Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Bill Sohl" writes: [snip] If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras. Jim, I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others. Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the required tests. Particularly the *written* tests. Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing. You're the one willing to share with "a few".... You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know [expletive deleted] well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ... I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I don't know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote. Frankly, I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written* testing for over 400,000 US hams And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction in the **WRITTEN** test requirements. I'm not ... Let's get this clear right now. ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General with no additional testing. They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra with no additional testing. Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. I (N2EY) don't support it. Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing? If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses on a certain date. But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams. THAT is the critical difference. And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as a permanent change? Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one time thing. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. True. But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one? And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Maybe. Or maybe not. Yet now I see that same person supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written* tests... As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things right" in a way where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are already authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any knowledge of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF. Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech written is adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply dump the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool for General? If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself. No, it's not what I want. But how do we argue against those who want it? Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. How do you know? In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but not OK for future hams? Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break. If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them upgrades, is there? They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't sent in their license for cancellation - so what? I'd expect the FCC will NOT reissue anyone that gets a free upgrade a new license at all. There's no need to. So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old license class. Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then? Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's (or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to upgrade. How do you know what FCC wants? How do you? I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport" is claiming to know what FCC wants. Ultimately the FCC will decide. Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL? I (personally, not as NCI) think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future. Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test requirements for over 400,000 hams. That's almost 60% of those licensed today. Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you have a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...) I don;t have any hangups about the tests. I'm all for them. If the difference isn't so great, why require the General test at all? If YOU accept that, then file comments as such with the FCC. I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too. So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the changes take place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to General. Give me a break ... What do you mean? That's exactly what a lot of people will do. Those with no license or an existing Novice will have an incentive to get a Tech before the rules change and ride the free upgrade bus to General. If "lots" of non-hams suddenly became hams by that process I'll be truly surprised. 20,000 in the past 12 months. As for the existing novices...that is now down to about 30,000...assuming everyone of them did what you suggest. 34,000 or so. Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to actually take (or study for) the General. Life's a [expletive deleted] and then we die. Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test. Same for Advanceds and the Extra. The arte at which advaceds have been upgrading is pathetically low already. 17% in 4 years. Gotta wonder why. Maybe the code test wasn't a problem after all.... your arguments are just plain lame How? Do you think people won't do this? Some will, but it won't be significant. How do you know? and your "someone might get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions as I took" is REALLY showing. Nobody today can even take the tests I took. You couldn't pass the tests I took, Carl. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Nope. Not at all. It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the qualifications, both written and code, slowly reduced for over a quarter century. And that's not a good thing. The tests I took are not the issue. Free upgrades and reduction in written test requirements are the issue. The issue is ONE time free upgrades only. No effort is being made to lower the General or Extra requirements. Not yet. But a one-time upgrade is one more step. And it paves the way. Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code tests. That makes what - a dozen countries? I wonder what HK's written test requirements are..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Bill Sohl" writes: [snip] If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras. Jim, I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others. Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the required tests. Particularly the *written* tests. Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing. You're the one willing to share with "a few".... You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know [expletive deleted] well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ... I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I don't know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote. Frankly, I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written* testing for over 400,000 US hams And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction in the **WRITTEN** test requirements. I'm not ... Let's get this clear right now. ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General with no additional testing. They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra with no additional testing. Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. I (N2EY) don't support it. Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing? 'tisn't, Jim. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses on a certain date. On the contrary, I believe that they DO support permanent reductions of the written requirements. But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams. THAT is the critical difference. And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as a permanent change? Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one time thing. ahem.... You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. True. But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one? And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Maybe. Or maybe not. Yet now I see that same person supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written* tests... As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large Whhhoooaaaahhhh! And there my friend is the first shot in the next volley that will attempt to permanently reduce the written requirements! "The difference betweent the Tech and General written tests is not that large". How about that? Lessee.... 1. we don't support reductions in the test requirements 2. we support a one shot upgrade 3. the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large snip a way where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are already authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any knowledge of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF. Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech written is adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply dump the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool for General? If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself. No, it's not what I want. But how do we argue against those who want it? Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. How do you know? In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but not OK for future hams? Kinda makes you wonder, eh? I cannot come ot any logical conclusion that does not include a permanent reduction in the qualifications. The rest snipped, I gotta go do some housework............ - Mike KB3EIA - |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but not OK for future hams? Kinda makes you wonder, eh? I cannot come ot any logical conclusion that does not include a permanent reduction in the qualifications. Hiram forbid you EVER lose your rank, status, privileges obtained under old standards! Cannot that...ever! The old standards must remain inviolate, never ever changed! The ONLY ones "qualified" are those who took the same tests you took. Yup, you are SO qualified. Nobody else is if they didn't take the same tests you did. [we get the picture] The rest snipped, I gotta go do some housework............ Are you QUALIFIED to do housework? :-) LHA / WMD |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Bill Sohl" writes: [snip] If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have access to those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So giving them a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras. Jim, I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others. Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the required tests. Particularly the *written* tests. Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing. You're the one willing to share with "a few".... You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know [expletive deleted] well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ... I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I don't know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote. Frankly, I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written* testing for over 400,000 US hams And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction in the **WRITTEN** test requirements. I'm not ... Let's get this clear right now. ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General with no additional testing. They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra with no additional testing. Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. I (N2EY) don't support it. Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing? Because there's no real harm to anyone...and if you want an incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it plus it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one snapshot of time. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses on a certain date. But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams. Agreed. THAT is the critical difference. And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as a permanent change? Because it harms no one to get to the simplified scheme AND it then continues with the incentive system as before. Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one time thing. Time and situations change and people change. You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. True. Thank you! But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one? See prior coments on the same thing. And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing. Big difference. Every General that lost privileges still understands that loss. With this, no one losses anything. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Maybe. Or maybe not. If maybe not, please point to what privileges will be lost by which license holders. Yet now I see that same person supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written* tests... As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things right" i a way where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are already authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any knowledge of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF. Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech written is adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply dump the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool for General? If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself. No, it's not what I want. But how do we argue against those who want it? YOU are assuming someone will file another petition to do that. I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens. Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. How do you know? SWAG applied with common sense. In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but not OK for future hams? As above, because it will be a one time situation. Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break. If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them upgrades, is there? They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't sent in their license for cancellation - so what? I'd expect the FCC will NOT reissue anyone that gets a free upgrade a new license at all. There's no need to. So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old license class. The database could be updated overnight by replacing all licenses with their upgraded license. Doing that does not require an actual new paper license to be issued if Part 97 contains the following statement: Any license holder whos paper license is Tech is now recognized to be General and (ditto for Advanced to Ectra). Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then? Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's (or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to upgrade. How do you know what FCC wants? How do you? I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport" is claiming to know what FCC wants. Take it as a best quess then. Ultimately the FCC will decide. Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL? Different subject for a different thread. I (personally, not as NCI) think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future. Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test requirements for over 400,000 hams. That's almost 60% of those licensed today. Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you have a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...) I don;t have any hangups about the tests. I'm all for them. If the difference isn't so great, why require the General test at all? If YOU accept that, then file comments as such with the FCC. I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too. As is your right to do so. So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the changes take place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to General. Give me a break ... What do you mean? That's exactly what a lot of people will do. Those with no license or an existing Novice will have an incentive to get a Tech before the rules change and ride the free upgrade bus to General. If "lots" of non-hams suddenly became hams by that process I'll be truly surprised. 20,000 in the past 12 months. We'll likly lose that many to attrition this year alone. Look at the future expirations per Joe Speroni's web site. There's one month alone that has (I think) over 10,000 expirations. As for the existing novices...that is now down to about 30,000...assuming everyone of them did what you suggest. 34,000 or so. minor difference in the scope of this conversation. Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to actually take (or study for) the General. Life's a [expletive deleted] and then we die. Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test. God grant us the wisdom to... Accept the things we cannot change, change those we can and hopefully have the wisdom to know the difference. Same for Advanceds and the Extra. The rate at which advaceds have been upgrading is pathetically low already. 17% in 4 years. Gotta wonder why. Maybe the code test wasn't a problem after all.... No one said it was the only roadblock to all Advanced hams going to Extra. your arguments are just plain lame How? Do you think people won't do this? Some will, but it won't be significant. How do you know? SWAG and common sense. Do you see a floodgate opening of new hams rushing to become techs before the FCC implements free upgrades on a certain date? and your "someone might get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions as I took" is REALLY showing. Nobody today can even take the tests I took. You couldn't pass the tests I took, Carl. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Nope. Not at all. It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the qualifications, both written and code, slowly reduced for over a quarter century. And that's not a good thing. And if that is your true meaning, why would you state that "You (Carl) couldn't pass the tests I (Jim) took, Carl." Do you really think Carl would be unable to pass the same written tests if he had to? The tests I took are not the issue. Free upgrades and reduction in written test requirements are the issue. The issue is ONE time free upgrades only. No effort is being made to lower the General or Extra requirements. Not yet. But a one-time upgrade is one more step. And it paves the way. As you have said. Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code tests. That makes what - a dozen countries? I believe so. I wonder what HK's written test requirements are..... I don't really care. Cheers again, Bill K2UNK |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing? Because there's no real harm to anyone...and if you want an incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it plus it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one snapshot of time. On the contrary, Bill, to olde-tyme hammes, the "unqualifications" (not being licensed under old standards and practices) causes irreconcileable psychological HARM to those olde-tymers. They will LOSE some of their bragging rights and rank/status/ privilege that made them so arrogantly "superior." Ho hum. That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses on a certain date. But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams. Agreed. THAT is the critical difference. And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as a permanent change? Because it harms no one to get to the simplified scheme AND it then continues with the incentive system as before. "Incentive?" Incentive towards bragging rights, I'm sure. Such seems to be a very important part of today's amateur radio, almost as much as morsemanship... Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one time thing. Time and situations change and people change. Mr. Expletive_deleted does NOT ALLOW anyone to change their minds! Hiram forbid that anyone, ever changes their minds! That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing. Big difference. Every General that lost privileges still understands that loss. With this, no one losses anything. ...except psychological harm. :-) Why, because no one losses any privileges. Maybe. Or maybe not. If maybe not, please point to what privileges will be lost by which license holders. The "loss" is very deep, very personal. Their world is collapsing around them, the sky is falling, and all is lost. No, it's not what I want. But how do we argue against those who want it? YOU are assuming someone will file another petition to do that. I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens. No change! No change! Hold back the dawn! :-) So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old license class. The database could be updated overnight by replacing all licenses with their upgraded license. Doing that does not require an actual new paper license to be issued if Part 97 contains the following statement: Any license holder whos paper license is Tech is now recognized to be General and (ditto for Advanced to Ectra). Everything to these olde-tymers is wrapped up in that pretty piece of paper (suitable for framing). Change cannot happen until that license certificate is officially modified by an official of the official government. Officially. I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport" is claiming to know what FCC wants. Take it as a best quess then. Mr. Expletive_deleted has previously claimed "insider knowledge." He KNOWS. Ho hum. Ultimately the FCC will decide. Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL? Different subject for a different thread. Normal misdirection by Mr. Expletive_deleted. :-) I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too. As is your right to do so. Absolutely. 20,000 in the past 12 months. We'll likly lose that many to attrition this year alone. Look at the future expirations per Joe Speroni's web site. There's one month alone that has (I think) over 10,000 expirations. Morsemanship doesn't guarantee immortality?!?!? Tsk, tsk, tsk! Life's a [expletive deleted] and then we die. Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test. God grant us the wisdom to... Accept the things we cannot change, change those we can and hopefully have the wisdom to know the difference. Some cannot be changed, do not permit change that infringes on their rank/status/privilege. Federals must support their bragging rights no matter what. :-) How do you know? SWAG and common sense. Do you see a floodgate opening of new hams rushing to become techs before the FCC implements free upgrades on a certain date? He WILL "see" such and be inventive in his rationalization of same! Take that to the bank. :-) It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the qualifications, both written and code, slowly reduced for over a quarter century. And that's not a good thing. And if that is your true meaning, why would you state that "You (Carl) couldn't pass the tests I (Jim) took, Carl." Do you really think Carl would be unable to pass the same written tests if he had to? Finally you getting a glimpse of Mr. Expletive_deleted's motives. :-) U.S. amateur radio has always been about morsemanship? To some that is a Maxim. I wonder what HK's written test requirements are..... I don't really care. He is worried. :-) LHA / WMD |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Bill Sohl" writes: [snip] Let's get this clear right now. ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General with no additional testing. They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra with no additional testing. Do you support those free upgrades or not? I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis. I (N2EY) don't support it. Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing? Because there's no real harm to anyone... I say there *is* real harm to the ARS. However, let's explore your claim for a bit and see where it leads. You say that the free upgrades are OK "Because there's no real harm to anyone...". I've also seen it justified by "the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large". If that's true, then what would be the harm is simply dumping the General class question pool completely and using the Technician pool in its place, with slight modifications to include General HF privs? Who would be harmed by such a change? By the same token, we could resurrect the old Advanced written and use it in place of the Extra. and if you want an incentive licensing scheme to be retained, this does it I disagree! It works as a disincentive. Why should anyone study for an upgrade if there's a chance for a freebie? Would you you pay $500 for a new computer if you knew that next month it would go on sale for $300? plus it simplifies licensing and regs for the FCC and does it in one snapshot of time. ARRL proposed similar freebies before and FCC said no, even though it would simplify the licensing and regs. If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in the written test requirements for those licenses. Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written requirements. That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses on a certain date. But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams. Agreed. And that's the point: Folks like Carl who said they'd NEVER support ANY reduction are now supporting a reduction because it's a one-time thing. And ignoring the fact that it affects a huge number of hams. Free upgrades for Techs would affect about 322,000 hams. Last year we got about 20,000 new Techs, so the proposed freebie would affect as many existing hams as the new ones we might get in the next 10-15 years. THAT is the critical difference. And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as a permanent change? Because it harms no one to get to the simplified scheme AND it then continues with the incentive system as before. I say it does harm people. But if it harms no one to get the simplified scheme, why not make it permanent? Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but it's still a reduction. It is a ONE time reduction. Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one time thing. Time and situations change and people change. IOW, Carl's "never" didn't mean "never", it just meant "until I change my mind". You and I can disagree about the reason's to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports permanent reductions in requirements. True. Thank you! Time and situations change and people change. Next week or next year.... But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one? See prior coments on the same thing. Who would be harmed by a permanent reduction? And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter. If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years. That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing. Big difference. Every General that lost privileges still understands that loss. I lost privileges as an Advanced. And I had to wait 2 years to even try the Extra, even though I could have passed it the day I lost privileges. With this, no one losses anything. If the existing classes are not given free upgrades, nobody loses anything either. Why, because no one losses any privileges. Maybe. Or maybe not. If maybe not, please point to what privileges will be lost by which license holders. Yet now I see that same person supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written* tests... As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things right" i a way where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are already authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any knowledge of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF. Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech written is adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply dump the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool for General? If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself. No, it's not what I want. But how do we argue against those who want it? YOU are assuming someone will file another petition to do that. You're assuming they won't. I'll worry about reacting/commenting on that...if and when it happens. And what will you say to them? How will you argue against making the one-time freebie permanent? After all, they can quote you and Ed and Carl saying "no one will be harmed" and "the difference between the Tech and General written tests is not that large" What counterarguments can be used against those quotes? Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care. How do you know? SWAG applied with common sense. They said the same thing in 1969. I was there. In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but not OK for future hams? As above, because it will be a one time situation. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break. If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them upgrades, is there? They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't sent in their license for cancellation - so what? I'd expect the FCC will NOT reissue anyone that gets a free upgrade a new license at all. There's no need to. So they keep their old licenses. And the database still has their old license class. The database could be updated overnight by replacing all licenses with their upgraded license. Doing that does not require an actual new paper license to be issued if Part 97 contains the following statement: Any license holder whos paper license is Tech is now recognized to be General and (ditto for Advanced to Ectra). Then why wasn't it done in 2000? Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then? Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's (or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to upgrade. How do you know what FCC wants? How do you? I don't claim to. The person who wrote that something "doesn't comport" is claiming to know what FCC wants. Take it as a best quess then. OK. My best guess is that FCC doesn't care. Ultimately the FCC will decide. Just like BPL. Should we not oppose BPL? Different subject for a different thread. Not at all! You're saying we should just trust FCC. BPL shows what can happen.. I (personally, not as NCI) think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future. Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test requirements for over 400,000 hams. That's almost 60% of those licensed today. Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you have a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...) I don;t have any hangups about the tests. I'm all for them. If the difference isn't so great, why require the General test at all? If YOU accept that, then file comments as such with the FCC. I'll file comments to do the opposite. Maybe a proposal, too. As is your right to do so. let's see....3 classes of license, no free upgrades, imporved writtens... So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the changes take place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to General. Give me a break ... What do you mean? That's exactly what a lot of people will do. Those with no license or an existing Novice will have an incentive to get a Tech before the rules change and ride the free upgrade bus to General. If "lots" of non-hams suddenly became hams by that process I'll be truly surprised. 20,000 in the past 12 months. We'll likly lose that many to attrition this year alone. Look at the future expirations per Joe Speroni's web site. There's one month alone that has (I think) over 10,000 expirations. And how many will renew in the grace period? You have to look longterm. As for the existing novices...that is now down to about 30,000...assuming everyone of them did what you suggest. 34,000 or so. minor difference in the scope of this conversation. Those with Tech will have a *disincentive* to actually take (or study for) the General. Life's a [expletive deleted] and then we die. Apply that philosophy to accepting the code test. God grant us the wisdom to... Accept the things we cannot change, change those we can and hopefully have the wisdom to know the difference. Right. So why not just accept 5 wpm and the existing classes? Same for Advanceds and the Extra. The rate at which advaceds have been upgrading is pathetically low already. 