:

If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means
that after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come
afterward. There will be a *powerful* argument that "The Tech elements
were good enough for the majority of hams to become General, so why
should I have to take a harder test?"

And although there is really no test process needed at all to get
on HF (witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels)

Well, they're not *legal* and should not be there. And legal CB
operators are not supposed to
talk internationally.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
:

If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means
that after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come
afterward. There will be a *powerful* argument that "The Tech elements
were good enough for the majority of hams to become General, so why
should I have to take a harder test?"

And although there is really no test process needed at all to get
on HF (witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels)

Well, they're not *legal* and should not be there.

Absolutely agree.

And legal CB operators are not supposed to
talk internationally.

I know there's a distance limitation...but what about a
legal CBer in the USA talking to a legal Canadian CBer
over a distance of less than the specifid threshold limit?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:10:51 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
:
snip

And legal CB operators are not supposed to
talk internationally.

I know there's a distance limitation...but what about a
legal CBer in the USA talking to a legal Canadian CBer
over a distance of less than the specifid threshold limit?

I'm pretty sure that cross-border communications between Canada and
the US were illegal back in the 70s when I had a CB
license.....apparently, that restriction no longer exists.

In the US, Part 95 subpart D disallows International communications,
*except* between US and Canadian CB stations.

http://www.noard.com/citizensband.htm

On the Canadian side, RIC-18 mentions no specific restrictions on
International communications at all. There is a limitation on
communicating beyond the 'normal range' of the station (i.e. other
than by ground wave transmission only) which pretty much rules out
International comms except with anywhere but the US, geographically
speaking.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwapj/ric18.pdf/$FILE/ric18.pdf


Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


73, Leo

Robert Casey wrote:

:

If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means
that after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come
afterward. There will be a *powerful* argument that "The Tech elements
were good enough for the majority of hams to become General, so why
should I have to take a harder test?"

And although there is really no test process needed at all to get
on HF (witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels)


Well, they're not *legal* and should not be there. And legal CB
operators are not supposed to talk internationally.


Sure, but if you make it legal, is there any reason to require any test
at all?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Jason Hsu wrote:
The ARRL and the new NCVEC petitions call for creating a new Novice
class and upgrading Technicians to General. (I already commented on
the ARRL petition to the FCC.)

I'm not upset with the ARRL about this. The directors did what they
felt they had to do. But I'm still puzzled by parts of the proposal.

The highly controversial proposal of upgrading Technicians to General
is the result of insisting that all license classes be merged into
just 3 without downgrading privileges for any class. It's a game of
License Class Survivor, and all classes but 3 have to be voted off the
island. General and Amateur Extra are (correctly) considered too
important to eliminate, and Advanced licenses get upgraded to Amateur
Extra. So only one more license class can remain, and the ARRL and
NCVEC think that the Novice should remain and be reopened, and the
Technician license should be voted off the island. Because of the "no
downgrade" condition, Technician licenses are upgraded to General.

Interesting take on the issue, Jason.

My main concern is that there is a precedent in the proposed mass upgrade:

If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means that
after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come afterward.

Mike, that is absolutely false as an argument of any substance.
Government has given temporary waivers in many areas and no one
has ever been able to say that after the door closed on a particular
waiver, they should be allowed a similar waiver afterwards.

There will be a *powerful* argument that "The Tech elements were good
enough for the majority of hams to become General, so why should I have
to take a harder test?"

They can argue that until hell freezes over and it won't stand up in
any court. A one time "free pass" based on a legitamate FCC goal
of license and rules simplification is ample justification.

And although there is really no test process needed at all to get on HF
(witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels) I believe that we should
foster technical knowledge qualifications for the ARS.

No argument there...BUT the process still needs a solution and the
hodgepodge of 6 licenses and 6 sets of rules today just isn't needed.
That is why both ARRL and NCVEC have proposed almost identical
3 license plans with the "free" upgrades.

Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? During the years
when both the Novice and No-Code Technician licenses were available
for new hams, the new hams (including myself) overwhelmingly chose the
No-Code Technician.

Not difficult at all. Many people have taken and passed the test. I
can't think of any good arguments for reducing it.

Think of a very basic entry level that more than just extraordinary
bright kids can take and pass.

What's now the Technician exam was two separate
tests back then - Novice and Technician. Both the Novice and
Technician licenses required passing the Novice exam plus one more
exam. For the Novice license, the 5 wpm Morse Code exam was the
additional exam. For the No-Code Technician license, the Technician
exam was the additional exam. By at least a 20:1 or 30:1 margin, the
new hams chose the No-Code Technician exam. The new hams (including
myself) clearly thought that preparing the Technician exam was MUCH
easier than preparing for the 5 wpm exam. But in spite of this, the
ARRL thinks that the current Technician exam (a merger of the old
Novice and Technician exams) is too hard but says that the 5 wpm exam
is quite easy and uses this view as a partial justification as keeping
the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license.

