RadioBanter - New ARRL Proposal

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - New ARRL Proposal (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27225-new-arrl-proposal.html)

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

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

I'm not ... I'm supporting the establishment of a reasonable, viable
entry level class with appropriate testing and restrictions.

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.

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?

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.

[snip]

After careful consideration of Ed Hare's (personal, not ARRL)
comments on the subject on eHam.net

I'll ask again for a link to those comments.

Go to eham.net (or use Google) ... I don't have the URL direct
to Ed's comments handy ...

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 ...)

Here's another thought: Rules changes like that don't happen overnight -
there's always a time delay between when a rules change is announced and
the
new rules take effect. So if FCC simply accepted ARRL's proposal tomorrow,
they'd probably make it effective a few months hence.

They could make a rules change effective 30 days from publication in the
Federal Register ...

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

I'd really like to see a link to Ed's arguments...

Go find them - you know how to google.

36-1/2 :-)
Carl - wk3c

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"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.

That's awfully big of you, Carl.

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

Ah, but it IS his sandbox. It is also MY sandbox and, through a
lowering of the qualifications for obtaining an Extra class license, it
happens to be your sandbox.

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?

Why should anyone obtain an upgrade without testing?

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.

How so and to whom?

The FCC wants to simplify -

Really?

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

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.

So a "gimme" for tens of thousands is what makes sense to you, huh?
You've often written of morse tests as hoops and hazing, preventing
"otherwise qualified" people from entering amateur radio.

The Morse code was keeping tens of thousands of otherwise *unqualified*
people out too!

That was Carl's litany some years back and why I trotted it out for use
in this instance.

You vowed that
you'd never support a watering down of written tests. Now you are
supporting a freebie for these thousands of "otherwise qualified"
individuals. "Otherwise qualified" must mean those people who can't
pass a required examination.

I'm "otherwise qualified" to be a neurosurgeon!

....and this one was pointed out to Carl and others here by me some years
back.

The idea of a "gimme" for tens of thousands makes no more sense than
Carl's reversal on his vowed support for tougher written exams.

Dave K8MN

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:58:14 -0000, "Carl R. Stevenson"
wrote:

snip

.... twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know
damned well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ...

Hmmm - I think I've had that done to a few of my posts a time or two
as well!

The best defense is still a good offense, I guess...... :)

snip
36-1/2 :-)
Carl - wk3c

73, Leo

In article , "Helmut"
writes:

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. Give yourself the cream upon the cake and think positive about the
new situation. Showing anger and agressiv language against those beeing a
"victim" of the restructuring process doesn't bring any good to the ham
family. 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. It is NOT
negotiable.

Helmut, what you say is true but the verbose regulars in this newsgroup
are adamant "America-firsters," that is, what the Americans do is "best"
and therefore that is good for the rest of the world.

The IARU came out with the opinion years ago that morse code testing
should be eliminated from an ITU requirement. The ARRL, a supposed
leader of American amateur radio (with membership less than 25% of
all American amateur licensees) was against it. They aren't really for
eliminating any of it and remain in a middle position, neither for nor
against it. ARRL tries to please too many, therefore there is no real
consensus possible. It reduces to a simple phrasing for American
radio amateurs: All must do as was done in the old days by the old-
timers...because the old-timers imagine they are "the best."

It is a sad situation for the entire world in my estimation, a stubborn
opinion that belongs better in times of two centuries ago. As an
American who loves his country and has done so longer than most
other Americans in here, I am ashamed of their "radio-backwoodsman"
attitudes. Such reflects poorly on us, yet so many remain stubbornly
resolute in an America-first belief, a parochial attitude centering
around themselves with little regard to this nation or the world.

Fortunately for the rest of the radio world (much larger than amateurism)
the USA's negotiations on that rest of the radio world activity is better
and more liberal, willing to listen to other points of view. In here there
is NO other view allowed if it displeases the old-time regulars.

LHA / WMD

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?

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

Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's
still a reduction. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small
matter.

I'm supporting the establishment of a reasonable, viable
entry level class with appropriate testing and restrictions.

That's a completely different issue. And I support the "NewNovice" concept as
well. In fact I proposed it here more than two years ago.

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?

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?

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?

[snip]

After careful consideration of Ed Hare's (personal, not ARRL)
comments on the subject on eHam.net

I'll ask again for a link to those comments.

Go to eham.net (or use Google) ..

I did. No luck.

I don't have the URL direct to Ed's comments handy ...

So there's a wonderful set of arguments out there, but you can't/won't
point us to them.....That's not how you sell something, Carl.

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?

Here's another thought: Rules changes like that don't happen overnight -
there's always a time delay between when a rules change is announced and
the
new rules take effect. So if FCC simply accepted ARRL's proposal tomorrow,
they'd probably make it effective a few months hence.

They could make a rules change effective 30 days from publication in the
Federal Register ...

Sure - but they don't. Look at the 2000 restructuring - announced in late
December 1999, made effective April 15, 2000. More than 3-1/2 months
- over 100 days - of prep time.

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

your arguments are just plain lame

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

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.

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

I'd really like to see a link to Ed's arguments...

Go find them - you know how to google.

I'll look again but it's quite telling that you are being very unhelpful when
asked for assistance

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len and the group,

reading here since a few weeks, i do agree with the sight of view from your
standpoint.

"Len Over 21" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
In article , "Helmut"

writes:

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. Give yourself the cream upon the cake and think positive about
the
new situation. Showing anger and agressiv language against those beeing a
"victim" of the restructuring process doesn't bring any good to the ham
family. 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. It is NOT
negotiable.

Helmut, what you say is true but the verbose regulars in this newsgroup
are adamant "America-firsters," that is, what the Americans do is
"best"
and therefore that is good for the rest of the world.

There is nothing wrong to be patriotic. But beeing patriotic does not mean,
whats good for my countrie must be good for any other one. Amateur Radio is
a global "institution". The rules for AR are set by an international entity.

The IARU came out with the opinion years ago that morse code testing
should be eliminated from an ITU requirement. The ARRL, a supposed
leader of American amateur radio (with membership less than 25% of
all American amateur licensees) was against it. They aren't really for
eliminating any of it and remain in a middle position, neither for nor
against it. ARRL tries to please too many, therefore there is no real
consensus possible. It reduces to a simple phrasing for American
radio amateurs: All must do as was done in the old days by the old-
timers...because the old-timers imagine they are "the best."

Are this oldtime-hams still use spark gap TX? Thats what they should do when
argueing this way. The Americans never would have reached the moon, thinking
this "old days" way.

It is a sad situation for the entire world in my estimation, a stubborn
opinion that belongs better in times of two centuries ago. As an
American who loves his country and has done so longer than most
other Americans in here, I am ashamed of their "radio-backwoodsman"
attitudes. Such reflects poorly on us, yet so many remain stubbornly
resolute in an America-first belief, a parochial attitude centering
around themselves with little regard to this nation or the world.

Fortunately for the rest of the radio world (much larger than
amateurism)
the USA's negotiations on that rest of the radio world activity is
better
and more liberal, willing to listen to other points of view. In here
there
is NO other view allowed if it displeases the old-time regulars.

What makes me frightened is, theat there is no will to change ones way of
thinking into a global range. The kind of "this is my fence, I dont care
whats outside" mentality is not a hams mentality. It reminds me of the
mentality of the ancient "southstates and yankee" disputes in the OLD US. It
must be the genes, keeping fellow hams from going the right, the ham way.

73 de OE8SOQ
Helmut

LHA / WMD

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"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
damned well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ...

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

I'm not ... I'm supporting the establishment of a reasonable, viable
entry level class with appropriate testing and restrictions.

Speaking of spin!

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.

More spin.

Mistake number one is that this doesn't "make things right".

Mistake number two is assuming that this will be a one shot deal.

What is the rationale for the return to more stringent requirements
after the mass upgrade? That will be looked at as a clear disincentive
to adding new hams after the "upgrade" process.

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?

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 are you going to counter the argument that the requirements are
suddenly increased after "making things right"?

If a person that that takes the Technician test today is qualified to
be on HF, then they are equally as qualified the day after things are
"made right".

The only way that this can even remotely be "fair" would be to make the
post restructuring test requirements for the entry level license much
easier.

But you'll never support that will you?

