In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Len Over 21" wrote


Anything said against YOUR PLAN is worthless, illogical,
inconsequential, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc., etc., etc.


I knew you'd agree with me.

73, de Hans, K0HB

I just happen to agree with Hans' plan. Allow the amateur to
distinguish him or herself through actions rather than an FCC forced
march.

While I agree on the generality of that, such is impossible under
the present-day Class Distinction Rules of US amateur radio.

ALL perceived expertise is judged by the "amateur community"
as demonstrated by the fancy-bordered license (suitable for
framing) from the federal government.

The Amateur Extra is the epitome of excellence. Once achieved,
nothing else need be learned. Education ends. You have been
told by his Most High Excellency, the Dill Instructor.

All learning comes through having tiers and tiers of classes, of
distinctions (enforced by law) right along with the social need of
call letters written behind the name to signify a "title" all may see
(and admire, respect) as if it is a dukedom, barony, or other
noble rank. That is VERY IMPORTANT. Do not criticize any
statements of the ruling classes of the "community."

US amateur radio seems to have ceased being a hobby, an
avocational activity done for personal recreation. It has become a
LIFESTYLE...a True Belief.

cut to stock shot of Rod Serling and signpost up ahead, voice
sign-off by Rod...up theme and take black...

LHA

And poor Mike is getting beat up for saying the W1AW signal was too wide.

Newsgroup rules. Make ONE mistake and absolutely everything
else the mistaker posts is "incorrect, faulty, irrelevant!" :-)

ARRL can do no wrong. Ergo, W1AW's signal is perfect. No problem.

LHA

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

That way, no one who was
interested would be forced off the air, but at the same time there would be
incentive to get a full-privs renewable license.

If, after 10 years as a learner and exposed to mainstream ham radio they
can't qualify for a standard license, then another 10 years isn't likely to
be sufficient to become qualified.

I can't imagine "one who was interested" would fail to qualify in 10 years,
but if they didn't, well I guess there are other hobbies like finger
painting which might be less challenging and not require a federal license
to pursue. The liberals will whine and wring their hands in dismay, but
life's a bitch sometimes.

Those who are "interested in radio" might very well go into the
electronics industry and find out the whole of the radio world...
and earn a comfortable living while they are at it.

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

I'm not gonna throw any stones at ya, Bill. But please note how
I was asked to shut up a while back when I pointed out some logical
inconsistencies in the written testing....

[nobody can realistically expect you to "shut up," jimmie...:-) ]

Nor can we expect you, Leonard H. Andserson, to heed your own
advice, ie not using belittling endearments when addressing others.

Scumbags rarely do. And you ARE a scumbag.

OK, little Stevie, you appear to be using belittling endearments when
addressing others. Again.

Stebe once passed a 20 WPM code test, answered enough questions
correct on an exam, received his federal merit badge certification
(suitable for framing) and became an amateur extra.

That gives him absolute permission to behave as an asshole off the
radio. No problem. :-)

LHA

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Could the holder of your learners permit ham license operate a ham rig
alone?

Of course, just like the previous learners permit, aka "Novice".

Then it's a license.

not being banned for life as your plan would do.

They wouldn't be 'banned for life'. They could take the standard
qualification test at any time.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. They'd be "banned for life" from getting another
learner's permit...err, Class B license. FCC or somebody would have to keep a
database of everyone who had held one and let it expire without upgrading, to
insure that someone wouldn't retest and get a second one.

Are there any licenses or learner's permits of *any* kind currently issued
by the US Govt. that are one-time-only, upgrade-or-you're-out?

None that I'm aware are currently extant, but precedent exists.

Sure - a precedent that ended almost 30 years ago. Maybe FCC will go for that
idea but I doubt it.

btw, the old nonrenewable nonretakeable Novice had one more limitation back in
those days: it was for newbies only. Anyone who had *ever* held any class of
amateur license, even one that had long since expired, could not get a Novice.
It had to be a person's first ham license.