5WPM is easy for some, and not at all easy for others.

Agreed.

The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice
license obsolete. In the 2000 restructuring, the FCC closed the
Novice class for the same reason GM closed Oldsmobile - not enough
takers to justify the administrative costs and labor required.

Given all this, is it SO necessary to bring back the Novice class at
the expense of the Technician class? Why didn't the ARRL propose a
4-class system so that the popular Technician class could be kept?

My theories on why the ARRL thinks the Novice license is more
important than the Technician license:
1. The ARRL directors couldn't agree, so they proposed a compromise
that they felt would promote good PR. I don't think they seriously
expect the FCC to approve it.
2. Nostalgia about their Novice days led them to want to reopen and
reintroduce the Novice class.

That is a pretty good assessment, Jason.

I have already disagreed and said so in a different email.
I would especially doubt the ARRL expects a non-approval from
the FCC. The ARRL has a long standing positive relationship
with most, if not all, those in the FCC that will be assessing the
petitions. If there's any doubt in ARRL's mind, it is (IMHO)
likly tied to doubt that any code test will remain as opposed to
even having only a 5wpm test for Extra.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Jason Hsu wrote:
Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? During the years
when both the Novice and No-Code Technician licenses were available
for new hams, the new hams (including myself) overwhelmingly chose the
No-Code Technician.

Not difficult at all. Many people have taken and passed the test. I
can't think of any good arguments for reducing it.

Think of a very basic entry level that more than just extraordinary
bright kids can take and pass.

In one of my recent classes, I had an 8 year old boy of ordinary grades and
ordinary intelligence take and pass the Technician. Sorry but the test does
NOT need to be easier. He made it on the second try. This is no worse than
many adults.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Jason Hsu wrote:
Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? During the
years
when both the Novice and No-Code Technician licenses were available
for new hams, the new hams (including myself) overwhelmingly chose
the
No-Code Technician.

Not difficult at all. Many people have taken and passed the test. I
can't think of any good arguments for reducing it.

Think of a very basic entry level that more than just extraordinary
bright kids can take and pass.

In one of my recent classes, I had an 8 year old boy of ordinary grades
and
ordinary intelligence take and pass the Technician. Sorry but the test
does
NOT need to be easier. He made it on the second try. This is no worse
than
many adults.

If it was that easy, why two tries before passing...and what
was his passing score when he did?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Jason Hsu wrote:
Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? During the
years
when both the Novice and No-Code Technician licenses were
available
for new hams, the new hams (including myself) overwhelmingly chose
the
No-Code Technician.

Not difficult at all. Many people have taken and passed the test. I
can't think of any good arguments for reducing it.

Think of a very basic entry level that more than just extraordinary
bright kids can take and pass.

In one of my recent classes, I had an 8 year old boy of ordinary grades
and
ordinary intelligence take and pass the Technician. Sorry but the test
does
NOT need to be easier. He made it on the second try. This is no worse
than
many adults.

If it was that easy, why two tries before passing...and what
was his passing score when he did?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Because he didn't get serious about studying until after he failed it once.
It is not possible to make a test simple enough to always pass on the first
try without seriously compromising the test.

I did not note was his score was as the important point was that he passed.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Jason Hsu wrote:

The ARRL and the new NCVEC petitions call for creating a new Novice
class and upgrading Technicians to General. (I already commented on
the ARRL petition to the FCC.)

I'm not upset with the ARRL about this. The directors did what they
felt they had to do. But I'm still puzzled by parts of the proposal.

The highly controversial proposal of upgrading Technicians to General
is the result of insisting that all license classes be merged into
just 3 without downgrading privileges for any class. It's a game of
License Class Survivor, and all classes but 3 have to be voted off the
island. General and Amateur Extra are (correctly) considered too
important to eliminate, and Advanced licenses get upgraded to Amateur
Extra. So only one more license class can remain, and the ARRL and
NCVEC think that the Novice should remain and be reopened, and the
Technician license should be voted off the island. Because of the "no
downgrade" condition, Technician licenses are upgraded to General.

Interesting take on the issue, Jason.

My main concern is that there is a precedent in the proposed mass upgrade:

If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means that
after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come afterward.


Mike, that is absolutely false as an argument of any substance.
Government has given temporary waivers in many areas and no one
has ever been able to say that after the door closed on a particular
waiver, they should be allowed a similar waiver afterwards.

Is it fair to those that come afterward?


There will be a *powerful* argument that "The Tech elements were good
enough for the majority of hams to become General, so why should I have
to take a harder test?"


They can argue that until hell freezes over and it won't stand up in
any court. A one time "free pass" based on a legitamate FCC goal
of license and rules simplification is ample justification.


Bill, just the same as we (you) are on the verge of eliminating Element
one as the great barrier to the Amateur radio service, we can change the
entrance requirements.