After careful consideration of Ed Hare's (personal, not ARRL)
comments on the subject on eHam.net

I'll ask again for a link to those comments.

Go to eham.net (or use Google) ... I don't have the URL direct
to Ed's comments handy ...

I've used both, and haven't found the comments.

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 ...)

Here's another thought: Rules changes like that don't happen overnight -
there's always a time delay between when a rules change is announced and

the

new rules take effect. So if FCC simply accepted ARRL's proposal tomorrow,
they'd probably make it effective a few months hence.

They could make a rules change effective 30 days from publication in the
Federal Register ...

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

Sorry, Carl! The arguments aren't lame.

I'd really like to see a link to Ed's arguments...

Go find them - you know how to google.

Give us a break here Carl! Both of us have tried, and they seem to be
hidden in there. Perhaps they were removed?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"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
damned well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ...

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

I'm not ... I'm supporting the establishment of a reasonable, viable
entry level class with appropriate testing and restrictions.

Speaking of spin!

By whom? ;-)

As I see it, the ARRL proposal has five distinct parts:

1) A revised entry level license (I call it the "NewNovice" to
differentiate it from existing license classes). This new class would
have different requirements *and* different privileges than the
current entry-level license (Technician). It would essentially be a
reworking of the old Novice license and would require a new question
pool.

2) Putting most of the Tech test stuff into a new revised General test
(because there won't be any more Tech test).

3) Removal of the code test requirement from all but the Extra.

4) Upgrading all existing Techs and Tech Pluses to General

5) Upgrading all existing Advanceds to Extra.

I think 1) and 2) are a very good ideas

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.

More spin.

Mistake number one is that this doesn't "make things right".

Mistake number two is assuming that this will be a one shot deal.

It will be, because after it's done there won't be any more Techs or
Tech Pluses. Or Advanceds. They'll all be Generals or Extras. No new
ones to be
issued.

What is the rationale for the return to more stringent requirements
after the mass upgrade?

Bingo!

Ham A got his General by passing the Tech and riding the free upgrade
bus.

Ham B has to pass the "NewNovice" (which is easier than the Tech) but
also
the revised General (which is harder than the existing General).

Explain to Ham B why she has to meet higher requirements than Ham A
for the same privileges. (I wanna be there when that is explained!)

That will be looked at as a clear disincentive
to adding new hams after the "upgrade" process.

Exactly.

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?

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 are you going to counter the argument that the requirements are
suddenly increased after "making things right"?

bwaahaahaa

If a person that that takes the Technician test today is qualified to
be on HF, then they are equally as qualified the day after things are
"made right".

No more Tech tests will be offered after the Great Giveaway.

The only way that this can even remotely be "fair" would be to make the
post restructuring test requirements for the entry level license much
easier.

That's part of the plan.

But you'll never support that will you?

The privileges of the entry level license will be changed to match the
reduced written exam requirements.

After careful consideration of Ed Hare's (personal, not ARRL)
comments on the subject on eHam.net

I'll ask again for a link to those comments.

Go to eham.net (or use Google) ... I don't have the URL direct
to Ed's comments handy ...

I've used both, and haven't found the comments.

Nor I. So I emailed W1RFI and got a nice reply. I don't agree with his
logic but it was good to hear from him. No, I won't repost private
email here.

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 ...)

More spin...

Here's another thought: Rules changes like that don't happen overnight -
there's always a time delay between when a rules change is announced and

the

new rules take effect. So if FCC simply accepted ARRL's proposal tomorrow,
they'd probably make it effective a few months hence.

They could make a rules change effective 30 days from publication in the
Federal Register ...

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

Sorry, Carl! The arguments aren't lame.

Exactly.

I'd really like to see a link to Ed's arguments...

Go find them - you know how to google.

Give us a break here Carl! Both of us have tried, and they seem to be
hidden in there. Perhaps they were removed?

I doubt they were removed, but perhaps I will paraphrase them in a
future post.

But as of now, Carl has not made a convincing case for free upgrades.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 10 Feb 2004 20:13:36 GMT, Alun wrote:

snip

But as of now, Carl has not made a convincing case for free upgrades.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I have said as much before, but a real overhaul of licencing will probably
require all new grades of licence with all new names and all new test
elements. Having read the mail on this proposal, I am convinced that this
is the only way to remove the perception of free upgrades. It is only a
perception really, as after you change things the same name no longer
really means the same thing anyway.

Precisely. The Extra being issued today bears little resemblance to
the licence of the same name that was issued years ago. Hence the
hostile attutude toward the so-called "Extra-lites".

Renaming and redefining the levels would fix that - although I suspect
that none of the old Extras would ever accept the new category, and
continue to use the old classification as long as they could work a
key - which would by inference make the Superior into the equivalent
of the old Advanced category.......

As an aside - I've been reading through a 1975 copy of the "ARRL
Operating Manual" that I picked up at a hamfest this weekend. Wow -
it was a different world back then in Amateur Radio! Clearly, from
the amount of text dedicated to Morse, message relay, traffic handling
and other such topics, code was king back then! Worth a read, if you
can find one.

Just for a laugh, let's call the new licences Entry, Average and Superior,
just for the sake of this discussion. The Entry licence could have a low
power restriction and limit HF operation to a few specific subbands. The
Average licence would give everything else, except, say, a short callsign,
which would be reserved for the Superior hams, whilst those of us who know
we really are superior could keep the calls we have, ROTFL!

Of course, there would have to be rules to determine what class of licence
we all end up with. Advanced or Extra would get a Superior licence,
Generals would get an Average licence, and Novices would get an Entry
licence. There would be, say 18 months notice of this coming into effect,
and 12 months experience as a Tech would be required to get an Average
licence, Techs licenced for less than 12 months getting an Entry licence
(which would give them something like Tech+ privileges anyway, but would
probably be a reduction in power). Element 1 would, of course, be abolished
next Tuesday!

That's an interesting idea. I'll bet that you're gonna be told why
it's a bad one soon enough, though - many times, too, I'd reckon.....
:)

Have fun replying!

73 de Alun, N3KIP

73, Leo

Alun wrote:

a litany snipped so I can concentrate on your post!

I have said as much before, but a real overhaul of licencing will probably
require all new grades of licence with all new names and all new test
elements. Having read the mail on this proposal, I am convinced that this
is the only way to remove the perception of free upgrades. It is only a
perception really, as after you change things the same name no longer
really means the same thing anyway.

A wise man once told me that without proof to the contrary, perception
becomes truth.

Just for a laugh, let's call the new licences Entry, Average and Superior,
just for the sake of this discussion. The Entry licence could have a low
power restriction and limit HF operation to a few specific subbands. The
Average licence would give everything else, except, say, a short callsign,
which would be reserved for the Superior hams, whilst those of us who know
we really are superior could keep the calls we have, ROTFL!

Of course, there would have to be rules to determine what class of licence
we all end up with. Advanced or Extra would get a Superior licence,
Generals would get an Average licence, and Novices would get an Entry
licence. There would be, say 18 months notice of this coming into effect,
and 12 months experience as a Tech would be required to get an Average
licence, Techs licenced for less than 12 months getting an Entry licence
(which would give them something like Tech+ privileges anyway, but would
probably be a reduction in power). Element 1 would, of course, be abolished
next Tuesday!

Have fun replying!

My proposal would be to keep Technician, General, and Extra.

Technician would be the entry level license, and would have the same
access as today. This would be the license that allows people to get
their feet wet in Ham radio. VHF and up access allows those that only
want repeater access their hobby, and the 6 meter access gives a taste
of the wide world below.

Tech plus has same privileges as now. Grandfathered in

Testing would be at the same level. Lots of RF safety. No one should
have ANY form of Ham license without being well versed in RF Safety.

General has all the access and privileges as they do now.

Testing would be at the same level, but the tests would have more
questions geared towards HF operation. I would add more questions
overall (how many here equate more questions with "harder"?)

Advanced has same privileges as now. Grandfathered in.

Extra has all the access and privileges as they do now.

Test would be similar to what is done now, but will cover more of the
Electronic area of the hobby.

No code test for any of the licenses.

Novice segments will become part of a band plan for those who want to
learn Morse code.

Finally, I would like to address those who wish to "fix" the system.

No proposal fixes the system!!!

