| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
February 16th 04, 11:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Paul W. Schleck wrote in message ...
In (N2EY) writes: This is Part Two - previous stuff removed to save space) 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. It's true that there have only been a few hams younger than about 10 years of age. And in most cases these young hams were in somewhat exceptional circumstances. Add a few years, however, and the numbers explode. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of present-day hams started as preteens or young teenagers, often with no other hams in the family and no real parental support other than "don't electrocute yourself or burn the house down". So we still have the nagging question of why it's unreasonable to expect others to do what they did for the same privileges? The more typical, and meaningful, example of an entry-level ham would be one who was high school or college-age. Why? I got my first ham license at the beginning of 7th grade. What is now middle school. No other hams in my family or neighborhood. There were many like me, limited mostly by lack of money and transportation. 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. Agreed! But note this: When the ARRL paid READEX to do a survey back in 1996, the most strongly procodetest age group was the *youngest* group - 15 and under. 85% were in support of code testing, only 15% opposed. Time after time, when Morse code is demonstrated to young prospective hams, they *like* it and are eager to learn it. The idea that a 5 wpm code test is somehow a barrier to young people is not borne out by actual experience. 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 Mine aren't. (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?"). I am simply asking why it is so urgent to get rid of closed-off license classes. Where is the "loading" in such a question? Furthermore, you see simplicity where I see complication, and vice-versa. I don't see what the problem is with simply keeping the Advanced and Tech. Allow those who hold them to upgrade in their own time. 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. All I see is the answer that "we need to simplify!" but not *why* that simplification is so needed right now, when it wasn't needed 4 years ago. 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. The word "refarmed" was used, which is a euphemism for "reallocated". If all Advanceds get Extras, but Generals get no more bandspace, then what is actually "refarmed"? 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. The point is that by using the word "refarming", you implied that Generals would get more bandspace. 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. I say it would be clearer to avoid such euphemistic words and be more direct. "Reallocate" or, better yet, "widen the phone bands". Because that's what it comes down to. 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. Good idea. 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. That's one way to look at it. The fact is that there are more issues to be addressed than just the 5 wpm code test. It's important to not lose sight of the fact that whether the code test stays or goes, those other issues should not be forgotten. Perhaps you want to "go down fighting" on this issue with the ARRL and the FCC. Why not? If those of us who support code testing don't ask, we'll never get. Is the current 5 wpm test, with all its accomodations, *really* too much to ask of new hams? The ARRL proposal writeups wax nostalgic about the old Novice license, but carefully avoid mentioning that part-and-parcel of the old Novice was the 5 wpm code test. Your ideal-world position of no changes allows me to rebut with the continued complications that it implies. My ideal-world position isn't one of no changes. I've outlined it here before, and can dig it up again if you want to see it. 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), For all license classes or just Tech 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). So the Tech would remain the entry level license? 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? OK, here's the short list: First off, dropping the code test from the Tech in 1991 re-created a ham license that was VHF-UHF centric. New hams were funneled to start off on VHF/UHF FM phone with new manufactured equipment, rather than HF CW, where homebrew, kit and used equipment were more prevalent. This created a divide between those hams who had some or all HF and those who had none, centered around the code test. Such divisions are not a good thing. The resulting division has diverted attention from other, more important issues such as publicity, antenna restrictions, and limits to growth. Second, the change brought about a surge in new hams (good) but not sustained growth (bad). Third, one of the things promised back in 1991 was that there would be more and more "technical people" becoming hams if the code test were dropped for VHF/UHF. Did not happen. Most of all, the continual tinkering with the license system has perpetuated and expanded the myth that the license tests are "too hard", and that all will be well if we just make this change or that change. Yet history tells a very different story. Look at the growth in US ham radio from 1991 to the present, and compare it to an identical length of time before 1991. Was there a big, sustained increase in the number of new hams because of the Tech losing its code test? Look at the growth since April 2000. Mostly existing hams getting upgrades, but not a huge jump in the number of new hams. And the issue isn't just code tests. The *written* tests have been reduced in number, size and complexity, too. Is that really a good thing? 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. What about the new ham who was found transmitting false distress calls on a marine VHF frequency using a modified ham rig? As I recall, intentional false distress is one of the most serious infractions possible. There is also the factor of enforcement being complaint-driven. Someone who acts up on a 2 meter repeater can be heard over a radius of perhaps a few dozen miles, and the repeater control ops can shut down the machine. But on HF, a single bad apple can be heard for hundreds or thousands of miles, and there's no way to "shut down the machine". Please note, too, that the enforcement actions for on-air behavior are almost entirely directed against those using voice modes. Enforcement actions against hams using Morse code in the CW/data parts of the bands are almost nonexistent. The disparity is far more than can be explained by the relative popularity of the modes. Out of time again. More to come in Part Three 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
