In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

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?


It's a learners permit, NOT a license.

What's the difference?

Here in PA, a person with a learner's permit for driving cannot drive alone.
Could your learner's permit hams operate their own rigs all by themselves? If
so, it's a license.

If they couldn't/didn't learn enough
in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously
not qualified for a license.

But they're qualified to have a learner's permit for 10 years.

This is a major problem with a one-shot "permit", Hans. Sooner or later
(probably sooner), someone will ask why a ham with a B license is qualified one
day and not qualified the next - even if said ham is willing and able to pass
the test again.

Can you name any other license where, if you don't upgrade within a specified
time, you lose the license you have?

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Since it's my proposal, I get to define the terminology. Class "B" is a
learners permit. Class "A" is a license.

It's not me you have to convince, it's FCC. FCC has always called them
licenses.

And no matter what they're called, it's a two-class system.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

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?


It's a learners permit, NOT a license.

What's the difference?

It's provisional, intended to assist in gaining full qualification for
an amateur license.


Here in PA, a person with a learner's permit for driving cannot drive alone.
Could your learner's permit hams operate their own rigs all by themselves? If
so, it's a license.

If they couldn't/didn't learn enough
in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously
not qualified for a license.

But they're qualified to have a learner's permit for 10 years.


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



Can you name any other license where, if you don't upgrade within a specified
time, you lose the license you have?


There are no such amateur licenses extant, but for the majority of
it's availability the Novice license was exactly like that. That was
probably the most effective method ever devised of introducing
non-amateurs to ham radio with a "sample sized" operating permit.
Easy to get, with limited power so you didn't trash the
RF-neighborhood too badly, and of a duration long enough to decide if
you wanted to become a ham and to gain experience for the
qualification tests. Then they spoiled it by making it renewable.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

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?


It's a learners permit, NOT a license.

What's the difference?

It's provisional, intended to assist in gaining full qualification for
an amateur license.

Just like the Tech and General class licenses are today...

Here in PA, a person with a learner's permit for driving cannot drive
alone.
Could your learner's permit hams operate their own rigs all by themselves?
If so, it's a license.

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

If they couldn't/didn't learn enough
in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously
not qualified for a license.

But they're qualified to have a learner's permit for 10 years.

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.

Can you name any other license where, if you don't upgrade within a
specified time, you lose the license you have?

There are no such amateur licenses extant, but for the majority of
it's availability the Novice license was exactly like that.

Actually just about half its existence.

But that feature ended almost 30 years ago. I've been told I'm "clinging to the
past" because I think code tests are a good idea...

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?

That was
probably the most effective method ever devised of introducing
non-amateurs to ham radio with a "sample sized" operating permit.
Easy to get, with limited power so you didn't trash the
RF-neighborhood too badly, and of a duration long enough to decide if
you wanted to become a ham and to gain experience for the
qualification tests.

And they limited it to a few slices of a few bands. And for most of its
existence it was CW only. ;-)

Then they spoiled it by making it renewable.

Which was done because of the perception that too many newcomers were dropping
out.

There's another option. Make it nonrenewable but "retakeable", just like other
LP's. If someone reached the end of their 10 years and wanted to remain a ham,
but couldn't pass the full-privs test, they could take the then-current LP test
and get another LP. Just like for a driver's license. 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. And FCC would not have to
maintain a database of folks banned from ever getting an LP.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

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 .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.

That may well be the case, Hans. And since some Morse Code skill is
obviously part of being a qualified full-privileges radio amateur, it makes
sense that the standard license would include a Morse Code test.

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.

Exactly.

So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?

73 de Jim, N2EY


The liberals will whine and wring their hands in dismay, but
life's a bitch sometimes.

N2EY wrote:
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.


That may well be the case, Hans. And since some Morse Code skill is
obviously part of being a qualified full-privileges radio amateur, it makes
sense that the standard license would include a Morse Code test.

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.

Exactly.

I can't imagein "one who was interested" not taking the time to learn
Morse code either, but if they didn't want to I gues there are other
things like wait around until it goes away, which might be less challenging!



So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?

73 de Jim, N2EY


The liberals will whine and wring their hands in dismay, but

life's a bitch sometimes.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
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.

That may well be the case, Hans. And since some Morse Code skill is
obviously part of being a qualified full-privileges radio amateur, it makes

sense that the standard license would include a Morse Code test.

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.

Exactly.

I can't imagein "one who was interested" not taking the time to learn
Morse code either, but if they didn't want to I gues there are other
things like wait around until it goes away, which might be less challenging!

You must be absolutely right, Mike, therefore all who don't learn
morse code "must not be interested in radio!"

In my case, exposure to the big leagues of HF radio communications
while in the US Army piqued an interest in radio that eventually led
to changing majors (drastic change) and entering the electronics
industry to become an engineer.

The US Army didn't use any morse code to send over 200,000
messages a month from a command Hq in Japan. There's no need
to know morse code for electronics engineering or for most of the
radio transmitters of the 1950s on through the 2000s.

A quarter million IEEE members worldwide (me included) must not
have any "interest in radio" because we don't or didn't learn morse
code.

I've never heard of any morse code classes as part of electrical
engineering curricula anywhere in the world. Maybe all those
students for EEs aren't "really" interested in radio?

Consider that there's NO communications carriers in the USA
even using morse code for any communications purposes today.
I guess they must "not be interested" because morse isn't used.

How about that?

LHA

"N2EY" wrote


So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?


I already did (as you knew perfectly well).

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article t, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?

I already did (as you knew perfectly well).

But only as a comment to another's proposal, not as a stand-alone petition.

73 de Jim, N2EY

btw, what's the promised delivery date for the '7800?