Fixing the system would not involve three license classes. Fixing the
system would have only one license class, especially since with the end
of Morse code testing, there is no reason why the applicant could not
study for and take one element that consists of the agreed upon test
material.

But that will never go over, so IMO, the only alternative is to make an
incremental change in the system that we already have that does not
remove privileges, and does not give free upgrades that create more
problems tan they solve.

There ya go! The only real changes are to the testing regimen. No one
loses, no one gains.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun wrote:

Ah well, Leo, they still think that the United states is the centre of the
universe (or even the center of the universe, HI!). We used to think the
same thing about the British Empire, and we were wrong too!

Trolling, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:15:37 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Doggone it Dee! Your factual post is going to ruin another anti-US rant!

No rant intended, Mike. Just looking for facts!

You wouldn't happen to have any on you, would you? :)

8^)

FWIW, I'm really disapointed in thoes two. 8^(

- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Without the ARRL, US amateur radio would have remained permanently closed
after World War I. The other countries did not have enough amateurs to
justify keeping the frequencies and it is highly probably that they would
have all gone to commercial interests. Everyone wanted the shortwave
frequencies at that time and without the US, the foreign amateurs would not
have had enough leverage to have held on to the spectrum.

Doggone it Dee! Your factual post is going to ruin another anti-US rant!

One ritta mistake: It isn't factual.

LHA / WMD

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

As I indicated in another post, early on in amateur radio, it would have
been easy for the ITU to have allocated all the frequencies to commericial
and government interests. The size of the US amateur community was, in
those early days, very probably a key element in keeping an allocation for
amateurs.

There was NO "ITU" before WW2. There was the CCITT.

The size of the US amateur community was, in those early days,
miniscule compared to the broadcasters getting started. Ham radio's
oinks weren't near "numerous" until AFTER WW2.

But, to hear the spin from the league, they and Stl Hiram practically
invented ham radio and saved it from perdition.

Selective editing of the REAL history of all radio doesn't make it
"truth." Except to the devout Believers...

LHA / WMD

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Without the ARRL, US amateur radio would have remained permanently closed
after World War I. The other countries did not have enough amateurs to
justify keeping the frequencies and it is highly probably that they would
have all gone to commercial interests. Everyone wanted the shortwave
frequencies at that time and without the US, the foreign amateurs would not
have had enough leverage to have held on to the spectrum.

You were THERE then? :-)

Nooooo Mama Dee, U.S. radio amateurs got tossed off of MF because
they were interfering with broadcasters. That's the REAL radio history.

You need to get an Internet visa and visit some of the Yurp ham
websites to learn their side of things. Those places don't have the
league SPIN operating to selectively edit out things the league
doesn't want you to hear.

Commercial radio did NOT "want all the shortwave frequencies" in
1919, but rather the opposite. Once the commercial radio services
found out about HF "skip" propagaation, they studied it, grabbed it up
some years later through the CCITT, and ran with it for carrier service
in communications. They did right well with it until about 1960, too.

LHA / WMD

In article , Leo
writes:

Ah well, Leo, they still think that the United states is the centre of the
universe (or even the center of the universe, HI!). We used to think the
same thing about the British Empire, and we were wrong too!

Good point - in the grand scheme of things, it's the ITU who is likely
to blame for the continuation of amateur radio on a global scale - the
ARRL is but one fish in the big sea (well, a whale maybe, but it's a
big sea!)

Whales are all wet.

"Save the whales, collect the entire set!" :-)

BTW - it looks like you might be back in the British Empire sooner
than you think - I saw somebody trying to show you the door a while
ago in another post hi!) No problem, as your usher noted, there's
some great SSB DX on 7.050 thru 7.100 - might be worth it!

The last time there was any significant increase in HF ham bands
was 1979, 25 years ago.

As far back as 8 years ago, the NTIA's survey of future spectrum
requirements for amateur service indicated that over 1 MHz of
ham band space would be needed...as indicated by a footnote
saying that an ARRL person said that. ARRL has lobbied only for
the "60 meter" band in HF and got all of five CHANNELS. U.S.
league membership dollars at work... :-)

Yurp has a LF band. USA doesn't. Over here there's only the
160 to 190 KHz FREE band (no license required) on LF, sure as
heck no real power required either).

I love all the "effort" expended by the ARRL to get more HF band-
space within borders.

LHA / WMD

Leo wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:15:37 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Doggone it Dee! Your factual post is going to ruin another anti-US rant!

No rant intended, Mike. Just looking for facts!

You wouldn't happen to have any on you, would you? :)

Facts? I have the history I've read.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:44:04 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:15:37 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Doggone it Dee! Your factual post is going to ruin another anti-US rant!

No rant intended, Mike. Just looking for facts!

You wouldn't happen to have any on you, would you? :)

Facts? I have the history I've read.

I'll have to take that as a 'no' then....

- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

In (N2EY) writes:

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY) writes:

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY)
writes:

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:

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

*can be taken as*

proof that the material in the test which is not
taken is not necessary for the privileges.

To quote from the ARRL's FAQ on their proposal:

http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/faq.html

"The fact is that the examination bar has never been at a uniform height
over ham radio's nearly 100-year history."

And I say: "So what? The question is whether there is any good reason to
give almost 60% of existing hams a free upgrade to the next license class,
even though the upgrade to that class requires only a written test from a
published pool.

Were you also opposed to giving pre-1917 hams a waiver for the 20 WPM
code test?

No such waiver ever existed. What *was* waived were the 20 wpm receiving and
sending code tests, plus the Extra written test. The person who got the
waiver had to hold at least a General license, too.

Now you're being pedantic.

I'm being *accurate*.

I was describing a subset of the waiver
given, enough for the purpose of the argument.
You described the entire
waiver. Both are correct, and neither contradicts my arguments.

I find it interesting that you mentioned only the code test part of the waiver,
not
the written test part. Some folks might think the waiver only applied to the
code
tests.

That was long before my time, too. And it affected maybe 2% of the licensed
hams at the time.

So you might accept grandfathering, if it occurred at some asymptotic
point in the past, and only affected a small minority of hams?

Depends on the situation. The old Extra waiver only began after there was no
difference
among the operating privileges of a General, Conditional, Advanced or Extra
(1952 or later). IOW it was
just a title sort of thing - didn't make any difference in practical
application. And anyone who qualified
for it was an OT from the very early days (35 years at least). By the time the
waiver meant anything
in terms of operating privileges, that gap was over 51 years.

According to W2XOY, the upgrade to Extra given to pre-1917 Hams with a
General or Advanced-class license started in 1951:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ham-Ra...y/message/5330

along with the renaming of Class A to Advanced, Class B to General, C to
Conditional, and the introduction of the Novice and Technician.

So there was some short period of time (until the "Giveaway of 1953"),
where this "free upgrade" gave additional phone privileges on 75 and 20
meters for some of those pre-1917 hams. Specifically, those that held a
General class (formerly "Class B") license. That would be *accurate*.

More information on this, just received today, is given below.

That's a completely different scenario than offering a free *upgrade* to almost
60% of existing hams,
plus any that might get ham tickets before the rules change.

What
percentage would be a threshold? You say that it is wrong to
grandfather 60% of all hams, but you might be willing to accept
grandfathering of 2% of all hams.

And I might not. Depends on the situation.

And the more I think about it, the more I think the old Extra waiver was a bad
idea, and that there may be
no scenario that would be worthwhile.

What about a proposal that
grandfathers some percentage of hams in-between?

I say no to free upgrades, then.

So nearly all of the previous discussion above is moot because there is
no "free upgrade" scenario that you will support regardless of the
percentage of hams affected, or their status/seniority.

What would be your
greater objection, grandfathering all of the Techs, or grandfathering
all of the Advanced?

What's the difference? They're both bad ideas.

Prior to your latest reply, I might argue that since the latter would
affect a lower percentage of existing hams, who have held their class of
license since at least April 15th 2000, you might find it more
palatable. However, since you have decided that no such free upgrades
are a good idea, the distinction is now a moot point for the purpose of
this discussion.

Remember that at some time in the future, we may be looking on this
grandfathering as occurring at some asymptotic point in the past, as
with the pre-1917 waiver above.

You mean like when the Advanced has been unavailable for 35+ years and their
numbers are down to about 1% of the ARS total?

