Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote As for "free upgrades", the FCC already unleased THAT genie with thier last round of "restructuring" with no help at all from the ARRL. And what "free upgrade" did you see in the last round or restructuring? The only thing that remotely resembles "free", was giving Pre-87 Technicians credit for the General written exam which they took. Since the exam was EXACTLY the same as Generals took, I don't see any freebie there. But just wait till ARRL BoD meets next month...... I expect to see them recommend a three-tier license regime, with a new low-powered 50W beginners "C" license, a new mid-range "B" license with 3-400W power limit, and a new top of the line "A" class license with 1.5KW power limit and a CW test in the 15-25WPM range. Frequency ghettos for "C" and "B" similar to now. Current Novice/Tech get free upgrade to "B" privs, current General/Advanced get free upgrade to "A". Yawwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! I'm sure I'll miss some of the details in their proposal, but the above is pretty much the way I read the tea-leaves. 73, de Hans, K0HB Dang Hans....imagine....a three tier license structure....what a wonderful thought....too simple, to obvious, and necessary. So it won't happen. Dan/W4NTI |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote As for "free upgrades", the FCC already unleased THAT genie with thier last round of "restructuring" with no help at all from the ARRL. And what "free upgrade" did you see in the last round or restructuring? The only thing that remotely resembles "free", was giving Pre-87 Technicians credit for the General written exam which they took. Since the exam was EXACTLY the same as Generals took, I don't see any freebie there. But just wait till ARRL BoD meets next month...... I expect to see them recommend a three-tier license regime, with a new low-powered 50W beginners "C" license, a new mid-range "B" license with 3-400W power limit, and a new top of the line "A" class license with 1.5KW power limit and a CW test in the 15-25WPM range. Frequency ghettos for "C" and "B" similar to now. Current Novice/Tech get free upgrade to "B" privs, current General/Advanced get free upgrade to "A". Yawwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! I'm sure I'll miss some of the details in their proposal, but the above is pretty much the way I read the tea-leaves. 73, de Hans, K0HB The important aspect of getting to any truly "new" licensing scheme absolutly requires either some free upgrades, loss of some privileges or a combination of both. Hans's view of the future takes into account a "least" loss approach plus free upgrades. I could easily support Hans's vision above. The one differing aspect I think would be that the "C" license would more likly have a 100W limit since 50w would exclude a great many rigs. Personally, I have no problem with free upgrades if it makes sense and is done to (1) simplify overall and (2) avoids taking significant privileges away from anyone already licensed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill Sohl" wrote The important aspect of getting to any truly "new" licensing scheme absolutly requires either some free upgrades, loss of some privileges or a combination of both. Hans's view of the future takes into account a "least" loss approach plus free upgrades. I could easily support Hans's vision above. That's not my view of the future, and it FOR DAMNED SURE isn't my "vision". For a view of my vision, visit http://tinyurl.com/wce9. No losses, and no freebie upgrades, and elimination of "newcomer ghettos". So much for your "absolutly (sic) requires". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "KØHB" wrote in message news ![]() "Bill Sohl" wrote The important aspect of getting to any truly "new" licensing scheme absolutly requires either some free upgrades, loss of some privileges or a combination of both. Hans's view of the future takes into account a "least" loss approach plus free upgrades. I could easily support Hans's vision above. That's not my view of the future, and it FOR DAMNED SURE isn't my "vision". For a view of my vision, visit http://tinyurl.com/wce9. No losses, and no freebie upgrades, and elimination of "newcomer ghettos". So much for your "absolutly (sic) requires". 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, Apologies for misunderstanding your position. As to my view that either freebies or losses are needed to get to a new license plan, I truly think that will be the case. I doubt the FCC wants to have a hybred licensing scheme in the long run. That's my perspective. Assuming "free upgrades" as was noted in your post, what's the overall harm? Cheers and Happy New Year. Bill K2UNK |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill Sohl" wrote Assuming "free upgrades" as was noted in your post, what's the overall harm? You're a bright guy, Bill, so surely you can see the "overall harm", but maybe you're having some trouble shaking off the effects of your New Years Eve celebration, so I'll spell it out for you. Today, passing the Amateur Extra exam is the qualification required for full amateur privileges. An existing General or Advanced licensee has passed a less comprehensive set of examinations, and has not (by FCC definition) demonstrated qualification for full amateur privileges. If FCC suddenly upgrades all General and Advanced licenses to Amateur Extra, then ipso facto and ipso jure the qualification required for full amateur privileges has been lowered by two full steps. Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive than the current General discriminates against new applicants. In some circles I've heard that called "the Great Dumbing Down" of amateur radio. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote Assuming "free upgrades" as was noted in your post, what's the overall harm? You're a bright guy, Bill, so surely you can see the "overall harm", but maybe you're having some trouble shaking off the effects of your New Years Eve celebration, so I'll spell it out for you. Today, passing the Amateur Extra exam is the qualification required for full amateur privileges. An existing General or Advanced licensee has passed a less comprehensive set of examinations, and has not (by FCC definition) demonstrated qualification for full amateur privileges. If FCC suddenly upgrades all General and Advanced licenses to Amateur Extra, then ipso facto and ipso jure the qualification required for full amateur privileges has been lowered by two full steps. Only on a one-time basis. The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix." Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive than the current General discriminates against new applicants. They can plead all they want...doesn't make it so. The FCC could certainly counter argue the upgrades were a one-time need to simplify the overall license structure. YMMV Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill Sohl" wrote Only on a one-time basis. If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if the "fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra Class" would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or tomorrows rules. Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive than the current General discriminates against new applicants. They can plead all they want...doesn't make it so. The FCC could certainly counter argue the upgrades were a one-time need to simplify the overall license structure. Their counter argument would utterly fail, because they'd first need to prove that the "one-time need" over-rides the harm of a massive influx of underqualified (by their own rules) individuals into the top class of amateur operators. Judges rule on logic, not administrative convenience. The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix." Trivializing this as a one-time "fix" shows how little you've examined the issue. Instead of a one-time "fix", it would be a one-time "hammer blow". The answer still is exactly as stated in my previous message. Cheerios and bran flakes to you to, K0HB |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
BPL, the ARRL and the UPLC | Homebrew | |||
NEWS: N2DUP announces for ARRL section manager in Minnesota | General | |||
ARRL FUD about BPL | General |