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