Well, yes, that's what I was driving at. You want to wait until then.
I want to deal with the matter sooner. At least I got you to explicitly
bound your answers tighter than "never" or 0%. And what would you do
then?

You ask below what is the long-term
plan. I say one aspect of the plan is to be able to look back on this
grandfathering in the same way that we look upon the pre-1917 waiver.

We don't look back on it the same way.

And why was it done?

The Restructuring FAQ at arrl.org omits the mention of waiver of the
written test, so it too is incomplete. I dropped a line to N1KB, who is
listed as the author of the document, with a request for correction and
clarification. He replied to me with pointers to some sources,
including Ham-Radio-History group noted above, which dates the origin of
the waiver, and "free upgrade," to 1951. W1UED just replied today with
an answer as to why. George E. Sterling, W1AE, was the first (and
likely only) radio amateur to come up through the ranks at the FCC and
be appointed Commissioner. The Amateur Extra license first appeared in
the 1920's and lasted through the 1930's, when it was discontinued as a
budget-cutting measure. During the 1951 restructuring, which restored
the Amateur Extra license, W1AE was an FCC Commissioner:

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/commish-list.html

As a pre-WWI licensee himself, he thought it would be an appropriate
honor to that group of hams if they were given the restored Amateur
Extra license, and had the political clout to make it happen. So, the
1951 restructuring gave anyone who was licensed prior to April 1917 and
who presently held a General or Advanced-class license, a "free upgrade"
to Extra.

The following QST article describes the 1951 Restructuring and FCC
Dockets 10073 and 10077:

http://www.arrl.org/members-only/qqn... 1&selpub=QST

(ARRL Members-Only Link)

A photocopy of the full article is available for $3 ($5 for non-members)
postpaid from the ARRL.

That still supports my original assertion that free upgrades given to
existing licensees, based on seniority or status, can be
non-controversial, especially when viewed from the long-term future.

- Amateurs who miss the one time upgrade have to take more tests than
those who didn't. How do we justify that?

It's called "grandfathering," which is done in more regulatory contexts
than can possibly be named here. Due to the need for certainty in the
law, it is nearly always based on hard cutoff dates. Technologies,
practices, and people change over the very long timeline that laws and
regulations are required to cover. It is not possible to predict the
future with certainty, so laws and regulations must change to reflect
current knowledge. It is also impractical for society to retest,
recertify, or revalidate every existing entity against current
requirements.

None of which is proposed.

But when considering alternatives, one really has to identify all
implicit alternatives, and argue for or against them (avoiding the
logical pitfall of false dichotomies, trichotomies, etc.). The status
quo, which you have advocated, and might be labeled alternative #4 based
on your exchange with Bill Sohl, is one such implicit alternative.

To put it simply: Just leave the closed-off classes alone, and let them
go away by attrition.

This is exactly what was done with the Advanced from the beginning of 1953
until 1967 - more than 14 years. What problems did it cause?

The Advanced-class was eventually opened back up to new licensees, so we
do not know what the longer-term effects would have been. I see no
realistic likelihood that Advanced will be (or even should be) reopened
in any foreseeable future. The outcome that you propose, which is to
carry them on the books for at least 35 more years or until they
constitute less than 1% of all hams, may introduce further problems than
the previous, and much shorter, 14-year period.

I
would argue against that, for the reasons I have given previously
(streamlining of license classes, streamlining of band plans, reduction
of regulatory burden, reduction in confusion for amateurs and the FCC,
harmonization with the deletion of S25.5 and with other countries'
regulations, etc.).

All it takes to keep those classes is a few sentences in Part 97.

"A few sentences" in laws or regulations can have non-trivial
implications about the regulatory infrastructure that is necessary to
give them force. An Advanced-class license is one more alternative to
program into the licensing computer, one more piece of regulation to be
understood and enforced by regulators, and overall, one more class of
amateurs to track and incorporate into any regulatory policies and
agendas. The implementation of all of that is significantly more than a
few sentences.

If license classes are consolidated to a smaller number, one alternative
is simply to grandfather existing hams, which the ARRL has advocated.

A more accurate term is "free upgrade", because that's what it is.

"Grandfather" implies letting a person keep what they already have without
recertification. That's not what is proposed by the ARRL BoD for Techs and
Advanceds.

One other implicit alternative (say, #5), is to make every Novice,
Advanced (and possibly non-Plus, or would that be non-Plussed, Tech)
come back in to take written tests to upgrade to the next level, or
otherwise lose privileges.

That's the worst alternative.

Which is why I specifically identify it and dismiss it early.

I would argue against that also, for the
reasons I have also given previously (it is impractical to retest
everyone,

It could easily be done over time by saying that you either retest before Date
X
or you'll be reclassified at a lower license class.

There is a legitimate distinction between "easy" and "straightforward."
Anyone with engineering experience surely knows that something could be
conceptually simple, but still complex and time-consuming in its actual
implementation. Mass re-testing might be straightforward, but would not
be easy within FCC and VEC budget/manpower constraints.

Mass re-testing would be a regulatory burden for the FCC, a personal
burden on VEC's who would have play de-facto judge and jury for large
numbers of existing peers, friends, fellow club members, etc.,
concerning whether or not they could retain former privileges (what
volunteer would want to endure that for very long?), and would go
against where the FCC is heading, which is towards less regulation and
fewer grand schemes. I might also argue that mass-retesting is sounding
very much like a repeat of the scenario played out in the 1960's with
Incentive Licensing.

There's a lot of debate in this newsgroup about the Incentive Licensing
scheme of the 1960's, who initiated it, what was intended, who supported
it, why it failed, who was to blame, etc., but one thing that most can
agree on is that it's very easy to start out with good intentions, and
what comes out the exit door of regulatory agencies might be
unrecognizable as something that would give the desired result. Hence
the expression, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Mass
re-testing could also be viewed as well-intentioned, but ultimately a
road to hell.

So, it's a good thing that neither of us are arguing in favor of testing
to avoid losing privileges, right?

and such existing hams are a large, stable user base such as
that in the definition of grandfathering below).

"Large, stable user base"? We don't really know about that. How many
of those folks are active? Why have so few Advanceds upgraded to
Extra?

You are teetering very close to making a non-falsifiable argument here.
You argue here, and in other threads, that Advanced should be left alone
because:

- There are still quite a few of them, who are happy with their present
privileges, who would get a free upgrade unfairly, and crowd the Extra
phone bands.

*AND*

- There may not be very many of them, active at least, so any upgrade
would not give much benefit, anyway.

You also argue that Novice should be left alone because there aren't
very many of them, but then advocate restructuring that you believe
would bring back its "heyday" with many more licensees in that class,
which of course, should then be left alone.

Which is it? Too many, or too few, to justify elimination? If neither
is a sufficient criteria to argue for or against elimination of a
license class, then that's a non-falsifiable argument.

The web site for Malvern Instrumentation gives a good definition of
grandfathering in a technical context:

"Grandfathering is the practice of claiming exemption of older systems
from validation regulations and requirements on the basis that these
systems have proved their reliability by adoption for a long period of
time by a large user base."

IOW, we allow them to continue doing what they're doing because they've shown
a lack of problems in the past. But we require more of new systems.
It *doesn't* say we allow free upgrades.

When you say "we require more of new systems" above, are you referring
to people or license classes? There is a subtle distinction. A group
of people may not want to change, but license classes may need to. A
set of license classes is a ladder, to be climbed as far as the licensee
wishes to develop his skills. It is also a taxonomy, with a specific
regulatory purpose. That purpose is to ensure that limited frequency
spectrum is being put to the best and highest use via the distribution
of privileges over that spectrum. Implicit in this is structuring the
license class system to ensure that all amateur radio spectrum (HF, VHF,
UHF, Microwave) is not only used, but used well, in ways that fulfill
the Basis and Purpose (FCC Part 97.1).

Since technologies, modes, and frequency usage patterns change over
time, the taxonomy should change as well, hence the need for periodic
restructuring over amateur radio's 100-year lifetime (Though I would
argue that not doing the "Giveway of 1953," and staying with the 1951
restructuring until the no-code issue came to a head in the 1980's,
would have avoided the backlash that resulted in Incentive Licensing of
1968). But what do you do when license classes change and people do
not? It is preferable to not have existing licensees lose privileges.
There is no compelling regulatory purpose to having both an Advanced and
Extra class license at present (if there ever was). So, given all of
that, combining both licenses into one class of license is a way of
making existing people fit new license classes without having them lose
privileges. Doing this constitutes a form of grandfathering.

Grandfathering in the context of ham radio recognizes that existing hams
have not only passed the tests in effect at the time, sometimes topics
not covered presently (Morse code, drawing circuit diagrams, etc.), but
have also gained experience beyond their initial exam topics. It is a
fair, and pragmatic, distinction between existing hams and entry-level
ones. Quoting again from the FAQ document:

"Passing any amateur examination does not magically result in a good
operator. It's just the key to the kingdom, so to speak. Experience and
good mentoring create skillful and knowledgeable operators, not the
relative difficulty or ease of the test."

I disagree with that assessment. YMMV.

You might argue that not every existing ham has obtained the same degree
of experience, or even a minimum necessary level of experience to be
given a free upgrade. That would be true, but ultimately would be
self-limiting, as experience would correlate with participation. An
inactive ham using no privileges today would be using no more privileges
if the FCC gave him a free upgrade tomorrow. Free upgrades are not a
perfect solution, ideal in all cases, but are a good solution overall.

I disagree. What's wrong with simply allowing Techs, Tech Pluses and
Advanceds to upgrade in their own time?

What is the sudden need to eliminate those license classes? The Novice and
Advanced have been closed off to new issues for almost 4 years, and their
numbers have declined. And from 1953 to 1967, no new Advanceds were issued.
Did any of that cause problems?

What's the rush?

Are the written tests too hard?

Well? The current Extra was recently earned by a bright seven year old - can
we really say that it's unreasonable to expect others to do what she did for
the
same privileges?

As others have pointed out in other threads, the 7-year old Extra is a
statistical outlier, one of a handful in amateur radio history, and not
a typical example. The more typical, and meaningful, example of an
entry-level ham would be one who was high school or college-age. The
greater numbers of these typical entry-level hams would mean that they
would have a more profound impact on the shaping of the future of
amateur radio, anyway.

- Decreased reason for more than half of all hams to upgrade by testing.

No proposal is perfect. Weigh this one against the pros.

I have. The cons win.

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?

So, are you advocating not refarming the Advanced phone bands even
*after* the last Advanced class license expires? Yeah, that's a
semantic nit-pick over what you wrote above, but then so is "You mean
the BoD. I'm the ARRL too, remember?" that you wrote below.

You're avoiding the question.

Why do the Advanced class subbands have to be "refarmed" at all? Who or what
would they be "refarmed" to? What's the longterm plan?

If you do agree that the Advanced phone bands should be refarmed at some
point in the future, at what point would you have it done? Would you
leave it to Extras, give it to Generals, or would you otherwise split it
up in some way?

Why does it need to be done at all? Is the Extra written that hard?

Why do you avoid these simple questions?

Because sometimes simple questions are loaded with built-in assumptions
(e.g., "Why won't you join me in voting to ban COP-KILLER bullets?" or
even the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"). Furthermore,
you see simplicity where I see complication, and vice-versa.

So you would argue that any refarming would be done at some asymptotic
point in the far future, indistinguishable at present between "decades"
and "never."

I'm *asking* what the problem is with leaving some things alone.

The question has been asked and answered, though I have given you an
answer you disagree with. Asking the question repeatedly will not
result in a different answer from me. Put away the rhetorical bludgeon.

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?

In this day and age, regulatory agencies seem more eager to simplify
regulations. Removing regulations that are obsolete, or cover too small
an intended audience to be justified on a cost basis, is likely a top
priority for such agencies. Again, what is your timeline for change?
Decades in the future, or never?

I don't see any reason to "refarm" them at all. Not at this time, anyway.

Note that in 4 years, the number of Advanceds has dropped by only about 16%.

Seems to be a pretty popular license even today.

Note also that several Advanceds have said they *don't* want an upgrade, free
or not.
I don't understand why, but that's what they've said.

It sounds to me like you want all Advanceds to become Extras so that the
Advanced subbands can become General bandspace. That's not part of the ARRL
proposal, though.

No, I never said that.

No, you didn't. That's why I wrote "sounds to me".

My first draft of my reply said, "No I never said nor implied that." I
edited it to achieve economy of words, because even if I somehow implied
that I supported the entire ARRL proposal, adoption of that proposal
would not giving the entire Advanced phone subbands to the Generals.

I would combine Advanced and Extra phone bands
into just Extra phone bands, and leave the General bands as they are.

That's the status quo! It's not "refarming" at all.

It still removes one color bar from the frequency allocation charts (for
Advanced), so is not strictly a "status quo" solution like you have
advocated.

I suppose a definition of refarming is necessary for this context. Even
the ITU seems to struggle with the meaning of this word (search for
"definition of refarming" on Google). A commonly-accepted definition
is:

"Moving one service out to make way for another that would use the
spectrum more optimally."

So, really, neither of us are using the word entirely according to this
definition. Even if we substitute "class" for "service" above, no
General, Advanced, or Extra is being moved out to make way for anyone
else under the two alternatives offered in this discussion (mine, and
the ARRL's). Even Novice and Tech Plus hams only face a "lose some, but
gain a lot more" prospect under the ARRL proposal. You would define
refarming as making different license classes within the same service
either gain or lose spectrum. I would agree that this would constitute
one kind of refarming. I would also assert that the elimination of
license classes within a service to simplify spectrum allocation is
another kind of refarming.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't support frequency shifting, such as
that proposed to make 40 meters a primary amateur allocation, or part of
Novice band refarming. Just that I would keep the proportional amounts
roughly the same. I realize that the current ARRL proposal splits up
the Advanced phone bands, giving proportionally more to the General than
the Extra phone bands on 80 and 40 meters, and proportionally less on 15
meters (no changes on 20 meters). I do not strongly support that, but
even that proposal isn't giving the entire Advanced phone bandwidth to
the Generals.

And if nothing at all is done, the results are almost the same as what you
propose.

Emphasis on "almost." One of my motivations in this extended discussion
is to determine our agreements and disagreements, what are hard-and-fast
beliefs, and what might be open to compromise. In case you haven't
figured it out, I'm gathering verbage for a draft of my comments on any
future NPRM. You seem to be alternating between active opposition to,
and fatalistic acceptance of, the possibility that Element 1 will be
deleted. Perhaps you want to "go down fighting" on this issue with the
ARRL and the FCC. Your ideal-world position of no changes allows me to
rebut with the continued complications that it implies. On the other
hand, I too believe that Element 1 being dropped is likely, but I also
believe that changes to license classes and band allocations are still
very much up in the air at this point. Because of this, I will happily
play "what-if" with the various scenarios (as the FCC might do them in
any combination) while also indicating which ones that I favor.

So that there is no further confusion about what I favor, I support
dropping Element 1 (which would merge Technician with Technician-Plus),
giving present Advanced-class licensees a "free upgrade" to Extra, and
keeping General and Extra-class phone bands substantially and
proportionately the same (save for some small shifting/resizing for
Novice-band refarming and making all of 40 meters a primary amateur
radio allocation).

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.

If by saying, "If the current rules are left alone..." you really meant
leaving alone everything *except* the 5 WPM Morse code requirement
(which would be eliminated for these General and below under the ARRL
proposal), then, and only then, Technician-class hams will assume the
HF privileges of Technician-Plus.

Whatever. I don't see why the 5 wpm code test is such a big deal as a
requirement.

Does your "Whatever" answer above mean that you support 5 WPM Morse code
for all HF license classes, or just for Extra?

I support a code test for all amateur licenses, period. I think the dropping of
the
code test for the Tech back in 1991 was a mistake. I argued and commented
against it then, and much of what I said would happen has come to pass.

The FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (EFCS) only goes back to 1992
and your callsign doesn't appear in Google Groups until 1997. Would you
mind elaborating on what you thought would happen, and what you think
has come to pass?

If the former, then
there is a very real distinction that will continue to exist in the
license ladder whether or not it continues to be recorded in the
database. If so, then the expiring of Tech-Plus license in 6 years is
not a simplification, it is a complication.

That's still a long time in FCC
enforcement (and VEC administration) years.

Why? It's been almost 4 years since the last restructuring took effect. Look
at the enforcement letters - Techs without code masquerading as Tech Pluses
isn't a big problem, from what I see.

