Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message

Do you support those free upgrades or not?


I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?


If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in
the written test requirements for those licenses.


Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?



Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but

it's

still a reduction.


It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.


Are the people qualified?

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.


If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why, because
no one losses any privileges.

Are they qualified?


A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.

If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF. I
refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just
do this once and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will
go up.

I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

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

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

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

[snip]

If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have
access
to
those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level.
So
giving
them
a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras.

Jim,

I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others.

Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the
required tests. Particularly the *written* tests.

Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing.

You're the one willing to share with "a few"....

You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt
to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know

[expletive deleted]

well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ...

I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I
don't
know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote.
Frankly,
I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written*
testing
for over 400,000 US hams

And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction
in the **WRITTEN** test requirements.

I'm not ...

Let's get this clear right now.

ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to
General with no additional testing.

They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra
with no additional testing.

Do you support those free upgrades or not?

I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

I (N2EY) don't support it.

Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing?

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements.

That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses
on a certain date.

But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams.

THAT is the critical difference.

And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as
a permanent change?

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but
it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction.

Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any
reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one
time thing.

You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

True.

But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one?

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years.

That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing.

Why, because no one losses any privileges.

Maybe. Or maybe not.

Yet now I see that same person
supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written*
tests...

As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written
tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things right" in
a
way
where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are
already
authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any
knowledge
of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF.

Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech
written is
adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply
dump
the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool
for General?

If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself.

No, it's not what I want.

But how do we argue against those who want it?

Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care.

How do you know?

In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those
were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having
passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but
not OK for future hams?

Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break.

If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them upgrades,
is there?

They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't
sent in their license for cancellation - so what?

I'd expect the FCC will NOT reissue anyone that gets a free upgrade
a new license at all. There's no need to.

So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old license
class.

Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then?

Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's
(or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to upgrade.

How do you know what FCC wants?

How do you?

I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport" is
claiming to know what FCC wants.

Ultimately the FCC will decide.

Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL?

I (personally, not as NCI)
think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward
to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future.

Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test requirements
for over 400,000 hams. That's almost 60% of those licensed today.

Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you have
a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...)

I don;t have any hangups about the tests. I'm all for them.

If the difference isn't so great, why require the General test at all?

If YOU accept that, then file comments as such with the FCC.

I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too.

So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the
changes
take
place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to General.

Give me a break ...

What do you mean? That's exactly what a lot of people will do.

Those with no license or an existing Novice will have an incentive
to get a Tech before the rules change and ride the free upgrade
bus to General.

If "lots" of non-hams suddenly became hams by that process I'll
be truly surprised.

20,000 in the past 12 months.

As for the existing novices...that is now
down to about 30,000...assuming everyone of them did what you
suggest.

34,000 or so.

Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to
actually take (or study for) the General.

Life's a

[expletive deleted]

and then we die.

Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test.

Same for Advanceds and the Extra.

The arte at which advaceds have been upgrading is pathetically
low already.

17% in 4 years. Gotta wonder why. Maybe the code test wasn't a problem after
all....

your arguments are just plain lame

How? Do you think people won't do this?

Some will, but it won't be significant.

How do you know?

and your "someone might
get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions as I
took"
is REALLY showing.

Nobody today can even take the tests I took. You couldn't pass the tests I
took, Carl.

Translation, I did it, so should everyone else.

Nope. Not at all.

It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the qualifications,
both written and code, slowly reduced for over a quarter century. And that's
not a good thing.

The tests I took are not the issue. Free upgrades and reduction in written
test requirements are the issue.

The issue is ONE time free upgrades only. No effort is being made to
lower the General or Extra requirements.

Not yet. But a one-time upgrade is one more step. And it paves the way.

Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code tests.

That makes what - a dozen countries?

I wonder what HK's written test requirements are.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article t,

"Bill

Sohl"

writes:


[snip]


If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have

access

to

those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level.

So

giving

them

a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras.

Jim,

I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others.

Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the
required tests. Particularly the *written* tests.

Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing.

You're the one willing to share with "a few"....

You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt
to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know

[expletive deleted]


well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ...

I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I
don't
know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote.

Frankly,

I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written*

testing

for over 400,000 US hams


And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction
in the **WRITTEN** test requirements.

I'm not ...

Let's get this clear right now.

ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to
General with no additional testing.

They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra
with no additional testing.

Do you support those free upgrades or not?

I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.


I (N2EY) don't support it.

Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing?

'tisn't, Jim.


If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements.


That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses
on a certain date.

On the contrary, I believe that they DO support permanent reductions of
the written requirements.


But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams.


THAT is the critical difference.


And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as
a permanent change?


Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but
it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction.


Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any
reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one
time thing.

ahem....


You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.


True.

But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one?


And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years.


That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing.


Why, because no one losses any privileges.


Maybe. Or maybe not.

Yet now I see that same person
supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written*
tests...




As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written
tests is not that large

Whhhoooaaaahhhh!

And there my friend is the first shot in the next volley that will
attempt to permanently reduce the written requirements!

"The difference betweent the Tech and General written tests is not that
large". How about that?

Lessee.... 1. we don't support reductions in the test requirements

2. we support a one shot upgrade

3. the difference between the Tech and General written
tests is not that large






snip
a

way
where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are

already

authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any

knowledge

of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF.

Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech
written is
adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply
dump
the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool
for General?

If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself.


No, it's not what I want.

But how do we argue against those who want it?


Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care.


How do you know?

In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those
were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having
passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but
not OK for future hams?

Kinda makes you wonder, eh? I cannot come ot any logical conclusion
that does not include a permanent reduction in the qualifications.

The rest snipped, I gotta go do some housework............

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message

Do you support those free upgrades or not?


I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?

Why would they be "unqualified?" Let's be serious here!
In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing
at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test.
I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others
life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to
permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit.

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction
in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?

Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing
what?

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction,
but it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

Are the people qualified?

YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them
unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges
they would be unqualified.

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why,
because
no one losses any privileges.

Are they qualified?

Broken record here it seems.

A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.

I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true
relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive
system as created simply asks for passage of another test
on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of
that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification
that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only"
spectrum from that of a General operating in the General
spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted
power.

If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF.

The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new"
novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited
power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test)

I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just
do this once

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up.

The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only
thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will
be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General
or Advanced to Extra.

I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.

Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the
background too.

Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

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

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

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

[snip]

If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll
have
access
to
those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM
level.
So
giving
them
a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing
Extras.

Jim,

I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others.

Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the
required tests. Particularly the *written* tests.

Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing.

You're the one willing to share with "a few"....

You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your
attempt
to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know

[expletive deleted]

well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ...

I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts.
And I
don't
know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote.
Frankly,
I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written*
testing
for over 400,000 US hams

And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction
in the **WRITTEN** test requirements.

I'm not ...

Let's get this clear right now.

ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade
to
General with no additional testing.

They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to
Extra
with no additional testing.

Do you support those free upgrades or not?

I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

I (N2EY) don't support it.

Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing?

Because there's no real harm to anyone...and if you want an
incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it plus
it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one
snapshot of time.

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction
in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements.

That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain
licenses
on a certain date.

But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams.

Agreed.

THAT is the critical difference.

And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but
not as
a permanent change?

Because it harms no one to get to the simplified scheme AND
it then continues with the incentive system as before.

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction,
but
it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction.

Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support
any
reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a
one
time thing.

Time and situations change and people change.

You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

True.

Thank you!

But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one?

See prior coments on the same thing.

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years.

That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing.

Big difference. Every General that lost privileges still understands
that loss. With this, no one losses anything.

Why, because no one losses any privileges.

Maybe. Or maybe not.

If maybe not, please point to what privileges will
be lost by which license holders.

Yet now I see that same person
supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take
*written*
tests...

As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written
tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things right"
i
a way where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those
Techs are already
authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any
knowledge of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF.

Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech
written is
adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply
dump
the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech
pool
for General?

If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself.

No, it's not what I want.

But how do we argue against those who want it?

