About Us

January 5th 04, 12:57 PM

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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access	Lloyd Mitchell	Antenna	43	October 26th 04 01:37 AM
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions	Louis C. LeVine	Dx	36	September 9th 04 09:30 AM
BPL, the ARRL and the UPLC	John Walton	Homebrew	0	July 2nd 04 12:26 PM
NEWS: N2DUP announces for ARRL section manager in Minnesota	Chuck Gysi N2DUP	General	0	May 9th 04 09:18 PM
ARRL FUD about BPL	Bill	General	27	August 22nd 03 12:43 AM

Menu

About Us