You argue that it's not an enforcement problem because few or none have
been caught. I would argue that it is an enforcement problem because it
would be very hard to catch someone, especially if confirming who has
what privileges requires documentation that is no longer in the FCC
database, and might no longer be retained by hams or VEC's. The FCC's
limited staff time is probably being aimed at big fish, such as Advanced
and Extra-class scofflaws engaging in power and interference violations.

You might want to read the letters. They're pretty evenly distributed, license
clas wise, except for Novices.

I have read them. Even if they are evenly distributed in numbers, they
are not evenly distributed according to number of licensees in each
class. If they were, then there would be approximately one Extra-class
violator for every three Tech/Tech-Plus violators, or every 1.5
General-class violators. I stand by my original argument.
Specifically, that the FCC's enforcement agenda is mostly aimed at
high-yield (easier to catch/more serious punishment, aka "big fish")
violations "such as" (i.e., not limited to) power and interference
violations at higher classes of license. Such licensees are being
subject to proportionately more enforcement scrutiny than other classes
of license.

Even if you argue that FCC
action on further restructuring will take most of that six years anyway,
there are still all those Novice and Advanced class licenses that will
likely exist in the database for decades to come.

It makes sense to grandfather existing Novices to the "NewNovice" (or
whatever
it is called). There are only about 32,000 Novices left now, down from just
under 50,000 after restructuring.

What *is* the problem with Advanceds just staying as they are? Have you not
read from the Advanceds who say they *don't want* to become Extras?

Which is as much of an argument as "Have you not read from the hams who
say that they *don't want* to have ham radio examinations without Morse
code?"

You keep avoiding the question.

You keep avoiding my answers.

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.

Did you notice that Novices actually lose privileges? See the FAQ
document above for more details. In particular, power limits are
lowered from 200 Watts PEP to 100 Watts PEP on HF bands except for 10
meters, and 50 Watts PEP on 10 meters.

Is that really much of a problem? How many Novices are on the air today
running more than those power levels?

Well? You know the answer as well as I: "Very few".

The same argument could also apply to Tech/Tech-Plus, as "very few" of
them operate below 30 MHz between 100 and 200 Watts either (though
significantly more might operate between 50 and 100 Watts on 10 meters).
The simplest alternative is to make Tech lose privileges, in the form of
reduced power limits, below 30 MHz in order to have one Novice/Tech set
of privileges on those bands.

Did you change your mind on this issue? According to the following
recent posting of yours:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...mb-m14.aol.com

you advocate doing just that. No argument from me, but it does suggest
that you realized the additional complexity of trying to both fold
NewNovice privileges into Technician *and* keep Technician from losing
privileges, so decided against keeping the latter constraint.

From the FAQ:

"The reason behind the change in Novice power limits is to avoid having
to examine entry-level applicants about how to evaluate amateur stations
for RF safety. "

I'm sure that you would argue that Technicians should retain their power
limits (1500 Watts PEP) on 6 meters and up, and I would agree, but what
about HF? Should Technicians lose privileges on those bands, by having
their power limits lowered (from 200 Watts PEP), or should there be
separate power limits for Novice and Technician on HF? This is starting
to get more complicated than before.

Not at all! Where an existing ham has greater privs, those privs would be
retained. This has been done with Tech Pluses for almost 4 years now. FCC
proposed it and enacted it, btw. Why can't it be done for existing Novices
and Techs?

But you agree that it would be a better idea to have just one set of
Novice/Tech privileges below 30 MHz even if that means Tech might lose
privileges due to lower power limits on those bands?

So, again, as part of your status-quo alternative, you want to keep in
place the regulations and bandplans for six classes of license, only
five of which will be tracked in the FCC database six years from now.

Why not? Most of that is just a few lines in Part 97.

The 1998 proposal from ARRL Hq was for Tech Pluses and Novices to get a
freebie
to General - and FCC said no. What has changed that suddenly makes free
upgrades a good idea?

The ARRL argues that this is now the second round of restructuring.

Then why wasn't the BoD ready for it?

They were probably as "ready" for it as they were for the first round of
recent restructuring in 1998-2000, or even the multi-year build-up to
the 1991 Report and Order for the no-code license. Maybe they want to
cross bridges when they feel that they have come to them? Maybe they
will act decisively if and only if there is the possibility they will be
left behind (such as from other parties submitting competing proposals
that are assigned RM numbers)? Maybe their inside-the-FCC spy only now
just phoned Newington with the coded message, "Raven is moving on
Morris, repeat, Raven is moving on Morris," and they are now busy trying
to channel the spirits of Hiram Maxim and Vic Clark for guidance? You
tell me.

The FCC prefers to revisit things every few years, and do things in
manageable chunks.

Meaning no disrespect, but - how do you know?

Because an interested observer can see that this is how the FCC wants to
do business these days, via biennial regulatory reviews. Among other
things, it makes Congress happy that the FCC continues to "improve"
itself by reviewing regulations every couple of years. The FCC also
wants to make sure that it leaves enough for future rounds.

And if that is, indeed, the case, why not make a few changes now
(like the "NewNovice") and revisit in a few years?

It is likely that the FCC will move on deletion of Element 1 very
shortly, now that S25.5 is being deleted and there are several proposals
on the table that have been assigned RM numbers to deal with this event.
Your recent poll conducted on this newsgroup has most predicting action
on this matter sometime in 2004:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...mb-m11.aol.com

What is less clear is what other types of reorganization the FCC might
choose to adopt at this time. The Novice-band refarming proposal has
been on an FCC staffer's desk for about two years now. You might argue
that this is a sign that it would be rejected. I might argue instead
that the FCC is waiting for wrap-up of all related issues, including
S25.5, and to approach Novice-band refarming as part of a periodic
review. If this is a "window of opportunity" that might not come again
in a while, and it is uncertain which proposal items the FCC might
choose, a good strategy would be to put all reasonable proposal items on
the table, especially if they can be argued to be interrelated to one
another as part of an overall, long-term plan.

Your suggestion above, to "make a few changes now" and "revisit in a few
years" might be reasonable *if* we controlled the agenda. We don't, the
FCC does. Because of this, omission of some items now, in a misguided
attempt to dictate what should and shouldn't be done, and in what
timeframe, might cause FCC to later ask, "Why didn't you bring this up
before?" or worse, "What are you trying to hide?"

What is driving this second round is the lifting of
the S25.5 requirement, the eventual need (in the ARRL's opinion, and
mine) to address the shrinking pools of Novice and Advanced class
licenses, as well as the fact that there will be no distinction in the
FCC database between two classes of licenses with different privileges
(Tech and Tech Plus) in the very near future.

Let's take those one at a time:

"shrinking pools of Novice and Advanced class licenses"

If the Novice is reopened to new issues and existing Novices get NewNovice
privileges as proposed by the BoD, the Novice shrinkage should stop.

Advanceds are shrinking at a very slow rate (16% in almost 4 years) so there's
no hurry in dealing with them.

"there will be no distinction in the FCC database between two classes of
licenses with different privileges
(Tech and Tech Plus) in the very near future"

Part of the proposal is for the code test for all but the Extra to go away, so
the difference between
Tech and Tech Plus becomes moot unless someone wants to get an Extra - at which
time all they
need do is present their old license or other document for Element 1 credit.

Or they can just take the code test!

So that's not an issue either.

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?

Yes, I meant the governance of the ARRL when I used the shorthand "ARRL"
in the context of offering an opinion on a BoD decision. Only they can
establish ARRL official policy and petition the FCC in the name of the
ARRL. Who else did you think I meant?

Those folks are elected and paid for by members like *me*. They supposedly
make those proposals in *my* name and with *my* support.

Well, I don't support everything in that proposal.

Welcome to the realities of representative democracy.

Been there since 1968 with ARRL.

Both of us pay
dues to the ARRL and elect Directors. They make proposals in both of
our names. I don't support everything in that proposal either, but it
is an ARRL proposal. You and I are perfectly free to submit comments to
the FCC as "ARRL Members," but the ARRL Board of Directors will submit
comments to the FCC as "*The* ARRL."

Which will be done in my case, as was before. The BoD needs to realize,
however, that the ARRL's position is weakened by proposing things that
much if not most of the membership opposes.

