it.

Why not?

Why not, Indeed?

Two reasons:

1) All newcomers would have to pass a written test about equivalent to the
Extra just to get on the air.

2) Existing hams would have to retest at that level or leave the air.

How many US hams do you think would be left in 10 years under such a system?

Deal.

You run it up the flag

No. It's your idea.

You want it, you do the work. Self-training, remember? Learn how to write and
submit a proposal to the FCC and get an RM number assigned. Then see what the
amateur community thinks of your ideas in their comments.

I don't want such a system - I just described what would logically be the
structure of such a system. I did it to point out exactly what such a system
would require, and some of the foreseeable consequences.

and I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat
of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but
not mode.

No. You said one class of license. That means no learner's permits, no
easy-to-get licenses, just one class of license. Unless you support "dumbing
down", such a license would have to require roughly the equivalent written test
knowledge as an Extra. Some regulations questions could be eliminated but
that's all.

Or were you lying about wanting one class of license?

Brian wrote:


But CW testing was implemented to limit the number of amateurs, not
grow the number. How much higher do you think it would have grown to
if ...


Huh? CW testing was implemented because when the Amateur Radio service
began with the Radio Act of 1912, CW was *the* main mode of
communication. The CW test was 5wpm, same as it is now. How did you ever
come up with the idiotic idea it was implemented to limit the number of
amateurs?

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
[major snip] I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat
of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but
not mode.

Supporting a "learner's permit" license contradicts the concept of not
having class distinctions as discussed in the earlier part the post.

Of course it doesn't.

Once
you have more than one license class for any reason, you have a class
distinction, which according to your posts is undesirable.

It's not a class. Its a learners permit - a temp.

"Brian" wrote in message
m...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
[major snip] I'll support it, perhaps with Han's caveat
of a non-renewable learner's permit, limited by power and scope, but
not mode.

Supporting a "learner's permit" license contradicts the concept of not
having class distinctions as discussed in the earlier part the post.

Of course it doesn't.

Once
you have more than one license class for any reason, you have a class
distinction, which according to your posts is undesirable.

It's not a class. Its a learners permit - a temp.

Even though only temporary, it's still a separate class.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE