|
"Tom W" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:00:25 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote: "google blogger" wrote in message roups.com... Looks like the Ivy League also has **finally** realized that the Incentive License disaster of the 1960's pretty much trashed ham radio. Learn your history. ARRL fought that proposal. That was solely the idea of the FCC. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Learn *your* history. It was the ARRL which first proposed incentive licensing. From http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page13.html: "In summary, although the vast number of hams were satisfied, a small minority had complaints. And the ARRL listened. In 1963, acting on complaints they claim they received from members and operators in other countries, the ARRL proposed "Incentive Licensing." In an editorial, the ARRL implied that perhaps it was a mistake when the Class B and Generals were given the 75 and 20 meter phone segments. The ARRL's stand was now clear. Exclusive frequencies must be restored to the Advanced and Extra class amateurs in order to give the Generals an "incentive" to upgrade. Of course, what was left unsaid was that in order to do so, frequencies would have to be taken away from the General class hams." Unfortunately, that's not quite how it happened. FCC thought that hams would go for the Extra after 1953 simply "because it was there". And some did - but not many. As early as 1958, FCC asked why there were so few Extras. They were concerned about certain trends in amateur radio they didn't care for, such as increasing use of manufactured equipment whose inner workings the ham-owner had only a vague concept of. FCC asked ARRL for proposals in 1958, and again in 1963. ARRL put together a very simple proposal in 1963, *in response to* FCC's request. It consisted of just two items: 1) Reopen the Advanced class license to new applicants (it had been closed at the end of 1952) 2) Require an Advanced or Extra class license to use 'phone on the 80, 40, 20 and 15 meter ham bands. (back then 30, 17 and 12 meters were not ham bands). That was the whole proposal. No additional code testing would be needed to retain full privileges. No subbands-by-license-class except those already in place for Novices. No new limitations on CW. Existing Advanceds wouldn't have to do a thing. Existing Generals and Conditionals would have to take one additional written test to get their 80 thru 15 'phone privileges back. This proposal was nothing new - it was essentially a return to the old "ABC" system that had existed from the mid '30s to February 1953, and which FCC had revised in 1951 by adding Novice, Tech and Extra and renaming the ABC classes of license. The 1963 ARRL proposal got an RM number and the commentary began... FCC looked at that simple proposal, and then asked for more. They got quite a bit of response from the amateur committee, and at least 10 of the proposals were assigned RM numbers. There were at least 11 proposals with RM numbers by 1965. Commentary to ARRL was mixed, to say the least, but a slight majority were in favor of "incentive licensing" changes. ARRL and FCC took that as a mandate... Out of all these proposals FCC put together ideas and came up with a proposed scheme that bore little resemblance to the 1963 ARRL proposal. It was far more draconian, restrictive and encompassing than anything ARRL proposed, and was strongly opposed. Finally a compromise was announced in 1967. Over 6000 comments were received by FCC on the matter, even though the number of hams back then was less than a quarter million and there were no online comment systems. The whole process took years (1963-1967). Most hams then and today are not aware that FCC asked first. But they did. And I'll ask the question again: How did incentive licensing "trash ham radio"? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes: You probably realized that Dee D. may be assuming the role of "devil's advocate" here (by overplaying an idea to generate further discussion). In other words, we might not want to take her words at face value until she clarifies what she really means. So, Dee D., what did you really mean to say above? Paul, I appreciate your "guidance" in newsgroupism, but let's clear the board and outline a few things - 1. Double-D has claimed that I am on her "killfile." That means "she doesn't read any of my postings" for whatever righteous reasons she has (such as puritanism and syncophancy of some unclear "amateur ideals"). 2. Killfiling may be good for removing those mouthing vulgarities and obscenities ("deleting explitives" like 'heck' and 'darn') but it is also an ostrich syndrome, burying one's head in the virtual sand of righteous thoughts of the "ideal" so that "impure" thoughts (differences from righteous personal opinions) are filtered out. 3. Those who claim "killfiling" are irresistable open targets for commentary, taking pot-shots against the syncophants, the sanctimonious self-righteous self-propelled "experts" and olde-tymers's ideas. In Double-D's case she has exhibited Parentalism, that of treating others not thinking as she does as "little children needing to be taught the Right way..." 4. Hunting Season is ALWAYS open on the Internet. If you wish to "guide appropriate behavior," there are several in HERE who are likely recipients of "guidance and counseling." QED. 5. For proper sanctimonity (sanctimoniousism?) of the self-righteous olde-tymers, you and the newsgroup ruling triad (are you still one of those?) should CLOSE the public access here, install a monitor, demand a showing of "papers" for access. That is the proper way to Control Thought. An ultimate in Ostrich Syndrome. 6. Obvious Pro-Code Test Advocates do NOT play "Devil's Advocate." Those are hide-bound olde-tyme-thinking PCTAs who are not only sanctimonious self-righteous self-important self-propelled "experts" but are all seriously devoid of a sense of humor. They are so stuck on the "proper" way to act that their rigidity collapses in the slightest breeze of independent thought...and they quickly lapse into anger (sometimes hatred) against the independent person, oft-times jumping into puerile barbaric behavior of using personal insults rather than arguing subjects. Quod Erat Demonstrandum by all that is Google and DejaNews. 7. Independence of Thought is a cherished item in the United States of America since its beginning a scant 228 years ago. So much so that it is incorporated into the First Amendment of our Constitution to make it clear what we citizens can say to our government. By tradition and independent spirit, we Americans also cherish being able to pot-shoot politician's opinions and their political parties. ARRL is a political entity as well as a publishing house and is NOT any sort of agency of the federal government; they are more open for pot-shooting than any feds despite the santimony expressed by their devout followers of the Church of St. Hiram. 8. "The Devil made me do it." :-) LHA / WMD |
Unfortunately, I overestimated the amount of balls carried by the BoD.
Not only didin't they have the balls to recommend complete elimination of the Morse exam, but in recommending that Morse testing be continued for "EXTRA", the speed they recommended was the same count-the-dots 5WPM which Novices have been passing for over a half-century. Pathetic! 73, de Hans, K0HB "N2EY" wrote | | The following is a direct copy of Hans' post in original format: | | BEGIN GOOGLE QUOTE: | | Reply-To: "KØHB" | From: "KØHB" | Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy | References: | | Subject: The Pool | Lines: 23 | Organization: Chaos & Confusion | X-Priority: 3 | X-MSMail-Priority: Normal | X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 | Message-ID: .net | Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:41:13 GMT | NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.250.209.220 | X-Complaints-To: | X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1073263273 67.250.209.220 | (Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:41:13 PST) | NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:41:13 PST | | | "N2EY" wrote | | Here's an update on various estimates of when Morse code testing will be | eliminated in the US. Note that four predicted dates are in the past. | | Given that ARRL likely will lobby for continuing a code test for | Amateur | Extra (12-13WPM?) applicants, I predict that Morse testing will not be | eliminated in this decade. | | While it's a cop out, it's probably the only way they can get 15 | politicians | to sign up for a "New Amateur Radio Plan" without a palace revolt on | their | hands at the BoD meeting. They'll be able to go back to East | Overshoe, Iowa | and Resume Speed, Arizona and mumble platitudes to their membership | about | how "We've opened HF to non-Morse applicants, but where it really | counts we | actually increased the Morse requirement." | | That's my story and I'm sticking to it. | | 73, de Hans, K0HB | | END GOOGLE QUOTE |
KØHB wrote:
Unfortunately, I overestimated the amount of balls carried by the BoD. Not only didin't they have the balls to recommend complete elimination of the Morse exam, but in recommending that Morse testing be continued for "EXTRA", the speed they recommended was the same count-the-dots 5WPM which Novices have been passing for over a half-century. IIRC, most VEs give the code test using farnsworth method. That is, 13 wpm characters spaced at 5 wpm rate. Harder to count the dahs dots. Idea is that one can get faster at code quicker, as you learn the sounds of letters instead of counting the dots. Way back when, I had to receive and *send* with an FCC provided straight key 5wpm. I think that the FCC found that nobody ever failed sending if they could receive, so they dropped the send test. |
Alun wrote in message . ..
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... I see no benefit in giving over 7125-7150 to phone. 7075-7100, for example, would be the same size and in a more useful place. Moreover, it would harmonise Region 2 US hams with US hams outside R2. This will crowd the CW/digital/data modes too much since there are so many US hams. It would be better to wait for the other treaty changes from the conference to take affect and synchronize Regions 1 and 3 with Region 2. You do know of course that the treaty now requires broadcasters to move out of 7.1 to 7.2 and that this will become an exclusive amateur allocation. Of course I do, but do you think they will really move? Yes. They agreed to it in the treaty. Some may, but I think some of them never will. Why? Many countries are reducing or even eliminating their SWBC operations. The others have agreed to move, and they have about 3 years to do so. In the 60s and 70s, SWBC was so crowded that some countries moved *below* 7100. Complaints from ARRL and others to the various State Departments got them to move. The only real failure of the "Intruder Watch" of those days was the woodpecker, which was an OTHR system. It was made to move by other means ;-) I don't recall the timing but it is required in the treaty. Three years or so IIRC. Maybe before FCC drops Element 1. Perhaps someday, the ITU will open up the 7.2 to 7.3 to the other regions. In the meantime, 7.150 to 7.200 could be a worldwide phone allocation. This is actually more space than either of the suggested proposals. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I'm assuming that this will happen anyway. I just meant that 7075-7100, where of course there is already phone, would be more use to phone ops than the proposed 7125-7150, where there isn't. If the USA opens 7075-7100 to 'phone, all that will happen is the DX 'phones will move still lower in the band to get away. There are already some on 7050 and lower - and many of them are in R2! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Alun wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in om: Alun wrote in message .. . (N2EY) wrote in om: Alun wrote in message . .. (N2EY) wrote in : In article , Alun writes: (N2EY) wrote in news:c2356669.0401191008.a3c8376 : http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=1 Summary: 3 classes of license: Novice, General, Extra The _only_ merit to that is that testing was free for Novices, so it would reintroduce a free licence class. Not part of the proposal as I read it. As I understand it, the law providing free testing for Novices remains on the books. Hence, it really does matter what the entry level licence is called. If it is re-named 'Novice', then the test is free. No, it's not part of the proposal, and having since read the whole thing on the ARRL web site, it appears that the league haven't thought about this particular wrinkle, as they say that the name is still open and it could be called something else. Unless K0HB is mistaken, no such rule exists in Part 97. And since no new Novices have been issued in almost 4 years, it's a bit of a moot point. But it might be a nice thing for VECs to do... As best as I can follow it a statute made testing free for Novices, and a later administrative decision closed the class to new entrants. No such statute exists. If it did, it would be in Part 97. Obviously the FCC don't have to include in Part 97 a rule giving free testing for Novices whilst there are no Novice tests, but if they re-started Novice testing it would have to be free. I admit I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it, unless someone can show me proof to the contrary. The nonexistence of something cannot be proven. There used to be a rule in Part 97 that Novice tests were free. The new Novice would replace the existing Technician class as the entry level exam. It would have less power and fewer VHF/UHF privileges, but more HF privileges. Provided the new class that happened to be called Novice had Tech Plus privileges and they had to pass the current Element 2 I would have no trouble with that Why? I thought the old Novice was too easy Why? The old 20-25 question Novice I took in 1967 at the age of 13 was adequate to keep me out of trouble, even though my first station was homebrewed from junk parts. And that Novice license started me on the path to Advanced in about a year, Extra in about 3 years and BSEE in a little over 8 years.... And there were many many Novices like me. If an entry level license keeps the newbies out of trouble and inspires them to learn and do more, isn't that just about perfect? Well? Think about it - what exactly *should* an entry-level license do? If it insures that newcomers know enough to keep out of trouble (on the air, anyway,) gives them a sample of what amateur radio is about, and inspires them to learn and do more with ham radio, isn't that just about perfect? I don't see very many people having any great difficulty with the present Element 2, so why does it need to be easier? Present Element 2 is for the VHF/UHF-centric Tech. The more balanced "NewNovice" simply needs a different test. The privileges would be more than the old Novice as well. Yep - and much less in some ways than the Tech. Each license level needs a test tailored to its privileges and intent. Current Element 2 is very VHF/UHF centric, and so are current Tech Plus privs. The goal seems to be to strike more of a balance between above and below 30 MHz privileges. So change the question pool, but don't dumb it down How do we define "dumbing it down"? If 35 questions are adequate for all amateur VHF/UHF at full meat-cooking power, plus 200 watts on parts of HF, shouldn't 25 be adequate for the limited privs proposed for the Novice? How much is it reasonable to expect a newcomer to learn in order to be turned loose with ~100 watts on parts of HF and ~25 watts on parts of VHF/UHF? To put it another way, why shouldn't the Techs have all those proposed HF privileges, since they have passed a test with more questions than that proposed? It would be reasonable for exiting Techs to keep their existing license name and VHF/UHF privileges, *and* get "NewNovice" privileges on HF. 5 wpm code test retained for Extra only Predictably, I do have a problem with that. Me too. Should be at least 13 and preferably 20 wpm. Sending and receiving. Won't happen Probably not, but it's still a good idea. Morse skill testing for voice privileges is illogical and should be dumped. It's no more illogical than testing theory in order to be allowed to use manufactured equipment. Not in my opinion It's the same argument used against the code test. Why *must* a ham learn all that theory to use manufactured, approved gear with no critical adjustments? Heck, most ham gear today won't transmit out of band unless modified! Moreover, it can be now, since it has not been required by the ITU for the last six months. FCC will most probably just drop it completely. I think they will too Unfortunately Existing Advanceds get free upgrade to Extra, OK Why OK? Why not simply carry the Advanceds as a separate class, as has been done for the past 3 years and 9 months? Can't stand loose ends What's the problem? FCC kept the Advanced on the books from 1953 to 1967 even though no new ones were issued and the license conveyed no additional privileges at all. Do those loose ends really cause any problems? Confusion? Whose? Not FCC's! Besides, Element 4A had most of the harder questions anyway. Not really. I passed old Element 4A back in 1968, at the age of 14, between 8th and 9th grades. I wasn't even intending to try it - I was at the FCC for the 13 wpm code, and the examiner said "why not try Advanced while you're here?". So I did. How hard could it have really been if I passed it first-time under those circumstances? Techs and Tech Pluses get free upgrade to General Not OK in this scenario, given my comments above Agreed - but why is it OK for Advanceds to get a free upgrade to Extra, but not OK for Techs and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General? What is the fundamental difference that makes one freebie OK but not the other? As I see it, the new Novice would be a replacement for the Tech, which is already pretty easy Exactly. But that doesn't answer the question. You want Advanceds to get free upgrades to avoid ~82,000 loose ends, but not Techs and Tech pluses, who would amount to ~322,000 loose ends. I don't see why one and not the other. 'Phone image subbands for 80/40/15 widened slightly Good. Bad. Some phone below 7100? No? Why not? That space is needed for CW and digital modes. Better to keep those on the Novice freqs and refarm more useful spectrum to phone Why reward the most spectrum-inefficent modes? Why not digital voice? It has worse S/N performance than SSB That depends entirely on the type of encoding and modulation used, doesn't it? Can you categorically say that digital voice can *never* outperform SSB? Old Novice subbands replaced by additional CW/data and 'phone subbands on 80/40/15. Novices also get privs on 6, 2, 222, and 440 See above Please clarify. I see no benefit in giving over 7125-7150 to phone. 25 kHz more. 7075-7100, for example, would be the same size and in a more useful place. Moreover, it would harmonise Region 2 US hams with US hams outside R2. Hams outside Region 2 will be getting 7100-7200 anyway. Let them harmonize with us. US hams outside R2 already have 7075-7100 phone Only because they don't have 7100-7200. US hams outside R2 are rare enough to be conidered "DX" anyway. Read it again. *US* hams outside R2 I did. As they get 7100-7200, any reason to have 'phone below 7100 goes away completely. Only when:- 1 - all the broadcasters have moved, probably circa the year 2100; Why do they *all* have to move? And the timetable is 2007, IIRC and 2 - all the countries have 7100-7200, which might almost take as long I think you just want to have 7075-7100 regardless of what would happen. Novice power level set below that requiring RF exposure evaluation OK Agreed. Novice test to be 25 questions on "basics", Not OK Why not? Current Element 2 is only 35 questions! And it has a lot more ground to cover, including all amateur VHF/UHF bands and modes, power up to "meat cooking" levels (love that WK3C phrase) and much more. By reducing the entry-level privs, 25 questions should be enough. With that power limit you could take out the RF exposure questions, but I think the test is already easy enough. To a beginner, it's not so easy. My XYL passed Elements 2 and 3A, and she has no real interest in radio. That's one example. General to be derived from Tech and General, Extra pretty much as-is. What do you actually think of this proposal yourself, Jim? You don't say here. See above. A few good ideas and a few bad ideas. Obviously the work of a committee looking to give everyone something they want, but not giving anyone everything they want. What will FCC do? First off, they may just go for the "new Novice", in an effort to attract more new hams. Re-naming the Tech as a Novice would make the test free under existing law. That has some appeal. See above about the "law". Second, they will probably just dump Element 1. Agreed Third, they will probably not hand out free upgrades because it costs them little or nothing to keep the closed-off classes. I think that for some reason their computers are only set up to handle 5 classes of licence, but I guess that works out as there won't be two types of Tech anymore (this is also the reason why they aren't recorded differently right now). Incorrect! Before restructuring, their computers handled 6 classes of license (Novice, Tech, Tech Plus, General, Advanced, Extra). In fact their computers *still* handle 6 classes! So there should be no problem at all. And as Tech Pluses continue to be renewed as Techs, expire, and upgrade, that class will disappear completely. I personally am not in favour of keeping closed licence classes, though. I think it is better to move on. I agree, but not at the price of giveaways just to make things look neater. Better that than the only possible alternative - taking privileges away But is there really any reason not to simply continue those license classes? That's a much, much better option than freebies or removing privileges. No it's not. If we abolish them we can sort out all the subbands. Why are the subbands a problem? How would you feel if it were decided to give all existing hams except Novices a free upgrade to Extra, then have just two classes - "Limited" (new name for Novice) and "Full" (everybody else)? 73 de Jim, N2EY I would be OK with that only if the Techs got only a limited licence. Why would Techs be singled out for a limited license? They have full privs above 50 MHz. I would have no problem with giving Generals a full licence. By your reasoning, there's no reason to have the Extra, then. Nor its test. Correct. So you're for reducing the *written test* requirements for a full privileges license. Bad idea. Of course, to be fair you would have to extend that to Techs with old Element 3. Where ya been, Alun? Techs with old Element 3 (licensed before March 21, 1987) can get a General license *today* with no additional testing. Just show up at a VE session with proof of such license, fill out the 605 and pay the VE fee. Instant General. And if such a ham can pass the Extra written (might as well try, the same VE fee buys that test too), they get an Extra. Been that way since April 15, 2000. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Leo" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:54:28 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: "Leo" wrote in message .. . On 22 Jan 2004 00:02:34 GMT, Alun wrote: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in igy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... (N2EY) wrote in om: I did. As they get 7100-7200, any reason to have 'phone below 7100 goes away completely. Except for us up North, perhaps - we have 7.050 to 7.100 allocated as SSB on our 40M band plan. There are a few Canadian nets that operate there regularily, as well as quite a bit of foreign DX. Fortunately, our band plans are guidelines prepared by Radio Amateurs of Canada - not federally mandated. 73, Leo Do you really think you would like all the US amateurs jumping in down there?? Remember the population difference. We have a tremendous amount of activity on 40m voice on 7.150 to 7.300 until the broadcasts drive us off. If we had SSB access to that 7.050 to 7.100 used by other countries, it would be packed solid and nobody else could get in. Do you want that? Far better to continue the battle to get the allocation extended to 7.300 for all amateurs around the world. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Agree that the exclusivity of the 40M band should be extended to 7.300 - but that is likely quite a few years away. It will be a few more years before the 7.100 to 7.200 segment is cleared of broadcast stations. And, the bandwidth from 7.050 to 7.100 (at least from my QTH) is relatively underutilized - not a great deal of CW or digital traffic going on there. Just thinking that it might provide some clear space for you to operate if it was opened to phone in the US. Personally, I don't mind having it as clear as it is right now at all! There are, as I stated, some excellent DX opportunities there... 73, Leo Leo, my point is that it would not stay clear very long. It would fill up in a heart beat with domestic nets and QSOs thereby causing hardship and hard feelings among the those outside the US. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message ... In (Len Over 21) writes: In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Actually I wonder if the ARRL petition isn't a crafty ruse. It will look good to people who want what it proposes but has high odds of being rejected by the FCC since the FCC has a long history of shooting down automatic upgrades. They get the "attaboy" for "trying" and can then lay it at the FCC's door when it fails even though they may want it to fail. SHAME! Thinking improper and vulgar thoughts about the ARRL! Say 100 Hail Hirams as penance and sin no more. LHA / WMD You probably realized that Dee D. may be assuming the role of "devil's advocate" here (by overplaying an idea to generate further discussion). In other words, we might not want to take her words at face value until she clarifies what she really means. So, Dee D., what did you really mean to say above? Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they decide to do anything at all. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they decide to do anything at all. That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me! As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database. So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes everybody's time. More important, it diverts attention from the other issues. oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Alun" wrote I don't think that qualifies as proof. Here is a direct quote from the "Amateur Radio Newsline" broadcast of Sept 12th, 1993, where the hissy-fit of W5YI is described. Since K7UGA left the Senate in 1986, long before this incident, it's unlikely that he responded with legislation which required free Novice exams. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB " VEC UPSET ABOUT FREE NOVICE TESTS The ARRL says that it will not charge applicants for Novice tests. This even though the W5YI VEC has filed a complaint with the FCC alleging that the League's VEC operation is in violation of the rules because it refuses to charge applicants for these tests. But Fred Maia W5YI who operates the VEC bearing his callsign claims that its a matter of uniformity. That all VEC's who use what is called the annual method of figuring reimbursement are required to charge an examination fee for every test it gives, including Novice exams. The ARRL says that it plans to continue its policy of administering Novice tests free of charge because it believes that this policy is consistent with an FCC tradition established back in the 1950's. This, as a way of making it easy for youngsters to get entry level licenses. The League's President, George Wilson, W4OYI says that the whole thing is nothing more than one of the ironies that keeps ham radio politics interesting. Wilson notes that VEC's have always had the latitude to set their own fees. He adds -- and we quote -- "Frankly, we see no compelling Federal interest in whether or not a class of nine year olds ought to be charged for taking an entry level ham radio exam." But Maia and his W5YI VEC operation see it very differently. In his September 1st issue of his W5YI Report newsletter Maia says that the potential financial benefit to the League resulting from its policy is to serious to be ignored. He says that free examinations when all other VEC's charge, attract applicants who are the potential purchasers of examination preparation materials. Maia believes that the purchasing decisions of these people may be unduly influenced by their choice of VEC's. Did this flap ever make it to the U.S. Dept. of Justice trust busters or the SEC? Gotta just love Maia. He's more fun than Wayne Green. w3rv |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message news:ZkZPb.33223$P% Leo, my point is that it would not stay clear very long. It would fill up in a heart beat with domestic nets and QSOs thereby causing hardship and hard feelings among the those outside the US. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE True indeed.....some time back the bottom of 20 m phone was 14.200. I remember the 'opening day' of moving down to 14.175...thats right, 175....you should have heard the South Americans bitching. Dan/W4NTI |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they decide to do anything at all. That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me! As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database. So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes everybody's time. More important, it diverts attention from the other issues. oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY That theory works but for one major problem. Were talking about the 'gang of fifteen' here. What makes you think they have enough sense? Dan/W4NTI |
Did this flap ever make it to the U.S. Dept. of Justice trust busters or the SEC? Gotta just love Maia. He's more fun than Wayne Green. w3rv Maia, Wayne Green and Dick Bash should be drawn and quartered on the Nevada sands. Dan/W4NTI |
Len Over 21 wrote: Paul, I appreciate your "guidance" in newsgroupism, but let's clear the board and outline a few things - ... (such as puritanism and syncophancy of.... The what? commentary, taking pot-shots against the syncophants Against whom? Looks like you need some help with that clearing and outlining. 6. Obvious Pro-Code Test Advocates do NOT play "Devil's Advocate." Those are hide-bound olde-tyme-thinking PCTAs who are not only sanctimonious self-righteous self-important self-propelled "experts" but are all seriously devoid of a sense of humor. You know, Leonard, all of those adjectives could easily be used to describe you. Dave K8MN |
|
(N2EY) wrote in
om: Alun wrote in message . .. (N2EY) wrote in om: Alun wrote in message .. . (N2EY) wrote in om: Alun wrote in message . .. (N2EY) wrote in : In article , Alun writes: (N2EY) wrote in news:c2356669.0401191008.a3c8376 : http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/19/1/?nc=1 Summary: 3 classes of license: Novice, General, Extra The _only_ merit to that is that testing was free for Novices, so it would reintroduce a free licence class. Not part of the proposal as I read it. As I understand it, the law providing free testing for Novices remains on the books. Hence, it really does matter what the entry level licence is called. If it is re-named 'Novice', then the test is free. No, it's not part of the proposal, and having since read the whole thing on the ARRL web site, it appears that the league haven't thought about this particular wrinkle, as they say that the name is still open and it could be called something else. Unless K0HB is mistaken, no such rule exists in Part 97. And since no new Novices have been issued in almost 4 years, it's a bit of a moot point. But it might be a nice thing for VECs to do... As best as I can follow it a statute made testing free for Novices, and a later administrative decision closed the class to new entrants. No such statute exists. If it did, it would be in Part 97. Obviously the FCC don't have to include in Part 97 a rule giving free testing for Novices whilst there are no Novice tests, but if they re-started Novice testing it would have to be free. I admit I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it, unless someone can show me proof to the contrary. The nonexistence of something cannot be proven. There used to be a rule in Part 97 that Novice tests were free. The new Novice would replace the existing Technician class as the entry level exam. It would have less power and fewer VHF/UHF privileges, but more HF privileges. Provided the new class that happened to be called Novice had Tech Plus privileges and they had to pass the current Element 2 I would have no trouble with that Why? I thought the old Novice was too easy Why? The old 20-25 question Novice I took in 1967 at the age of 13 was adequate to keep me out of trouble, even though my first station was homebrewed from junk parts. And that Novice license started me on the path to Advanced in about a year, Extra in about 3 years and BSEE in a little over 8 years.... And there were many many Novices like me. If an entry level license keeps the newbies out of trouble and inspires them to learn and do more, isn't that just about perfect? Well? Think about it - what exactly *should* an entry-level license do? If it insures that newcomers know enough to keep out of trouble (on the air, anyway,) gives them a sample of what amateur radio is about, and inspires them to learn and do more with ham radio, isn't that just about perfect? I don't see very many people having any great difficulty with the present Element 2, so why does it need to be easier? Present Element 2 is for the VHF/UHF-centric Tech. The more balanced "NewNovice" simply needs a different test. The privileges would be more than the old Novice as well. Yep - and much less in some ways than the Tech. Each license level needs a test tailored to its privileges and intent. Current Element 2 is very VHF/UHF centric, and so are current Tech Plus privs. The goal seems to be to strike more of a balance between above and below 30 MHz privileges. So change the question pool, but don't dumb it down How do we define "dumbing it down"? If 35 questions are adequate for all amateur VHF/UHF at full meat-cooking power, plus 200 watts on parts of HF, shouldn't 25 be adequate for the limited privs proposed for the Novice? How much is it reasonable to expect a newcomer to learn in order to be turned loose with ~100 watts on parts of HF and ~25 watts on parts of VHF/UHF? To put it another way, why shouldn't the Techs have all those proposed HF privileges, since they have passed a test with more questions than that proposed? It would be reasonable for exiting Techs to keep their existing license name and VHF/UHF privileges, *and* get "NewNovice" privileges on HF. 5 wpm code test retained for Extra only Predictably, I do have a problem with that. Me too. Should be at least 13 and preferably 20 wpm. Sending and receiving. Won't happen Probably not, but it's still a good idea. Morse skill testing for voice privileges is illogical and should be dumped. It's no more illogical than testing theory in order to be allowed to use manufactured equipment. Not in my opinion It's the same argument used against the code test. Why *must* a ham learn all that theory to use manufactured, approved gear with no critical adjustments? Heck, most ham gear today won't transmit out of band unless modified! Moreover, it can be now, since it has not been required by the ITU for the last six months. FCC will most probably just drop it completely. I think they will too Unfortunately Existing Advanceds get free upgrade to Extra, OK Why OK? Why not simply carry the Advanceds as a separate class, as has been done for the past 3 years and 9 months? Can't stand loose ends What's the problem? FCC kept the Advanced on the books from 1953 to 1967 even though no new ones were issued and the license conveyed no additional privileges at all. Do those loose ends really cause any problems? Confusion? Whose? Not FCC's! Besides, Element 4A had most of the harder questions anyway. Not really. I passed old Element 4A back in 1968, at the age of 14, between 8th and 9th grades. I wasn't even intending to try it - I was at the FCC for the 13 wpm code, and the examiner said "why not try Advanced while you're here?". So I did. How hard could it have really been if I passed it first-time under those circumstances? Techs and Tech Pluses get free upgrade to General Not OK in this scenario, given my comments above Agreed - but why is it OK for Advanceds to get a free upgrade to Extra, but not OK for Techs and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General? What is the fundamental difference that makes one freebie OK but not the other? As I see it, the new Novice would be a replacement for the Tech, which is already pretty easy Exactly. But that doesn't answer the question. You want Advanceds to get free upgrades to avoid ~82,000 loose ends, but not Techs and Tech pluses, who would amount to ~322,000 loose ends. I don't see why one and not the other. 'Phone image subbands for 80/40/15 widened slightly Good. Bad. Some phone below 7100? No? Why not? That space is needed for CW and digital modes. Better to keep those on the Novice freqs and refarm more useful spectrum to phone Why reward the most spectrum-inefficent modes? Why not digital voice? It has worse S/N performance than SSB That depends entirely on the type of encoding and modulation used, doesn't it? Can you categorically say that digital voice can *never* outperform SSB? No. One day it might. But not yet. Old Novice subbands replaced by additional CW/data and 'phone subbands on 80/40/15. Novices also get privs on 6, 2, 222, and 440 See above Please clarify. I see no benefit in giving over 7125-7150 to phone. 25 kHz more. 7075-7100, for example, would be the same size and in a more useful place. Moreover, it would harmonise Region 2 US hams with US hams outside R2. Hams outside Region 2 will be getting 7100-7200 anyway. Let them harmonize with us. US hams outside R2 already have 7075-7100 phone Only because they don't have 7100-7200. US hams outside R2 are rare enough to be conidered "DX" anyway. Read it again. *US* hams outside R2 I did. As they get 7100-7200, any reason to have 'phone below 7100 goes away completely. Only when:- 1 - all the broadcasters have moved, probably circa the year 2100; Why do they *all* have to move? And the timetable is 2007, IIRC and 2 - all the countries have 7100-7200, which might almost take as long I think you just want to have 7075-7100 regardless of what would happen. It's phone in the bandplan (IARU not Antiquated Radio Relay League) Novice power level set below that requiring RF exposure evaluation OK Agreed. Novice test to be 25 questions on "basics", Not OK Why not? Current Element 2 is only 35 questions! And it has a lot more ground to cover, including all amateur VHF/UHF bands and modes, power up to "meat cooking" levels (love that WK3C phrase) and much more. By reducing the entry-level privs, 25 questions should be enough. With that power limit you could take out the RF exposure questions, but I think the test is already easy enough. To a beginner, it's not so easy. My XYL passed Elements 2 and 3A, and she has no real interest in radio. That's one example. General to be derived from Tech and General, Extra pretty much as-is. What do you actually think of this proposal yourself, Jim? You don't say here. See above. A few good ideas and a few bad ideas. Obviously the work of a committee looking to give everyone something they want, but not giving anyone everything they want. What will FCC do? First off, they may just go for the "new Novice", in an effort to attract more new hams. Re-naming the Tech as a Novice would make the test free under existing law. That has some appeal. See above about the "law". Second, they will probably just dump Element 1. Agreed Third, they will probably not hand out free upgrades because it costs them little or nothing to keep the closed-off classes. I think that for some reason their computers are only set up to handle 5 classes of licence, but I guess that works out as there won't be two types of Tech anymore (this is also the reason why they aren't recorded differently right now). Incorrect! Before restructuring, their computers handled 6 classes of license (Novice, Tech, Tech Plus, General, Advanced, Extra). In fact their computers *still* handle 6 classes! So there should be no problem at all. And as Tech Pluses continue to be renewed as Techs, expire, and upgrade, that class will disappear completely. I personally am not in favour of keeping closed licence classes, though. I think it is better to move on. I agree, but not at the price of giveaways just to make things look neater. Better that than the only possible alternative - taking privileges away But is there really any reason not to simply continue those license classes? That's a much, much better option than freebies or removing privileges. No it's not. If we abolish them we can sort out all the subbands. Why are the subbands a problem? How would you feel if it were decided to give all existing hams except Novices a free upgrade to Extra, then have just two classes - "Limited" (new name for Novice) and "Full" (everybody else)? 73 de Jim, N2EY I would be OK with that only if the Techs got only a limited licence. Why would Techs be singled out for a limited license? They have full privs above 50 MHz. I would have no problem with giving Generals a full licence. By your reasoning, there's no reason to have the Extra, then. Nor its test. Correct. So you're for reducing the *written test* requirements for a full privileges license. Bad idea. Of course, to be fair you would have to extend that to Techs with old Element 3. Where ya been, Alun? Techs with old Element 3 (licensed before March 21, 1987) can get a General license *today* with no additional testing. Just show up at a VE session with proof of such license, fill out the 605 and pay the VE fee. Instant General. And if such a ham can pass the Extra written (might as well try, the same VE fee buys that test too), they get an Extra. Been that way since April 15, 2000. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Alun" wrote in message ... I beleive the R2 bandplan allows phone down to 7045, same as R1. In R3 it's 7030! R2 hams operatong phone 'on 7050 and lower' are abiding by the ITU bandplan unless they go below 7045. Keep in mind that outside the US, those are just band plans. According to postings I read elsewhere, they are ignored with some regularity. It becomes even more common to ignore them during some contests. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... I beleive the R2 bandplan allows phone down to 7045, same as R1. In R3 it's 7030! R2 hams operatong phone 'on 7050 and lower' are abiding by the ITU bandplan unless they go below 7045. Keep in mind that outside the US, those are just band plans. According to postings I read elsewhere, they are ignored with some regularity. It becomes even more common to ignore them during some contests. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I can't speak for hams in every country in the world, but being originally from the UK I would say that most there would be horrified at the idea of operating phone below 7040, for example. The cutoff used to be 7040 before they set aside 7035-7045 for RTTY. That is one aspect of it being voluntary, you will find people who continue to use a frequency after the bandplan is changed. In a similar way, phone is supposed to be above 14.112 on 20, but it used to be 14.100. The RTTY sections were carved out of the top of CW and the bottom of phone. Phone below 7.040 or below 14.100 is not something I hear when I tune around. It's easy for US hams to form an impression that there are lots of DX hams operating phone on CW frequencies, but there really aren't. It's just that few realise how far down phone extends in the IARU bandplans. Contests are another matter, but that cuts both ways, i.e. you will also find CW on phone frequencies during CW contests. 73 de Alun, N3KIP (Ex-G8VUK, G0VUK) |
In (N2EY) writes:
In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they decide to do anything at all. That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me! As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database. So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes everybody's time. More important, it diverts attention from the other issues. oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer. Rather, it is just one of the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official, but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer, is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading. -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
"Tom W" wrote in message ... On 22 Jan 2004 12:19:26 -0800, N2EY wrote: "Tom W" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:00:25 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote: "google blogger" wrote in message roups.com... Looks like the Ivy League also has **finally** realized that the Incentive License disaster of the 1960's pretty much trashed ham radio. Learn your history. ARRL fought that proposal. That was solely the idea of the FCC. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Learn *your* history. It was the ARRL which first proposed incentive licensing. From http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page13.html: "In summary, although the vast number of hams were satisfied, a small minority had complaints. And the ARRL listened. In 1963, acting on complaints they claim they received from members and operators in other countries, the ARRL proposed "Incentive Licensing." In an editorial, the ARRL implied that perhaps it was a mistake when the Class B and Generals were given the 75 and 20 meter phone segments. The ARRL's stand was now clear. Exclusive frequencies must be restored to the Advanced and Extra class amateurs in order to give the Generals an "incentive" to upgrade. Of course, what was left unsaid was that in order to do so, frequencies would have to be taken away from the General class hams." Unfortunately, that's not quite how it happened. FCC thought that hams would go for the Extra after 1953 simply "because it was there". And some did - but not many. ... Please cite references. I have before me two historical accounts which both agree that the ARRL first broached the subject of incentive licensing, as well as the QST editorial from 1963 which rationalized it. Web pages such as "The Wayback Machine" also agree that the League first proposed the changes which were finally implemented in 1967. In fact, http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page14.html goes on to say: "On May 3, 1963, the ARRL Board of Directors adopted their official position on incentive licensing. Their proposal would completely take away all General and Conditional class phone privileges on 75, 40, 20, and 15 meters in a two-year phase-in period. In other words, the ARRL's incentive licensing would only allow HF phone operation for Generals and Conditionals on 10 meters and on the small sliver of 160 meters that was available in the days of LORAN Radionavigation. The ARRL also suggested reopening the Advanced class license again to those who held a General or Conditional license for one year. Strangely, the ARRL did not suggest that Extras be given exclusive frequencies, nor did they propose exclusive CW frequencies. Rather, they just wanted exclusive access to the 75 through 15-meter phone segments for the Advanced and Extra class licenses ..." Based on all of these items, it appears to me that your account could well be someone's revisionist history. I can find nothing in the literature to support it, but can easily find material which refutes it. Thank you for all the refrences. I also 'remember' it that way. As I stated to Dee D in another post. 73 Dan/W4NTI |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message ink.net... "Tom W" wrote in message ... On 22 Jan 2004 12:19:26 -0800, N2EY wrote: "Tom W" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:00:25 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote: "google blogger" wrote in message roups.com... Looks like the Ivy League also has **finally** realized that the Incentive License disaster of the 1960's pretty much trashed ham radio. Learn your history. ARRL fought that proposal. That was solely the idea of the FCC. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Learn *your* history. It was the ARRL which first proposed incentive licensing. From http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page13.html: "In summary, although the vast number of hams were satisfied, a small minority had complaints. And the ARRL listened. In 1963, acting on complaints they claim they received from members and operators in other countries, the ARRL proposed "Incentive Licensing." In an editorial, the ARRL implied that perhaps it was a mistake when the Class B and Generals were given the 75 and 20 meter phone segments. The ARRL's stand was now clear. Exclusive frequencies must be restored to the Advanced and Extra class amateurs in order to give the Generals an "incentive" to upgrade. Of course, what was left unsaid was that in order to do so, frequencies would have to be taken away from the General class hams." Unfortunately, that's not quite how it happened. FCC thought that hams would go for the Extra after 1953 simply "because it was there". And some did - but not many. ... Please cite references. I have before me two historical accounts which both agree that the ARRL first broached the subject of incentive licensing, as well as the QST editorial from 1963 which rationalized it. Web pages such as "The Wayback Machine" also agree that the League first proposed the changes which were finally implemented in 1967. In fact, http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page14.html goes on to say: "On May 3, 1963, the ARRL Board of Directors adopted their official position on incentive licensing. Their proposal would completely take away all General and Conditional class phone privileges on 75, 40, 20, and 15 meters in a two-year phase-in period. In other words, the ARRL's incentive licensing would only allow HF phone operation for Generals and Conditionals on 10 meters and on the small sliver of 160 meters that was available in the days of LORAN Radionavigation. The ARRL also suggested reopening the Advanced class license again to those who held a General or Conditional license for one year. Strangely, the ARRL did not suggest that Extras be given exclusive frequencies, nor did they propose exclusive CW frequencies. Rather, they just wanted exclusive access to the 75 through 15-meter phone segments for the Advanced and Extra class licenses ..." Based on all of these items, it appears to me that your account could well be someone's revisionist history. I can find nothing in the literature to support it, but can easily find material which refutes it. Thank you for all the refrences. I also 'remember' it that way. As I stated to Dee D in another post. 73 I too appreciate the detailed references. Facts are always good to have. I was unaware that the initial concept was put out by the ARRL. I was looking only at the final version that the FCC developed, which was substantially different than the ARRL's proposal and which the ARRL then opposed due to these significant differences. FYI, in conversation, I prefer Dee rather than Dee D even though I use more formal signature. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... I too appreciate the detailed references. Facts are always good to have. I was unaware that the initial concept was put out by the ARRL. I was looking only at the final version that the FCC developed, which was substantially different than the ARRL's proposal and which the ARRL then opposed due to these significant differences. FYI, in conversation, I prefer Dee rather than Dee D even though I use more formal signature. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Thats what I like about you Dee, your ability to recognize constructive comments and not fly off the handle. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dave Heil" wrote | That's the problem though, isn't it? What we need is the statute, not the | rules, which prove nothing in the absence of Novice testing. | | So if I understand your view, you'd like to see a statute as proof that | the statute does not exist. Does that sum it up? It's clear he doesn't wish to be confused with any facts which spoil his rant. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Tom W" wrote:
In fact, http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page14.html goes on to say: "On May 3, 1963, the ARRL Board of Directors adopted their official position on incentive licensing. Their proposal would completely take away all General and Conditional class phone privileges on 75, 40, 20, and 15 meters in a two-year phase-in period. In other words, the ARRL's incentive licensing would only allow HF phone operation for Generals and Conditionals on 10 meters and on the small sliver of 160 meters that was available in the days of LORAN Radionavigation. Great article! Thanks for posting that link. I learned a few things I never knew before. (I was just starting to get interested in radio in 1963.) It's amazing that ham radio has survived at all when you consider how much needless tinkering with the license structure has gone on over the years, and how much discontent it has created. Art Harris N2AH |
"Alun" wrote Not atall. I just haven't seen anything convincing. With all due respect, you're the one that advanced the notion that Barry Goldwater had authored some legislation the give Novices free examinations, but have no evidence of that other than you "read something". Strike #1. The FCC rules allow ALL exams to be free, so there'd be no need for a separate legislation to give free exams to Novice applicants. Strike #2. There is media evidence contemporary to the era which shows one VEC trying to persuade the FCC to REQUIRE all other VEC's to charge a fee for the Novice exam. Strike #3. Looks to me that YOU'RE the one who needs to show US something "convincing". Good luck on this one now. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
"Alun" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... I beleive the R2 bandplan allows phone down to 7045, same as R1. In R3 it's 7030! R2 hams operatong phone 'on 7050 and lower' are abiding by the ITU bandplan unless they go below 7045. Keep in mind that outside the US, those are just band plans. According to postings I read elsewhere, they are ignored with some regularity. It becomes even more common to ignore them during some contests. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I can't speak for hams in every country in the world, but being originally from the UK I would say that most there would be horrified at the idea of operating phone below 7040, for example. The cutoff used to be 7040 before they set aside 7035-7045 for RTTY. That is one aspect of it being voluntary, you will find people who continue to use a frequency after the bandplan is changed. In a similar way, phone is supposed to be above 14.112 on 20, but it used to be 14.100. The RTTY sections were carved out of the top of CW and the bottom of phone. Phone below 7.040 or below 14.100 is not something I hear when I tune around. It's easy for US hams to form an impression that there are lots of DX hams operating phone on CW frequencies, but there really aren't. It's just that few realise how far down phone extends in the IARU bandplans. Contests are another matter, but that cuts both ways, i.e. you will also find CW on phone frequencies during CW contests. 73 de Alun, N3KIP (Ex-G8VUK, G0VUK) As far as the phone goes, I'm reporting what I've read posted by Europeans rather than my own impressions. At least for US CW contests, I don't find the CW climbing into the phone portions. In some cases the rules specifically state that the contacts are to be limited to the "traditional" CW portion. In the remainder of the cases, we're just so conditioned to sticking below the split point that we stay there anyway in a contest. Although the contesters do ignore the digital, etc bandplan recommendations. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes: In (N2EY) writes: In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they decide to do anything at all. That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me! As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database. So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes everybody's time. More important, it diverts attention from the other issues. oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer. Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea? Rather, it is just one of the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official, but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer, is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading. I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or bad idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000? More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such a burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element 3, in order to get the next higher grade of license? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Paul W. Schleck writes: In (N2EY) writes: In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they decide to do anything at all. That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me! As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database. So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes everybody's time. More important, it diverts attention from the other issues. oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer. Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea? Here's your options: We currently have essentially a 6 license system in place (even though several licenses are no longer issued). To go from that system to the one proposed by ARRL leaves three options as I see it: 1. The one-time free upgrade process as put forth by ARRL which takes nothing away from anyone and immediately gets everyone into the new 3 license system, or 2. Go to the new system but "grandfather" those on current but no longer to be issued license classes which takes nothing from anyone but presents a dual system of licenses, rules and regulations which would likly exist for decades until those with licenses no longer being issued as new ended up SK or otherwise dropped from our ranks or, 3. Implement the ARRL 3 licnense system and downgrade some folks to new Novice (i.e. the Techs) or General (i.e the Advanced). This last scenario takes away privileges and we all know how well that went down in the late 60's Incentive Licensing implementation. To me the answer is clear...and, I suspect so is it also to ARRL which is why the proposal includes free upgrades. Rather, it is just one of the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official, but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer, is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading. I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or bad idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000? More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such a burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element 3, in order to get the next higher grade of license? See options 2 and 3 above. Cheersm Bill K2UNK |
In (N2EY) writes:
In article , Paul W. Schleck writes: In (N2EY) writes: In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they decide to do anything at all. That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me! As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database. So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes everybody's time. More important, it diverts attention from the other issues. oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer. Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea? It may be a realistic, and pragmatic, idea when considered against the pros and cons: Cons: Provides a "free upgrade" to those that haven't explicitly tested for it. Pros: Avoids having to wait until the last Advanced class license expires to refarm the Advanced phone bands. Alternatively, avoids opening up the Advanced class phone bands to General-class hams (an effective downgrade in privileges for Advanced, and crowding out DX users with more U.S. hams in those bands) or opening up the Extra class phone bands to Advanced-class hams (which would be a "free upgrade" in all but name). Also avoids having to accommodate a license class (Tech Plus) that isn't even carried in the FCC database anymore, which is a records/ enforcement problem for the FCC, and requires the licensee to keep documentation forever. Rather, it is just one of the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official, but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer, is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading. I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or bad idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000? More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such a burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element 3, in order to get the next higher grade of license? I think the ARRL may be politically shrewder than some would give them credit. They can turn to the reformers and say, "See, we're giving you a both a Novice and General HF-class license that doesn't require Morse Code." To the old-school (and long-time, dues-paying) members they can at least imply, "We recognize that the Morse Code tests you took in the past are valuable, so we are going to reward you with a higher class of license. Then you will always know that you are better than anyone who gets a General or Extra class license under the reduced standards in the future." -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Tom Winston wrote:
On 19 Jan 2004 10:08:20 -0800, N2EY wrote: Existing Advanceds get free upgrade to Extra, ... That's not an upgrade; that's a downgrade. Advanced class licensees passed the Extra class written exam, and passed a 13 wpm code test. Furthermore, most Advanced class licensees took the older Extra exam -- an exam that's a lot tougher than the current Extra exam. Possession of the Advanced class license proves that the holder met higher standards than the current crop of Extras. So thanks, but no thanks. When I want to downgrade, *I* will make that decision. But one can still tell: The PRIOR CLASS field will still say "A". Just go away, ARRL, and keep your grimy paws off my license. That part I agree with; they can't seem to leave anything alone without screwing it up. |
In article , "D. Stussy"
writes: On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Tom Winston wrote: On 19 Jan 2004 10:08:20 -0800, N2EY wrote: Existing Advanceds get free upgrade to Extra, ... That's not an upgrade; that's a downgrade. Advanced class licensees passed the Extra class written exam, and passed a 13 wpm code test. Furthermore, most Advanced class licensees took the older Extra exam -- an exam that's a lot tougher than the current Extra exam. Possession of the Advanced class license proves that the holder met higher standards than the current crop of Extras. So thanks, but no thanks. When I want to downgrade, *I* will make that decision. But one can still tell: The PRIOR CLASS field will still say "A". Doesn't say that on my entry. Even though it's true. Just go away, ARRL, and keep your grimy paws off my license. That part I agree with; they can't seem to leave anything alone without screwing it up. OK, let's just leave the structure the way it is. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"D. Stussy" wrote | | But one can still tell: The PRIOR CLASS field will still say "A". | Not in all cases. My "prior class" was Conditional. |
In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes: In (N2EY) writes: In article , Paul W. Schleck writes: In (N2EY) writes: In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has never gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea for the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they decide to do anything at all. That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me! As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue came up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech Pluses to get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their database. So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes everybody's time. More important, it diverts attention from the other issues. oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer. Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea? It may be a realistic, and pragmatic, idea when considered against the pros and cons: Cons: Provides a "free upgrade" to those that haven't explicitly tested for it. That's one. There are others: - Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not taken is not necessary for the privileges. - Amateurs who miss the one time upgrade have to take more tests than those who didn't. How do we justify that? - Decreased reason for more than half of all hams to upgrade by testing. Pros: Avoids having to wait until the last Advanced class license expires to refarm the Advanced phone bands. Why does that have to be done at all? Alternatively, avoids opening up the Advanced class phone bands to General-class hams (an effective downgrade in privileges for Advanced, and crowding out DX users with more U.S. hams in those bands) or opening up the Extra class phone bands to Advanced-class hams (which would be a "free upgrade" in all but name). Again, why not just leave those subbands as they are now? Also avoids having to accommodate a license class (Tech Plus) that isn't even carried in the FCC database anymore, which is a records/ enforcement problem for the FCC, and requires the licensee to keep documentation forever. If the current rules are left alone, all Tech Pluses will be Techs in six years, two months and 20 days or so. Why not just give all the existing Techs, Tech Pluses and Novices the "NewNovice" privs, in addition to their existing privileges? The database doesn't need to change at all. Rather, it is just one of the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official, but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer, is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading. I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or bad idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000? More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such a burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element 3, in order to get the next higher grade of license? I think the ARRL may be politically shrewder than some would give them credit. You mean the BoD. I'm the ARRL too, remember? How much of the ARRL proposal in 1998 got enacted? They can turn to the reformers and say, "See, we're giving you a both a Novice and General HF-class license that doesn't require Morse Code." To the old-school (and long-time, dues-paying) members they can at least imply, "We recognize that the Morse Code tests you took in the past are valuable, so we are going to reward you with a higher class of license. Then you will always know that you are better than anyone who gets a General or Extra class license under the reduced standards in the future." Avoids the subject of why free upgrades are needed. I say they're not. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote | | - Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not | taken is not necessary for the privileges. | Here we go again! Damn it Jim, that is patently false and you know that it is, yet you keep dragging it out as a fact. Allowing a free upgrade isn't "proof" of anything except that a free-pass was given, sort of like a day of amnesty when all overdue library books can be returned without fees. Yes, it's a really bad idea, but it doesn't disprove the need for proper qualification examinations. Go join Carl Stevenson and Ed Hare in the NTI sign-up queue. (I'd mention them by call sign, but I wouldn't want to risk compromising your "standards".) 3333333, Hans, K0-Heavenly-Body |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com