In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Were it not for the no-code tech license since 1990, I'd bet we'd have
about 1/2 the number of licensed hams in the US that we have now.

Not a good bet, Carl! Good thing nobody will take you up on it.

For one thing, the Tech license lost its code test Feb 14, 1991, not in 1990.
But that's a minor point.

Take a look at the number of new hams per year and the growth of US licenses
from Feb 1991 until today. Then compare to the number of new hams per year and
the growth in a time period of the same length previous to Feb 1991. You'll see
that that the Tech's loss of its code test in Feb 1991 did cause an increase in
the number of new hams. But without that increase, we would not be down to
340,000 US hams by any reasonable scenario. Heck, there are ~423,000 US hams
today who are *not* Techs - that's a lot more than 1/2 the ~683,000.

Yes, there are almost 260,000 Techs today - but a large number of them are
actually Tech Pluses whom the FCC renewed as Techs since April 2000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

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

Personally I think good true conservative idea is to allow people on
the air with no licencing requirements whatsoever, then cull out the
ones that violate the rules.

Wrong. A true conservative desires the least practical government
intervention in life.

A true liberal desires the least practical government intervention in life
as well.

ROTFLMAO...

Why?

Guess I have truly never met such a "true liberal." Every liberal I
hear from is always looking to use more of my money to create
larger and more involved government programs to do ever more
for the "poor, unwashed public".

That's the same as what conservatives want - except that their definitions of
the "poor unwashed public" are different.

The devil is in the details of what "least practical government
intervention" really means.

Just one example: The government used tax dollars to rescue Chrysler about
20 years ago.

As K2ASP pointed out, this was in the form of loan guarantees, not actual loans
to Chrysler. But the fact remains that if Chrysler had gone under the Feds
would have been on the hook for those loan guarantees.

Now - was the bailout a "liberal" move to save workers' jobs and try to
manage
the economy? Some "conservatives" would say that companies that get in
trouble
should be allowed to fail in a 'free market' and not propped up with tax
dollars.

OTOH, was the bailout a "conservative" move to save investors' money? Or
to
give some help to an industry bedeviled with safety, pollution and economy
regulations *and* the double whammy of foreign competiton and two oil
crises?

Some "liberals" would say that Big Business should not be propped up with
tax dollars. (Ma's Diner wouldn't get such a bailout)

See how it's all in the definitions? Some would call the Chrysler bailout and
other
similar deals "corporate welfare". Others would say they were a smart move that
resulted in more jobs, more economic growth and more ROI for investors.

Take a good look at any of those government programs for the "poor unwashed
public"
and you'll see that most of them can be viewed either way.

Clearly a "free-for-all" no license approach
to ham radio wouldn't cut it and, as such, I and other conservative
minded individuals do support ham licensing.

Most "conservatives", anyway. The exact same is said by most "liberals".

Where we depart from
the current approach is in the recognition that the "incentives" of
today's licensing do NOT dovetail with the knowledge needed
to pass the higher level license exams.

Not perfectly, anyway.

Not even very imperfectly.

Consider the old "ABC" scheme, though.

There were basically two levels of license back then - Class A, with all privs,
and Class B/C, who could not work 'phone on any HF band between 3 and 25 MHz.
(Class Bs and Cs could only work 'phone on 160, 11, 10 and VHF/UHF).

Both licenses required the same code tests. The Class A required the Class B
written *and* a more advanced written test that focused on theory, particularly
'phone techniques. Class A also required a year's experience as a Class B or C,
and the tests for Class A (all of them - code and theory) had to be passed in
front of an FCC examiner.

The philosophy (as I understand it) was that it took more technical knowledge
and practical know-how to put a 'phone transmitter on the air properly. So the
FCC required more tests and experience before a ham could use 'phone on the
most-crowded and longest-range phone ham bands then in use.

Of course there were all sorts of unintended consequences. Hams who had little
or no interest in 'phone had no reason to go for Class A. 160, 11 and 10 were
busy with Class B 'phone ops. The system worked a real hardship on hams who
lived a ways from an FCC exam point, too.