17% in 4 years. Gotta wonder why. Maybe the code test wasn't a problem after all.... No one said it was the only roadblock to all Advanced hams going to Extra. It has been touted as the boogieman for years. Now we see that it wasn't. And let's suppose FCC enacts the ARRL proposal, and even dumps Element 1 for Extra as well. And suppose we don't get a huge increase in the number of new hams, just as we didn't after 2000. You watch - there will be more proposals to further water down the writtens. your arguments are just plain lame How? Do you think people won't do this? Some will, but it won't be significant. How do you know? SWAG and common sense. Do you see a floodgate opening of new hams rushing to become techs before the FCC implements free upgrades on a certain date? Yep. Plus a huge drop in upgrades. Why not? "We're having a one-time sale - get 'em now!" Back in 1951, there was a similar one-time sale. FCC announced that they were closing out the Advanced/class A and replacing it with the much harder to get Extra at the end of 1952. But existing Class A/Advanceds would have the same privs as Extras. There was a flood of folks upgrading to beat the price increase. and your "someone might get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions as I took" is REALLY showing. Nobody today can even take the tests I took. You couldn't pass the tests I took, Carl. Translation, I did it, so should everyone else. Nope. Not at all. It means that I met different qualifications. And I've seen the qualifications, both written and code, slowly reduced for over a quarter century. And that's not a good thing. And if that is your true meaning, why would you state that "You (Carl) couldn't pass the tests I (Jim) took, Carl." Do you really think Carl would be unable to pass the same written tests if he had to? If he had to, maybe. But he didn't have to. And he couldn't pass the other tests I had to take. And he didn't do it at 16 years of age, with no professional background. I did. The tests I took are not the issue. Free upgrades and reduction in written test requirements are the issue. The issue is ONE time free upgrades only. No effort is being made to lower the General or Extra requirements. Not yet. But a one-time upgrade is one more step. And it paves the way. As you have said. Cheers...and add Hong Kong to the list of countries dropping ALL code tests. That makes what - a dozen countries? I believe so. I wonder what HK's written test requirements are..... I don't really care. bwaahaahaa! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: Free upgrades for Techs would affect about 322,000 hams. Last year we got about 20,000 new Techs, so the proposed freebie would affect as many existing hams as the new ones we might get in the next 10-15 years. And how could the existing ham community possibly elmer these 300,000+ new HF users should they all decide to be active shortly following that free upgrade. I hate to think of the resulting SSB DX pileups as it is pretty bad now. If a free upgrade goes through and significant numbers move to HF within a short period of time, I suspect that we'll see a lot more DX stations "hiding" in CW. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: Free upgrades for Techs would affect about 322,000 hams. Last year we got about 20,000 new Techs, so the proposed freebie would affect as many existing hams as the new ones we might get in the next 10-15 years. And how could the existing ham community possibly elmer these 300,000+ new HF users should they all decide to be active shortly following that free upgrade. I hate to think of the resulting SSB DX pileups as it is pretty bad now. If a free upgrade goes through and significant numbers move to HF within a short period of time, I suspect that we'll see a lot more DX stations "hiding" in CW. Which would, I think, foster more hams to learn and use morse code if they really want that hot DX. And if more hams didn't learn morse to work those DX stations, that'd give more opportunity to work them via DX to current code capable hams. In either case it sounds like something the code enthusiasts should be real happy about. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
And how could the existing ham community possibly elmer these 300,000+ new HF users should they all decide to be active shortly following that free upgrade. My advise is to to buy up ALL the used rigs you can afford and try to corner the market. The give away price of new equipment will soar with demand. I hate to think of the resulting SSB DX pileups as it is pretty bad now. If a free upgrade goes through and significant numbers move to HF within a short period of time, I suspect that we'll see a lot more DX stations "hiding" in CW. Can't hide for long ....how long before it will be wall to wall "fone"???? Which would, I think, foster more hams to learn and use morse code Nope Bill .... it will foster a concerted movement to turn the CW subbands into SSBville. The mode will die or at best be put into a historical preserve ...maybe like the bottom 20 kcs of the 30 meter band. if they really want that hot DX. And if more hams didn't learn morse to work those DX stations, that'd give more opportunity to work them via DX to current code capable hams. In either Bill I wish you were right ...I say IF they were interested in CW DX they would be there now not waiting for the tooth fairy to leave them the freeby under the pillow at night case it sounds like something the code enthusiasts should be real happy about. Oh yes Bill I am REAL happy about it ...I can't wait to see the subbands go the route of "gentleman's" agreement and not defined regulation. The idea of novice enhancement should have occured years ago with the novices gaining all CW subbands. But nope the "experts" out there kept them in the ghettos as 4th class citizens. Attempts years ago to even try to improve this was met with derision from the establishment. What!!! 5WPM on my belovid bottom 25 kcs. Never ... I will never share this DX with anyone save my speed peers. What would Hiram say?? So guys don't blame the "foneists" totally for your troubles as we missed out bigtime in strengthening our ranks and mode. Cheers, Bill K2UNK 73 Bill ....Tom KI3R Belle Vernon Pa. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Bill Sohl" writes: Free upgrades for Techs would affect about 322,000 hams. Last year we got about 20,000 new Techs, so the proposed freebie would affect as many existing hams as the new ones we might get in the next 10-15 years. And how could the existing ham community possibly elmer these 300,000+ new HF users should they all decide to be active shortly following that free upgrade. I hate to think of the resulting SSB DX pileups as it is pretty bad now. If a free upgrade goes through and significant numbers move to HF within a short period of time, I suspect that we'll see a lot more DX stations "hiding" in CW. Which would, I think, foster more hams to learn and use morse code if they really want that hot DX. And if more hams didn't learn morse to work those DX stations, that'd give more opportunity to work them via DX to current code capable hams. In either case it sounds like something the code enthusiasts should be real happy about. Cheers, Bill K2UNK While that could be a supposed "bright spot", I don't think that is a reason for supporting codeless licenses and free upgrades. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|