"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