How much of the ARRL proposal in 1998 got enacted?

You will need more than a rhetorical question to make an argument here.
Instead, why don't you just come right out and say, for the benefit of
the audience, which items in the ARRL proposal got enacted, and which
ones didn't? And, of those that didn't get enacted, which ones you
think have already been given a final "no" answer?

All right.

Fact is, almost nothing proposed by ARRL Hq in 1998 got enacted. 5 wpm for
General, that's about it. On everything else, FCC either:

- said no: free upgrades, better written tests, Techs on HF CW without a
formal test

- went far beyond what was requested: 5 wpm Extra, Advanced closed off,
written testing reduced dramatically

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.

But does address the subject of why they may be politically desirable,
not only by leading to simplified FCC regulations, but also resulting
in a more harmonious and productive amateur radio in the future by
addressing most of the concerns of most factions.

I don't see that at all. Are the written tests so difficult, and the VE test
process so onerous, that free upgrades are the only answer?

I say they're not.

So you've said. I'm sure that you will also say this to your
representatives within the ARRL and comment on any future FCC NPRM on
the subject.

Already have. In detail. More to come, too.

I will, too. For the record, I'm not in complete
agreement with the ARRL proposal, either. I don't see the regulatory
justification for the retention of 5 WPM Morse code for Extra,

I do. Morse code is a big part of amateur radio, and having no code test at
all simply denies the reality of that.

I'm sure that you will argue in more detail than "Morse code is a big
part of ham radio, and having no code test simply denies the reality of
that."

OK, here's some mo

One of the Basis and Purposes of the ARS is technical education and skill
development.
IOW, hams learning about how radio works. Morse skill helps in this area
because Morse-capable radio equipment can be made using a very wide variety of
technologies and complexities.

IOW, the beginner can build a very simple Morse station, and improve it as
knowledge and skill expand.

You may also have to find new arguments beyond those that the
FCC rejected in Docket WT 98-143, including yours.

That was 5 years ago. Things change. And if FCC just dumps Element 1, as they
may, the Tech and Tech plus can simply merge.

Yes, but if you oppose dumping Element 1, then you oppose merging Tech
and Tech Plus. You assert that there isn't a problem either way. I
disagree. But there is that distinction, and two "what-if" scenarios.

and I
remain skeptical that a Novice license (even a restructured one) is
viable today.

What we have now is a system that tends to funnel newcomers into VHF/UHF
amateur radio, and manufactured equipment. And away from HF and homebrewing.
A restructured Novice could change that.

Part of arguing for a new Novice license would involve identifying what
has not worked with the present Novice license, and what changes would
somehow "open the floodgates" with the proposed future one.

What didn't work was simply this: Getting a Novice required passing two tests
(code and theory) while getting a Tech after 1991 required passing just one. So
most new hams went for the Tech because it was perceived to be easier.

On top of that, the Novice didn't have 2 meters.

All true. But if Element 1 is dropped, and no other changes are made,
then the current Tech becomes what the former Tech-Plus was, with HF
privileges and one exam. Sounds simple to me. Why can't that serve as
an entry-level license? Why try to resurrect the dead-horse of Novice?
Could it be that people are willing to take a harder exam to obtain more
attractive privileges?

You argue
that most entry-level hams are being funneled to VHF/UHF.

They are. Look at the privileges. ALL of amateur VHF/UHF vs. four little slices
of HF.

I don't disagree. That's why I said, "I might also argue..." below
instead of, "I might argue instead..."

I might also
argue that there are not very many entry-level hams at all, especially
younger people, regardless of where they are being funneled.

Look at

http://www.ah0a.org

for numbers of new licenses granted each month.

In the past 12 months FCC issued 20,256 new amateur licenses. Is that "not very
many"?

The answer is more complicated than that. Numbers of new amateur
licenses sounds great on paper, as it would be about 3% annual growth.
However, this does not take into account the number of amateurs leaving
from non-renewal, or even how many of them were very active in the first
place. Even AH0A touches on this subject at the following link on his
site:

http://www.ah0a.org/FCC/Rate.html

Quoting AH0A:

"If the number of new amateurs being added every month (through renewal,
upgrade, or as new amateurs) were equal to those expiring, the average
time to expiration should remain the same. Assuming that the
distribution of the times to expiration was constant over the future 120
months, the expected value would be 60 months.

A number less than 60 months would mean that the class of licensees is
decreasing. Looking at the Chart 1. you can see this is the case for
Novice, Technician, and Technician Plus licensees.

In Oct 2000, the average life of licenses for the entire Amateur
population will drop below 60 months. Within a year the number of
U.S. Amateurs will begin to decline."

Has AH0A's prediction come to pass? Well, according to:

http://www.ah0a.org/FCC/Licenses.html

we're not dropping precipitously (yet), but our total numbers have been
flat (within a variance of less than half of one percent) for at least
the past 6 years.

But let's look at those 20,000 or so new hams again, as I did argue
"new" and not "overall." Making the slightly inaccurate, but
simplifying, assumption that distribution of those new hams is
proportional to that of the entire U.S. population, that would mean 50
new hams being licensed last year in my local community (based on
population figures for my Metropolitan Statistical Area, or MSA). Wow!
*FIFTY* new amateurs per year! We could certainly make good use of each
and every one of them. We have lots of choices available that would
welcome new volunteers with open arms:

- Local ARES and RACES organizations (especially with a recent influx of
money and training opportunities due to Homeland Security)
- Weather training and spotting
- HF and VHF nets, including informal commute-time repeater nets
- DF Fox Hunts
- Field Day
- USAF MARS (where not only do you have HF privileges as a Technician, but
there is an active user community for more advanced digital modes like
MT63 and MFSK16)

or just as dues-paying members of local clubs, who can socialize with
our experienced members, learn things from club programs, and undertake
their own station projects with guidance from our Elmers. Field Day is
not the only opportunity to guest operate an HF station if you do not
have one of your own. We have even had local club members open their
homes and well-equipped HF stations to any and all interested guest
operators for special operating activities such as club anniversaries,
QSO parties, Veteran's Day, etc.

Oh wait, where did they all go? All of the above activities are starved
for new volunteers, and have exhibited flat or negative growth in recent
years. I look around at all of the above activities (metaphorically so
on the bands) and I see substantially the same people I have seen for
the last several years.

So, to answer your question, yes, that is "not very many."

The
youngest members in most clubs locally are well into their mid-30's.
The presence of teenagers has all but evaporated.

Why do you think that is?

Weeelll, since you asked...

One important feeder for amateur radio, especially those with strong
technical and operating skills, and who will persist in it well into
adulthood, is college radio clubs. Another is the military.

The ARRL, at least during the timeframe that I was involved in college
club leadership (mid to late 1980's), seemed to focus its youth programs
at too young an age to make a significant difference. A lot of focus
was on getting elementary school-age hams to qualify for Novice tickets,
despite the evidence that very few of them were going to stay with us
long-term. Individual Field Organization officials were supportive of
us (most notably W3ABC and the county EC, whose WB3 call I now can't
remember). However, the ARRL as a whole seemed rather indifferent to
college clubs, and not very helpful in providing publicity support in
the form of PSA's, pamphlets, etc. Their materials seemed to either be
aimed at children (Archie comics) or retirees (pursue a hobby with your
copious money and spare time!). When I discussed this with one of our
late-1970's alumni, who worked at the League for a while after
graduation, he agreed, stating that he wanted to update the materials,
but was overruled by higher-ups who wanted to persist with traditional
styles of recruitment.

League indifference was one issue. Perhaps they expected that we could
fend for ourselves. University indifference was another. EE students
found faculty either ignorant ("I didn't know there was a ham club on
campus") or hostile (One of our members raised his hand in a lecture, in
response to the professor asking if anyone was a ham, because the topic
of the lecture was SWR, and hams would have a good understanding of it.
Later discussion with the professor by that member indicated that he
disliked hams in general.) Efforts by some of our MSEE student members
to set up an analog RF design class (intended for upper-class
undergraduates who have already taken the introductory electronics,
electromagnetics, and modulation methods courses) were stymied by the
fact that the only faculty member who was interested in teaching such a
class was now retired. He might be able to teach such a course once,
but it would not be a well-integrated, and long-term, part of the
curriculum.

All of this was unfortunate, because word back from some of our EE
graduates who went on to RF engineering careers (one working on
microwave measurements at a government laboratory in Maryland, the other
working for a certain communications and avionics systems manufacturer
in Iowa) was that they found the BSEE curriculum oriented more towards
sorting and filtering of students than with actually educating those
students and imparting useful information. The oversized curriculum was
intended to cover state professional licensing exams and provide a
"grand tour" of topics to allow future graduate students to make an
informed choice when they later specialized. Both said that they would
have been at a significant professional disadvantage if they had not had
the hands-on background in RF that amateur radio offered them. Their
advice? Sure, pursue the degree, as that is the only way to get into a
professional engineering career these days. Just don't expect it to be
a climb-the-mountain-and-see-God experience. Take advantage of as many
opportunities as you can to get hands-on experience, including co-ops
and technical hobbies like amateur radio, because the curriculum alone
will not even come close to providing it.

It also saddens me to see a fine, mostly self-supporting, radio club
like W3ADO at the U.S. Naval Academy have to defend itself against
closure. It was even necessary to (politely) correct command's
perceptions, which was something like, "Amateur radio, is that still
around?" Though many midshipmen will graduate with engineering degrees,
very few officers will serve as professional engineers in the Navy.
Rather, they will draw on that expertise to command ships full of
highly-qualified technicians working on many advanced technological
systems. The radio club, with its well-equipped station and numerous
successful projects (enumerated in my letter linked below), offers one
of the few opportunities for such officers to gain hands-on experience
in RF engineering before joining the fleet, and thus be able to better
command that which they better understand.

A letter-writing campaign, in which I participated:

http://sacmarc.novia.net/hypermail/a...0/01-w3ado.txt

helped save the club, for now. I would like to thank fellow newsgroup
participant Larry Roll, K3LT, for joining me in this campaign. However
indifferent the League may have been to college clubs in the past, they
also wrote in defense of W3ADO.

What types of realistic homebrewing are you advocating for "NewNovice"
hams beyond 3-transistor OOK transmitters and single-conversion
receivers? Please be specific.

What's wrong with those sorts of rigs for a start? There are also
lots of good kits out there. And note that the "NewNovice" allows a wide
variety of modes.

Actually using a CW rig requires at least some proficiency in Morse
code. Not only are entry-level hams eschewing that, but so are most
experienced hams, if trends and surveys are any indication.
Furthermore, the ARRL-proposed NewNovice does not require a Morse code
test. Such a CW rig could be built, but would it be used? Even if it
is just a base project for learning purposes that would later be
extended, what kind of homebrewing agenda, and timeline, would you
advocate to get to something that would be practically usable in modes
other than CW?

What aspects of current communications
technology, something that would be used and would not be a trophy or
shop-project to be put on a shelf, can be realistically homebrewed via
commercially-available (and presently-manufactured) parts by high-school
age hams?

Lots of CW rigs, for a start. I built my first station from junk at age 13.

I left the door wide open for you to suggest lots of other kinds of
homebrewing, but you went right back to CW rigs, using examples of what
you built over 35 years ago. I can think of a few others that I think
entry-level hams should attempt in the present day. For example:

High school students should be able to homebrew:

- Patch cables, control harnesses, and connection terminations from bulk
wire and connectors

- Antennas and feed systems, again from bulk materials

- IC-based timer and microcontroller circuits from commonly-available
electronic parts

Implicit in the above is learning to make the correct choice of
components, both parts and bulk materials, appropriate for the desired
performance, specifications, and overall design. These types of
projects would be a good opportunity to learn how to use a multimeter
and an oscilloscope. Mechanical and fabrication skills, including
soldering, would also be developed.

For college students:

- Software-based radios (ever heard of GnuRadio)?

I put this one in the college-age category, because being able to design
and implement software-based radios would be helped by sufficient
knowledge of Digital Signal Processing (DSP) theory, and much of that
(at least the derivations and proofs) is based on calculus and
differential equations. Proper computer programming education would
occur at this time, also.

Do you think homebrewing is no longer practical? How about kits? Are
we to be nothing but appliance operators?

No, I think that homebrewing is practical, I just disagree with what
kinds of homebrewing are desirable. I read your comments in FCC Docket
WT 98-143, did you read mine? They are available in the ECFS. I do
address this issue there.

Kits are now enjoying increased popularity even without changes to
amateur radio licensing, though they no longer have the cost advantage
over commercially-built gear that they did when Heathkit was in its
heyday.

When you argue for "NewNovice" privileges, are you supporting it with 5
WPM code, or without?

I support a code test for *all* ham licenses. That probably won't happen, of
course.
But it's a good idea.

One simple, nearly status-quo, outcome that the FCC might pursue in
response to the deletion of S25.5 is to drop the 5 WPM code requirement
by eliminating Element 1. If so, then the Tech/Tech-Plus distinction
goes away, and the Novice/Tech HF privileges would be usable by
operators from the numerous ranks of Technician. That might also be
considered a "good idea."

What if almost no one wants to sign up for 5 WPM
code as an entry-level requirement?

The ARRL proposal talks about how great the old Novice was in its heyday. 5 wpm
didn't stop hundreds of thousands of hams then - why should it do so now, when
we have more and better training methods?

Because we are long past the Novice's heyday, and few want to sign up
for Novice today. Prospective amateurs "vote with their feet" in
seeking out the Technician class license as an entry-level license. One
plausible reason for this is the CW test, as even you alluded to above.
Maintain the CW test, and you continue to funnel amateurs away from
Novice and HF. As noted above, a simpler test is not a panacea, because
people are willing to take a harder test to get more desirable
privileges. Again, what is the necessary ingredient that is missing?
We already have "more and better training methods", we have a pool of
applicants that are willing to take a harder test to get more desirable
privileges, and we even have lots of potential homebrew projects to make
simple CW transmitters and receivers. Why do few people want to sign up
for that nowadays?

Even under the ARRL proposal, the proposed NewNovice license does not
impart enough knowledge, nor does it grant enough privileges, to be
suitably attractive to make it a viable entry-level license, in my
opinion. Especially if it has to be justified strongly enough either to
exist as a fourth open class of license, or introduce more free upgrades
(such as from Tech/Tech-Plus to General) to keep the number of open
classes limited to three.

The fact is that it's not the code test or the written test or the number of
license classes
which is/are the problem. It's things like lack of publicity, antenna
restrictions, and
competition from other activities.

All of the above are challenges for amateur radio, but which of the
above do we have the most control over, and thus the greatest ability to
solve? How would you propose to solve each of them?

I notice you making the "lack of publicity" argument in this newsgroup
since at least 2000, and discussing some specifics in later postings.
Obviously you and I don't have the budget and manpower to do national
campaigns. Only the ARRL is big enough to do that. Have you talked to
ARRL officials about this? What are their answers? Even if the ARRL is
unmoveable on this issue, we can still make a difference locally. What
have you done locally in the past four years to better publicize amateur
radio? How did it work out?

73 de Jim, N2EY

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

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.

The ARRL petition is not "making things right".

It will continue the Extra code exam that Commission stated
"serves no regulatory purpose"; and, in my opinion, is not
in conformity with 5 USC 706.

The ARRL petition will waive valid writtem exams for
a special group of incumbenent licesees, who did not ask
to be upgraded.

It appears to me that ARRL is giving away free upgrades in return
for support the Extra code exam.

If the Commission wants to "make things right", they should have
issued a MO&O in December to delete 47 CFR 97.503(a).

Larry, kc8epo

Leo wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:44:04 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:15:37 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Doggone it Dee! Your factual post is going to ruin another anti-US rant!

No rant intended, Mike. Just looking for facts!

You wouldn't happen to have any on you, would you? :)

Facts? I have the history I've read.

I'll have to take that as a 'no' then....

Do you always take history as fact?

FWIW, I have read that the US amateurs and their representatives were
pretty much the driving force in Amateur radio post WW1. The numbers of
Amateurs in the US was roughly equal to the Amateurs in the rest of the
world. These numbers coupled with a few organizations that represented
them from one country instead of spread out over the globe, would
naturally have a major influence on the hobby/avocation.

Now I don't know that for sure, since I wasn't around then, but it seems
sensible and logical enough, so I assign it a good probability.

- Mike KB3EIA