Of course back then FCC trusted that when someone checked the box on the Form
610 that said they' never had a ham license before, they weren't fibbing.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
The FCC doesn't have a mandate
to test discipline.

Yes, they do. That's what the "character"
stuff in the rules is about.

I've read the rules many times, but must have missed the part or parts
about character testing.

FCC reserves the right to deny a license to someone who has passed the tests
*if* FCC determines that said person cannot be trusted to follow the rules. In
practice this means that someone convicted of a crime (usually a felony) can be
denied a ham license, particularly if the crime was a violation of the
Communications Act.

For example, some years back a ham went to jail for hacking into computers (he
wrote a book about it in prison, btw). Ham radio had nothing to do with his
crimes
but FCC did some serious consideration of not renewing his license. I think he
finally convinced them that he was rehabilitated and trustworthy enough to have
a license.

There's a local ham around here who
has generated so much trouble on
various repeaters and earned himself
so many warning letters that FCC is
considering not renewing his license
for "character" reasons. IOW he
simply doesn't have the necessary
self-discipline to be a ham.

First, what does that have to do with testing?

It has to do with discipline and responsibility. Even though this guy could
pass the tests again, his renewal may be denied.

Second, there is nothing in
the rules about refusing a renewal based on character, so I seriously doubt
that would be the FCC's explination for any action like this (a pattern of
rule violations, yes).

We discussed the "character" issue in its own thread some time back. K2ASP gave
some good insights. A person who can't seem to follow the rules *can* be denied
a renewal based on what FCC calls "character".

Don't take my word for it - ask Phil and/or google up the old thread. I recall
the C-word was in the thread title.

Agreed. But those things do constitute
"discipline".

Only if you stretch the word to mean something beyond common usage.

Then use the word "responsibility" or the words "responsible behavior".

73 de Jim, N2EY
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote


FCC or somebody would have to keep a
database of everyone who had held one and let it expire without upgrading,
to
insure that someone wouldn't retest and get a second one.


No more than FCC or somebody kept a similar database to prevent ex-licensees
from glomming onto a Novice permit back in the 1950's. A false application
today is just as unlikely as a false application 50 years ago, and I suspect
the penalties are similar.

And why bother --- after 10 years of experience, the standard exam would be
a laugher.

73, CU in NAQP,

de Hans, K0HB

N2EY wrote:

Do you have aproblem with 10 years? Should we make it 10 weeks?


I have a problem with the idea that someone who can pass the test for the
learner's permit and who has a clean record is pushed off the amateur bands
because he/she can't or won't pass the exam for the full-privileges license. I
can see making the LP nonrenewable and requiring a retest to get another one,
but not being banned for life as your plan would do.

There lise the BIG problem with this peoposal. There will be some
people that will test the principle, that's for sure.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Brian" wrote:

We've had many characters testing.

One of the more memorable ones
has been CB Bruce/WA8ULX, who
tested on a lark, scored 100% w/o
studying, did so in less than 8 minutes,
and collected $250 from two
CB-Plussers.


LOL. Yep, if the goal is indeed to test character, there is something
clearly wrong with the process.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
The FCC doesn't have a mandate
to test discipline.

Yes, they do. That's what the "character"
stuff in the rules is about.

I've read the rules many times, but must
have missed the part or parts about
character testing.

FCC reserves the right to deny a license to
someone who has passed the tests *if*
FCC determines that said person cannot be
trusted to follow the rules. In practice this
means that someone convicted of a crime
(usually a felony) can be denied a ham
license, particularly if the crime was a
violation of the Communications Act.


Good grief, Jim. Again, what does this have to do with code testing? This
has no relationship to anything being discussed.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Len Over 21" wrote:

(snip) Morse code is cutting-edge
technology, an advancement necessary
to use the HF spectrum for
communications. (snip)

(snip) Learning morse code shows the
self-discipline, dedication, and
commitment to the amateur community
and the League.

I have been told this. I repeat it to
you for the betterment of all.


I've heard it all before, and remain a doubting heathen.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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