YOU are assuming someone will file another petition to do that.
I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens.

Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care.

How do you know?

SWAG applied with common sense.

In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of
those
were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on
having
passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience,
but
not OK for future hams?

As above, because it will be a one time situation.

Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break.

If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them
upgrades,
is there?

They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't
sent in their license for cancellation - so what?

I'd expect the FCC will NOT reissue anyone that gets a free upgrade
a new license at all. There's no need to.

So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old
license
class.

The database could be updated overnight by replacing all licenses with their
upgraded license. Doing that does not require an actual new paper
license to be issued if Part 97 contains the following statement:

Any license holder whos paper license is Tech is now recognized to be
General and (ditto for Advanced to Ectra).

Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then?

Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's
(or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to upgrade.

How do you know what FCC wants?

How do you?

I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport" is
claiming to know what FCC wants.

Take it as a best quess then.

Ultimately the FCC will decide.

Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL?

Different subject for a different thread.

I (personally, not as NCI)
think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward
to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future.

Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test
requirements
for over 400,000 hams. That's almost 60% of those licensed today.

Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you
have
a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...)

I don;t have any hangups about the tests. I'm all for them.

If the difference isn't so great, why require the General test at all?

If YOU accept that, then file comments as such with the FCC.

I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too.

As is your right to do so.

So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the
changes take place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to General.

Give me a break ...

What do you mean? That's exactly what a lot of people will do.

Those with no license or an existing Novice will have an incentive
to get a Tech before the rules change and ride the free upgrade
bus to General.

If "lots" of non-hams suddenly became hams by that process I'll
be truly surprised.

20,000 in the past 12 months.

We'll likly lose that many to attrition this year alone. Look at
the future expirations per Joe Speroni's web site. There's one
month alone that has (I think) over 10,000 expirations.

As for the existing novices...that is now
down to about 30,000...assuming everyone of them did what you
suggest.

34,000 or so.

minor difference in the scope of this conversation.

Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to
actually take (or study for) the General.

Life's a

[expletive deleted]

and then we die.

Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test.

God grant us the wisdom to...
Accept the things we cannot change, change those
we can and hopefully have the wisdom to know the difference.

Same for Advanceds and the Extra.

The rate at which advaceds have been upgrading is pathetically
low already.

17% in 4 years. Gotta wonder why. Maybe the code test wasn't a problem
after
all....

No one said it was the only roadblock to all
Advanced hams going to Extra.

your arguments are just plain lame

How? Do you think people won't do this?

Some will, but it won't be significant.

How do you know?

SWAG and common sense. Do you see a floodgate opening
of new hams rushing to become techs before the FCC
implements free upgrades on a certain date?

and your "someone might
get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions as I
took" is REALLY showing.

Nobody today can even take the tests I took. You couldn't pass the
tests I
took, Carl.

Translation, I did it, so should everyone else.

Nope. Not at all.

It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the
qualifications,
both written and code, slowly reduced for over a quarter century. And
that's
not a good thing.

And if that is your true meaning, why would you state
that "You (Carl) couldn't pass the tests I (Jim) took, Carl."
Do you really think Carl would be unable to pass the same
written tests if he had to?

The tests I took are not the issue. Free upgrades and reduction in
written
test requirements are the issue.

The issue is ONE time free upgrades only. No effort is being made to
lower the General or Extra requirements.

Not yet. But a one-time upgrade is one more step. And it paves the way.

As you have said.

Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code
tests.

That makes what - a dozen countries?

I believe so.

I wonder what HK's written test requirements are.....

I don't really care.

Cheers again,
Bill K2UNK

In article ,
(stewart) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
There is another factor which is common to those amateurs not engaged
in a radio-specific occupation...that the state of the art of everything
in
amateur remain rooted in the familiar they know. That's almost
impossible since radio is only 107 years old and the technology involved
has been advancing in large plateau jumps all the while. That is true of
all electronics-related fields of work. They want the state of the art
to
be fixed so they can enjoy what they found emotionally satisfying long
ago when they reached their personal best in the hobby. Others of
the modern day are little interested in meeting antiquated standards of
entering amateur radio.

Amen, brother... you've gotten to the core of the problem. But, it is
WORSE than you state, as these people can't simply go on doing what
they've been doing, they try to STOP others from doing new things...
they are actually PRO-ACTIVE in their actions. I used to think it was
simply "foot-dragging" - but it is worse than that... they are like
little children, as they are being taken kicking and screaming to
their beds for the night, they will lash out or wildly grab onto
ANYTHING they can to slow the process... but, inevitably they WILL go
to sleep, and they just end up looking all the more PATHETIC for their
TANTRUM-THROWING.

Not a pretty picture to present to the public on "advancing the state
of the art" or showing all that "inherent good will." :-)

Ah, but the morsemen are the parental figures telling all the rest of
us how things should be in radio "for our good." If those are the
"parents" it's no wonder that they appear as a dysfunctional family.
[the Jukes on them, so to speak...]

Seven year old Extras, perfectly "qualified" in radio. Uh, huh...

LHA / WMD

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

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


Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing?

Because there's no real harm to anyone...and if you want an
incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it plus
it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one
snapshot of time.

On the contrary, Bill, to olde-tyme hammes, the "unqualifications"
(not being licensed under old standards and practices) causes
irreconcileable psychological HARM to those olde-tymers.

They will LOSE some of their bragging rights and rank/status/
privilege that made them so arrogantly "superior." Ho hum.


That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain
licenses
on a certain date.

But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams.

Agreed.

THAT is the critical difference.

And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not
as
a permanent change?

Because it harms no one to get to the simplified scheme AND
it then continues with the incentive system as before.

"Incentive?" Incentive towards bragging rights, I'm sure.

Such seems to be a very important part of today's amateur radio,
almost as much as morsemanship...

Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any
reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a
one
time thing.

Time and situations change and people change.

Mr. Expletive_deleted does NOT ALLOW anyone to change their
minds! Hiram forbid that anyone, ever changes their minds!


That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing.

Big difference. Every General that lost privileges still understands
that loss. With this, no one losses anything.

...except psychological harm. :-)

Why, because no one losses any privileges.

Maybe. Or maybe not.

If maybe not, please point to what privileges will
be lost by which license holders.

The "loss" is very deep, very personal. Their world is collapsing
around them, the sky is falling, and all is lost.


No, it's not what I want.

But how do we argue against those who want it?

YOU are assuming someone will file another petition to do that.
I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens.

No change! No change! Hold back the dawn! :-)


So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old
license
class.

The database could be updated overnight by replacing all licenses with their
upgraded license. Doing that does not require an actual new paper
license to be issued if Part 97 contains the following statement:

Any license holder whos paper license is Tech is now recognized to be
General and (ditto for Advanced to Ectra).

Everything to these olde-tymers is wrapped up in that pretty piece
of paper (suitable for framing). Change cannot happen until that
license certificate is officially modified by an official of the official
government. Officially.


I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport" is
claiming to know what FCC wants.

Take it as a best quess then.

Mr. Expletive_deleted has previously claimed "insider knowledge."

He KNOWS. Ho hum.

Ultimately the FCC will decide.

Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL?

Different subject for a different thread.

Normal misdirection by Mr. Expletive_deleted. :-)


I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too.

As is your right to do so.

Absolutely.


20,000 in the past 12 months.

We'll likly lose that many to attrition this year alone. Look at
the future expirations per Joe Speroni's web site. There's one
month alone that has (I think) over 10,000 expirations.

Morsemanship doesn't guarantee immortality?!?!?

Tsk, tsk, tsk!


Life's a

[expletive deleted]

and then we die.

Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test.

God grant us the wisdom to...
Accept the things we cannot change, change those
we can and hopefully have the wisdom to know the difference.

Some cannot be changed, do not permit change that infringes
on their rank/status/privilege. Federals must support their
bragging rights no matter what. :-)


How do you know?

SWAG and common sense. Do you see a floodgate opening
of new hams rushing to become techs before the FCC
implements free upgrades on a certain date?

He WILL "see" such and be inventive in his rationalization of same!

Take that to the bank. :-)


It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the
qualifications,
both written and code, slowly reduced for over a quarter century. And
that's
not a good thing.

And if that is your true meaning, why would you state
that "You (Carl) couldn't pass the tests I (Jim) took, Carl."
Do you really think Carl would be unable to pass the same
written tests if he had to?

Finally you getting a glimpse of Mr. Expletive_deleted's motives. :-)

U.S. amateur radio has always been about morsemanship? To
some that is a Maxim.


I wonder what HK's written test requirements are.....

I don't really care.

He is worried. :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of
those
were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having
passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience,
but
not OK for future hams?

Kinda makes you wonder, eh? I cannot come ot any logical conclusion
that does not include a permanent reduction in the qualifications.

Hiram forbid you EVER lose your rank, status, privileges obtained
under old standards! Cannot that...ever!

The old standards must remain inviolate, never ever changed!

The ONLY ones "qualified" are those who took the same tests
you took.

Yup, you are SO qualified. Nobody else is if they didn't take the
same tests you did. [we get the picture]

The rest snipped, I gotta go do some housework............

Are you QUALIFIED to do housework? :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , "Helmut"
writes:

Hi, Jim,

Hello Helmut - sorry to take so long to reply

"N2EY" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. com...
"Helmut" wrote in message
...
Hi all, on this thread,

Hello!

"N2EY" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
Jim,
I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others.
Only a few?
Fun fact:
When I got my Extra there were fewer than 10,000 others (other Extras,
that
is). Now there are over 104,000 others. Doesn't bother me a bit. The
more
the
merrier - IF they pass the tests.

You all are on the wrong numbers, as you might recall, that the airwaves
wont stop ath the borders of your country.

The "others" I wrote of above are other US Amateur Extra licensees.

HF-Bands are not only for EXTRA licensed hams from the US, and the
expression "SANDBOX" means the whole spectrum accessible for radio amateurs
all over the world.

Wasn't meant that way at all.

My philosophy is that anyone in any country who can pass the required tests of
that
country and get the required license is welcome on the ham bands.

In the USA, parts of some bands are reserved for Extras. The USA has long had a
multilevel license structure, designed to reward increased knowledge and skill
with
more spectrum space.

In the process of restructuring after WRC03 zillion of
hams will be able to enter this spectrum.

How many will really do it, though?

And remember that the restructuring is determined by the governments of each
country. The ITU sets minimum requirements - the signatory countries can have
more requirements for a license.

Most of them did not pass the "US
GOLD CARD EXTRA" tests. They are given full HF privileges by the
authorities.

Sure - that's up to the governments of their countries. And what US hams get is
up
to the FCC.

This will also occur in the United States in the near future.

You mean the FCC will eliminate the Extra class license? How and why?

Do you realy think, your authority will step back from their voting at
WRC03? Do you think they want to loose their face towards those other
countries they were partnering at the WRC03?

I'm not sure what you mean.

If you're talking about the Morse code test, all that changed at WRC03 was
that it stopped being an international requirement. Each country can now
choose whether or not to have a Morse code test. So far, FCC hasn't
changed any US rules.

If you're talking about the written tests, all that changed at WRC03 was
that it stopped being a vague statement about each country setting its
own standards and became an international recommendation with
specific standards of what hams should know. Each country is expected
to meet the standards in its own way. So far, FCC hasn't changed any US rules.

They all are your fellow hams. Your friends, buddies, pals, or fellas. Why
don't you try to do the same, as the rest of the worlds hams are doing to
their hamfriends, stepping up now into the heaven of ham radio?

I've been in the heaven of ham radio for almost 37 years now, Helmut. Last
night I worked an OK1 on 40 CW and an F5 on 80 CW with my 100W
homebrew rig. Got the OK1 on the first buzz but there was quite a pile on
the F5.

Welcome
them, elmer them, if you think they are not skilled enough, and give them
the feeling of beeing welcome in your part of the spectrum.

Been doing that for almost 37 years now.

Exept in the US
and a few other countries, you can tell the license class from the callsign.

Sort of. In the US, the license class *sometimes* tells the license class. For
example, all 1x2 and 2x1 callsigns are Extras, but Extras can also have other
callsigns. I know hams with callsigns like WA3IYC who have been Extras for
30+ years.

From all the others around the globe you cannot tell, if they've got their
HF-privileges after the WRC without passing a test.

You're missing the point, Helmut.

What is being proposed by some is that some existing hams get a free
upgrade to the next-higher license class without a *written* test that is
required of everyone else. Some of us don't think that's a good idea.

What will your reaction
be? "Go home, this is MY PARTof the spectrum"?

No. But I will oppose changing the rules.

There will be poor operational skills around for a while.

That's not the issue at all.

Just recall YOUR first months of HF-operation.

October 1967.

No master ever fell out of the blue sky, they all had to take
their lesson and do her homework and practice.

But first they had to take the required tests.

Beeing a ham worldwide includes to be:
CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others.
LOYAL...offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateurs, local
clubs, and the American Radio Relay League, through which Amateur Radio in
the United States is represented nationally and internationally.

PROGRESSIVE...with knowledge abreast of science, a well-built and efficient
station and operation above reproach.

FRIENDLY...slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and
counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration
for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the amateur spirit.

BALANCED...radio is an avocation, never interfering with duties owed to
family, job, school or community.

PATRIOTIC...station and skill always ready for service to country and
community.

I agree with all of that. But that code does not mean that I must accept
without protest any and all proposed changes to the ARS.

--The original Amateur's Code was written by Paul M. Segal, W9EEA, in 1928.
Nowadays there has to be added: global thinking

What does global thinking have to do with requirements for an amateur radio
license
in the USA? Maybe the rest of the world should adopt the USA's ideas.

Most of what is discussed here is amateur radio policy in the USA.

That's simply a result of it being US based and in English.

And concerning this newsgroup as to be US-based and written in english
language is not protecting you of beeing a ham. Act like, speak like and
write like it is to the honor of amateur radio.

What have I written that is dishonorable? I have said that *all* who pass the
required tests and get the required license are welcome in *our* sandbox.

So am I. They need to be tested though, and they need to take the
test that other Extra's take.

I've heard the same song across the bands after they dropped the CW-test to
5wpm. Did it help anything?

I don't see where dropping the code test to 5 wpm helped much. A lot of
existing US hams
upgraded their existing licenses, but an even greater number did not. There was
a
very slight increase in the number of US hams. But not a large increase.

Several countries around the globe have dropped their Morse code tests
entirely.
Have they gotten lots more new hams as a result?

Your authority ignored it. Do you think they did
change their habit to please 10 percent of the american hams?

The USA reduced code testing to 5 wpm back in April 2000, even though
the majority of American hams who expressed an opinion to the government
wanted more than 5 wpm.

Exactly.

Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing.

as are your motives.

As I said before - all who pass the required tests are welcome in
*our* sandbox.

See?

What is "your sandbox"?

I don't have one!

Where can I make a test to access 40m above 7.100 ?

Move to ITU Region 2. Or convince your government to change the rules.

The reason hams in Regions 1 and 3 don't have 7.100-7.300 is that
their governments wanted that spectrum for shortwave broacasting in 1938.
It's not the fault of hams or governments in Region 2.

To be even more specific: In the Cairo convention of 1938, certain central
European governments insisted on taking part of the ham band for SWBC.
Their allies in the Far East agreed. The compromise was that Region 2
kept 40 meters as 7000-7300.

And although those governments are long gone, it has taken more than
60 years to change things.

You are right on this. It will get regulated after 2007 when the 40m
allocation will be 7000 - 7200 exclusive for all hams worldwide. This was
also concluded in Geneva.

Because Region 1 and Region 3 SWBC changed.

Where can I do the test for usage of 146 - 148 MHz?

Move to ITU Region 2. Or convince your government to change the rules.

This is your sandbox, I
assume.

Not mine. Ours.

"Ours" meaning "all the hams in the world who have the required licenses" not
just US hams.

But all the other Ham frequencies are also the sandbox and
playground of all the hams in the world. Their numbers are a lot more
than just 100k.

And they're all welcome. But how many of them are actually using, say,
7.000 to 7.025?

Well, Helmut? Do *you* use those frequencies? I used some of them less than 24
hours ago.

Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break.

If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them upgrades,
is there?

They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't
sent in their license for cancellation - so what?

83,000 advanced today who are either SK, inactive or just
don't see the need to upgrade and you expect even a measurable
increase in QRM because some of them may suddenly start
operating in the Extra only segments.

Then just leave 'em be!

That would require essentially maintaining the status quo, which
is unacceptable.

Why? What happens if the staus quo is maintaned?

Good question.

The FCC wants to simplify - the ARRL wants to create a viable
entry level class with meaningful HF privs and reasonable power
limits.

On what relevant statements do you base this?

After careful consideration of Ed Hare's (personal, not ARRL)
comments on the subject on eHam.net, I (personally, not as NCI)
think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward
to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future.

As a person that would never support a reduction in the written test
requirements, how do you support your rationale?

Do you now support a reduction in the test requirements? Obviously
the
answer is yes.

Are these benificiaries of the so called "one shot deal" qualified
to
operate at the level to which they will be advanced?

Thats the usual procedure in most countries of the globe to make a one
shot
exam.


That's not the case in the USA. We have several classes of license,
with a very easy and simple exam for the limited-privileges licenses and a
more
advanced exam for the full-privileges license. By the standards of
most of the rest of the world, the USA exams are very easy.

What is being discussed in this thread is a proposal that would give
more privileges to many with limited-privileges license *without* any
more tests. I think that's a bad idea.


Assuming your answer is yes, what is the reasoning behind those who
come after the "one shot deal" to have to take a more difficult test?

That's the real problem - particularly for the Tech-to-General
upgrade.

Effective after Aug. 15, 2003, this kind of upgrade from non-HF to HF-
Hams
has occured after the WRC03 throughout the world.

Are you talking about the code test? We're talking about the *written*
tests.

This has been of greatest
benefit to ham radio after its developement. Now as there is young blood
on
the bands, it will keep the ITU from knibbling on the bands.

How much difference has it really made?

How many countries have changed their rules?

How many new hams have gotten on the air since those changes?

How does the number of new hams since the changes compare to an equal
period of time before the changes?

Jim, it is not the difference in numbers, it is just the fact, that it
happend.

If there is no difference in numbers, why make the change?

Give yourself the cream upon the cake and think positive about the
new situation.

I do!

Showing anger and agressiv language against those beeing a
"victim" of the restructuring process doesn't bring any good to the ham
family.

I see far more anger from others who disagree with me. Your friend Len
Anderson is very angry and aggressive. He is not a ham and would not
make a good ham, judging by how he writes here.

Not in your country, and not around the world. And where we cannot
do anything against it, it's not worth to argue about it.

But maybe something can be done about it.

I don't think the written tests for a US amateur radio license with full
privileges should be made easier. In fact, I think they are too easy.
The *written* tests! Should I just be quiet about it?

It is NOT negotiable.

Yes, it is. The USA has to meet the minimum requirements of the
treaty, but does not have to stay at the minimum.

Here in Europe, we even did'nt have the time to try negotiating. The
authorities of the various countries just signed the bill and thats it.

That's why I live in the USA. We have the right to argue and negotiate. It's
called the democratic process. Some of my distant ancestors invented it
thousands of years ago.

Your FCC should do the same.

I disagree. Our FCC should go through the democratic process, not simply
hand down rules with no discussion.

This would save you all here on this thread a lot of nerves.

Maybe. But discussion is part of the process.

God bless, stay calm, and have a nice week

You too, Helmut.

73 de OE8SOQ

Helmut

ps: meet me on echolink node # 107658 if you would like to talk.

Not set up for that here.

Meet me on 7.020 CW sometime.....

73 de Jim, N2EY


73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message

Do you support those free upgrades or not?


I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.

Uh huh!


I'll ask:


Are those who get the so called "one time" upgrade qualified?

Why would they be "unqualified?"

Let's be specific: It is because they will not have passed the exam
which the FCC says they must pass in order to qualify for a specific
class of license.

Let's be serious here!

It is getting tougher to be serious when you persist in yanking our
lanyards.

In the incentive license scheme the privileges gained have no bearing
at all to the knowledge base in the sylabus for the license test.

Let's do this one in your manner: Whatever floats your boat. Life's
a--well, you know the drill.

I'd strongly suggest the greater danger to personal or others
life/limb is equally shared by Tech thru Extra as it relates to
permitted VHF/UHF operating at the legal limit.

How many beginners do you know who run the legal limit on VHF/UHF. I'm
betting that the answer is "none".

If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction
in
the written test requirements for those licenses.

Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements. THAT is the critical difference.

Give me a break, Bill!

Are the people getting the "one time upgrade" qualified?

Tell me why they would be unqualified? Unqualified as to doing
what?

They will not have met the qualifications for holding the higher class
license. No ifs, ands or buts.

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction,
but it's still a reduction.

It is a ONE time reduction. You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.

Are the people qualified?

YES...and if you think otherwise, please tell us what makes them
unqualified and/or in what specific aspect(s) or priviliges
they would be unqualified.

By your statement, you are supporting a watering down of both the
General and Extra class licenses. I'm quite certain that this is
something you stated that you'd never support.

And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.

If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. Why,
because
no one losses any privileges.

Are they qualified?

Broken record here it seems.

The question keeps coming up because straight answers have not been
forthcoming.

A few things here.

IF the people getting the free upgrade are qualified then there is *no
reason to increase the requirements ever again*. If you support that you
are just as supportive of a hazing requirement (over-testing) as the
evil Morse code supporters.

I repeat agin, the incentive licensing system bears NO true
relation to the increased privileges granted. The incentive
system as created simply asks for passage of another test
on subject matter of a more difficult content. Knowledge of
that material certainly doesn't lead to any special qualification
that differentiates an Extra operating in the "Extra Only"
spectrum from that of a General operating in the General
spectrum of the same band at the same maximum permitted
power.

So you do stand in support of reduced testing requirements and of the
elimination of incentive licensing. There can be no other explanation.
If your agenda extends not just to the elimination of morse testing but
to the watering down of the written exams, why not be bold? Come out and
say so.

If they are not qualified, then you are not only sending them upward
and onward without the proper qualifications, you are doing them a great
disservice.

Quite frankly, I believe that You, Carl, and Mr. W5YI do *indeed*
support permanent changes in the written requirement access to HF.

The ARRL does not take that position at all...except for the "new"
novice which would have greater HF privileges...but with limited
power. Carl and I support the ARRL petition (except for the code test)

The League's position provides a "gimme" to tens of thousands by
granting a by on testing. It is apparent that if it can be done on a
one-time basis, it can be done permanently.

I refuse to believe that you are all that naive to think that we'll just
do this once

Believe whatever makes you feel good.

Is that how you decide what to believe?

and no one will notice that suddenly the requirements will go up.

The requirements won't go up...they will stay the same. The only
thing happening here (if FCC approves) is the written test will
be waiver one time for the particular ham going from Tech to General
or Advanced to Extra.

You mean, those hams who will not have passed the exam to go from Tech
to General or Advanced to Extra. You mean a "gimme" for tens of
thousands.
Tell us again the motivation for such a thing. What makes it necessary
to do.

I remember promises of never accepting reduction in test requirements.
I remember the explicit distancing of personal opinions from NCI. But
here you all are, supporting reductions in the requirements for access
to HF. A pattern forms.

Yea, yea...and with the music to twilight Zone in the
background too.

I didn't hear music. I did read your words and Carl's words. What you
are writing these days is at odds with the earlier statements. Your
earlier statements which traditionally began, "all we want is..." sound
disingenuous.

Believe whatever you want, whatever floats your boat.

Opposition to the League's plan floats mine right now. I suppose your
comment is better than one of Lennie's "TS" brushoffs.

Dave K8MN