Buit maybe that sort of system is a starting point for what you're talking
about, Bill.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Your observation
was absent any clarification that it was only YOUR observation,
unsubstantiated by any true facts.

Get you head out the sand and look around. See
all of your old buddies just hanging around the club meeting doing
nothing? is field day as well attended as it was in the 60's? Are new
folks welcomed? Is help provided?
If so then consider yourself lucky.

One aspect of almost all hobbies" is the cost to play
which often results in an older cross-section of participants.
The same is true for antique cars, model railroading, etc.
Add to that the available "free time" which most older
folks, especially retirees, have.


My observation is as substantiated as yours. You can't prove anything.
Regarding cost to play, Ham radio only costs what you want it to cost.
I have put together a station for under $100 US. Not new and certainly
not the station I really wanted but it did work and I did QSO many
other stations. Cost is not a factor. Free time is what you want of
it. At 20 I had time if I wanted to take it and at 50 I can still find
time for the important things or what is important at this time.
Regarding costs, ther lays part of the problem. In the 60's I always
wanted that Drake '4' line. Couldn't afford it. Settled on a used
equipment and homebrewed many accy's. Todays out of the box operator
couldn't solder a connection if their life depended on it. Can't
trouble shoot a broken receiver or transmitter. Can't draw a circiut
for a simple crystal controlled transmitter, can't figure the length
of a half wave dipole, can't scrounge parts, etc.....

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles
on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions
and
their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim
an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe
to
say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion.

What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can
be
reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for
Technician
"+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than
squeaked.

Fair enough.

Indeed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Were it not for the no-code tech license since 1990, I'd bet we'd have
about 1/2 the number of licensed hams in the US that we have now.

Not a good bet, Carl! Good thing nobody will take you up on it.

For one thing, the Tech license lost its code test Feb 14, 1991, not in
1990.
But that's a minor point.

You're right, of course ... the Proceeding was in 90, but the changes
didn't take effect until 91.

Take a look at the number of new hams per year and the growth of US
licenses
from Feb 1991 until today. Then compare to the number of new hams per year
and
the growth in a time period of the same length previous to Feb 1991.
You'll see
that that the Tech's loss of its code test in Feb 1991 did cause an
increase in
the number of new hams. But without that increase, we would not be down to
340,000 US hams by any reasonable scenario. Heck, there are ~423,000 US
hams
today who are *not* Techs - that's a lot more than 1/2 the ~683,000.

Jim,

Of that 423k US hams who are not Techs, how many do you suppose started
out as Techs and have since upgraded? How many SKs and dropouts would
have reduced the population without the newcomers coming in to replace them.

Maybe 50% is a slight stretch, but I'd guess not by a lot.


Yes, there are almost 260,000 Techs today - but a large number of them are
actually Tech Pluses whom the FCC renewed as Techs since April 2000.

Out of 10 years of NCTs, only a few years worth would fall into that
category.
I would bet that a LOT of the Tech Pluses that existed in April of 2000 are
now
Generals or Extras, rather than having been renewed as Techs with code
credit.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

Second and more important is, if we don't use spectrum as an incentive,
what do
we use?

Incentive?

Sure. Your proposed two-class system is an incentive system. The
incentives to upgrade are two: more power and the prospect of being
put off the air at the end of 10 years.

You're either qualified for a ham license or you're not qualified.

That's in direct contradiction to your "no renewal" entry level
license idea.

Suppose FCC enacted your proposal as you submitted it. Why would a
person with the entry-level license be qualified for that license for
ten years but then be unqualified for it after ten years? Particularly
if they were willing to retest for the same license?

Whether or not a person is qualified depends in part the privileges
granted by the license. A person could be qualified for a license that
grants some privileges but unqualified for a license that grants all
privileges. Which is the reason for having more than one license class
in the first place.

This
incentive notion (and Steve Robeson's 'structured occupancy' notion) are
liberal ideas whose time has gone.

Since the license and test rules restrict individuals far more than
organizations, that would make those notions "conservative".

73 de Jim, N2EY

Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups
end up being worthless tripe.