On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Jason Hsu wrote:
I understand why the ARRL proposes free upgrades from Technician to
General. The assumptions:
1. The restructuring has to limit the number of license classes to 3.
Thus, the Advanced license and either the Novice license or
Technician license must be eliminated.
2. The restructuring must produce no downgrades.
3. The closing of the Novice class in the restructuring of 2000 was a
major loss. So the Technician license should be eliminated but the
Novice license should be reopened.
4. The only way to eliminate the Technician class without downgrading
the existing Technicians is to automatically upgrade all Technicians
to General.

I still disagree with the ARRL's proposal, though I can now see the
reasoning behind it. I think the flawed assumption is #3. If the
closing of the Novice class was such a major loss, then why was the
No-Code Technician license so much more popular than the Novice
license during the years when both entry-level licenses were
available? The FCC closed the Novice license for the same reason
General Motors closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers.

I agree that #3 is flawed. However, what the ARRL fails to realize is that
since 1990 for the most part, the [no-code] technician license IS the entry
level license even though it was not intended to be.

We HAVE a three license class structure now: Technician, General, and Extra.
With regard to that, NOTHING need be done. Nothing new needs to be created.
Nothing old needs to be eliminated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If one wants to "restructure" and still have three classes, there is an
alternative that the ARRL is too stuck-up to even suggest:

1) Class "A" - 30 MHz and up. (VHF, UHF, and microwave through light ....)
2) Class "B" - 30 Mhz and below. (HF, MF, to VLF or DC) Code not required.

One can hold BOTH an "A" and "B" license. Perhaps a power limit less than
1500w.

3) Class "C" - More than just a combination of "A" and "B" - intended to be
held by those who want to do the "most advanced" aspects: Put up satellites or
be volunteer examiners. Code (5WPM) probably required, at least for a while.
Maximum power limit.

This way, those who want to do only HF don't have to worry about the VHF and
above crap. Those who want to do only VHF/UHF don't have to worry about HF.

Conversion:
Novice - B
Technician - A
Technician w/HF - A+B
General - A+B
Advanced - A+B (if this should grant "C" instead, I leave open)
Extra - C

All those becomming "B" (including "A+B") would have credit for code towards any
class "C" requirement for code. Class C would have code credit too (but that's
not really needed in the upgrade schedule unless expired licenses give credit).

For the HF bands, there would be no need for any license class based subband
restrictions; all would be equal. = Simplified HF bandplans.

I'd prefer to see all Novices and Technicians merged into a new
Technician class and be granted Tech Plus privileges. This would be
compatible with a 3-license system. Nobody would lose privileges, but
all automatic upgrades would be modest.

I disagree. That gives novices privileges in places they really weren't tested
for.

As many have suggested, I think the ARRL proposal may have been a PR
move. Although changing the rules is the FCC's job and not the
ARRL's, anything that the ARRL could have proposed would have
generated a firestorm of controversy. The ARRL had to propose the
retention of the Morse Code exam requirement for the Amateur Extra
license to appeal to the proponents of Morse Code testing. To appeal
to the No Code Technicians feeling intimidated by the Morse Code exam
requirement, the ARRL proposed upgrading them to General.

That gives technicians privileges in places they weren't tested for.

One can hold BOTH an "A" and "B" license. Perhaps a power limit less than
1500w.



There actually was a time when you could not have a novice *and* a tech
license
at the same time. Tech required 5wpm then, and general written. And
presumidly
novice written. So Tech would have been a superset of novice, but if
you upgraded
from novice to tech then, you gave up your old HF privs to get on above
50MHz.
This was more likely a brearucratic screw up than actual desired policy.
Like today's
lifetime credit for passing a 5 wpm test but none for 13 or 20.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...

There actually was a time when you could not have a novice *and* a tech
license
at the same time. Tech required 5wpm then, and general written. And
presumidly
novice written. So Tech would have been a superset of novice, but if
you upgraded
from novice to tech then, you gave up your old HF privs to get on above
50MHz.
This was more likely a brearucratic screw up than actual desired policy.
Like today's
lifetime credit for passing a 5 wpm test but none for 13 or 20.

This is true. When I had my novice, in 1962, it was a 1 year non-renewable
license. I failed the 13 wpm test twice and it wasn't until 1964 that I
obtained my general. I didn't want the tech as I figured I'd be stuck at 5
along with the tech license for eternity. In 1966 I obtained my extra
(along with commercial telegraph license).

The lifetime credit for a 5 word per minute test makes some sense as anyone
who could never copy more than perhaps 10 words per minute would, over the
years, likely forget it. I was last active on cw in 1969 and let my
licenses expire. I never practiced nor studied until I showed up for a test
in 1993. Yes, I could still pass 20 words per minute (and just checked off
some answers in the theory exam as I didn't want to waste time extracting
square roots by hand as I didn't bring a calculator - you don't need 100% to
pass). Anyone who passed 13 wpm or greater doesn't need a free pass; they
can simply take the 5 word per minute exam and pass. You can bet the folks
that need that free pass would be hard pressed to actually take the test and
pass - or they wouldn't be so preoccupied with finding proof that they had a
license once upon a time.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.590 / Virus Database: 373 - Release Date: 2/16/04

In article , "D. Stussy"
writes:

That gives novices privileges in places they really weren't tested
for.

That gives technicians privileges in places they weren't tested for.

Well, the same can be said for free upgrades of Advanceds, too.

But consider this:

Back in 1970 when I took the Extra, 30, 17 and 12 meters weren't ham bands.
Neither was 903 MHz. 160 was all chopped up with LORAN. Etc.

Yet when those new bands came along, I didn't have to take a new test to use
'em.

73 de Jim, N2EY