And who needs to argue that in any court? We simply do it the same way
that you support upgrading Techs to Generals. The same way that we make
a new "communicator license, and have people sign affidavits that they
have read part 97


And although there is really no test process needed at all to get on HF
(witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels) I believe that we should
foster technical knowledge qualifications for the ARS.


No argument there...BUT the process still needs a solution and the
hodgepodge of 6 licenses and 6 sets of rules today just isn't needed.
That is why both ARRL and NCVEC have proposed almost identical
3 license plans with the "free" upgrades.


Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? During the years
when both the Novice and No-Code Technician licenses were available
for new hams, the new hams (including myself) overwhelmingly chose the
No-Code Technician.

Not difficult at all. Many people have taken and passed the test. I
can't think of any good arguments for reducing it.


Think of a very basic entry level that more than just extraordinary
bright kids can take and pass.

I could have passed the Technician exam in 7th grade, and there are
plenty enough people that think I'm as dumb as mud. I wasn't an
exceptional student or even close.


What's now the Technician exam was two separate
tests back then - Novice and Technician. Both the Novice and
Technician licenses required passing the Novice exam plus one more
exam. For the Novice license, the 5 wpm Morse Code exam was the
additional exam. For the No-Code Technician license, the Technician
exam was the additional exam. By at least a 20:1 or 30:1 margin, the
new hams chose the No-Code Technician exam. The new hams (including
myself) clearly thought that preparing the Technician exam was MUCH
easier than preparing for the 5 wpm exam. But in spite of this, the
ARRL thinks that the current Technician exam (a merger of the old
Novice and Technician exams) is too hard but says that the 5 wpm exam
is quite easy and uses this view as a partial justification as keeping
the 5 wpm exam requirement for the Amateur Extra license.

5WPM is easy for some, and not at all easy for others.


Agreed.


The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice
license obsolete. In the 2000 restructuring, the FCC closed the
Novice class for the same reason GM closed Oldsmobile - not enough
takers to justify the administrative costs and labor required.

Given all this, is it SO necessary to bring back the Novice class at
the expense of the Technician class? Why didn't the ARRL propose a
4-class system so that the popular Technician class could be kept?

My theories on why the ARRL thinks the Novice license is more
important than the Technician license:
1. The ARRL directors couldn't agree, so they proposed a compromise
that they felt would promote good PR. I don't think they seriously
expect the FCC to approve it.
2. Nostalgia about their Novice days led them to want to reopen and
reintroduce the Novice class.

That is a pretty good assessment, Jason.


I have already disagreed and said so in a different email.
I would especially doubt the ARRL expects a non-approval from
the FCC. The ARRL has a long standing positive relationship
with most, if not all, those in the FCC that will be assessing the
petitions. If there's any doubt in ARRL's mind, it is (IMHO)
likly tied to doubt that any code test will remain as opposed to
even having only a 5wpm test for Extra.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Jason Hsu wrote:

The ARRL and the new NCVEC petitions call for creating a new Novice
class and upgrading Technicians to General. (I already commented on
the ARRL petition to the FCC.)

I'm not upset with the ARRL about this. The directors did what they
felt they had to do. But I'm still puzzled by parts of the proposal.

The highly controversial proposal of upgrading Technicians to General
is the result of insisting that all license classes be merged into
just 3 without downgrading privileges for any class. It's a game of
License Class Survivor, and all classes but 3 have to be voted off the
island. General and Amateur Extra are (correctly) considered too
important to eliminate, and Advanced licenses get upgraded to Amateur
Extra. So only one more license class can remain, and the ARRL and
NCVEC think that the Novice should remain and be reopened, and the
Technician license should be voted off the island. Because of the "no
downgrade" condition, Technician licenses are upgraded to General.

Interesting take on the issue, Jason.

My main concern is that there is a precedent in the proposed mass
upgrade:

If the existing Technicians are upgraded to General, this means that
after we do this, we are discriminating against all that come afterward.


Mike, that is absolutely false as an argument of any substance.
Government has given temporary waivers in many areas and no one
has ever been able to say that after the door closed on a particular
waiver, they should be allowed a similar waiver afterwards.

Is it fair to those that come afterward?

Life's a bitch and then we die. Was it fair when new drivers no longer
had to take a drivers test on a manual gearshift auto? In any state today
you can take the driver's test on a car with automatic transmission
and then, having passed, go drive a car with a manual gearbox.

In many states, there have been waivers of penalties for people that
come forward to pay back taxes...and then, once the waiver period
is over, if someone else comes forward with a back taxes payment they
DO pay penalties.

There will be a *powerful* argument that "The Tech elements were good
enough for the majority of hams to become General, so why should I have
to take a harder test?"

They can argue that until hell freezes over and it won't stand up in
any court. A one time "free pass" based on a legitamate FCC goal
of license and rules simplification is ample justification.

Bill, just the same as we (you) are on the verge of eliminating Element
one as the great barrier to the Amateur radio service, we can change the
entrance requirements.

And who needs to argue that in any court? We simply do it the same way
that you support upgrading Techs to Generals. The same way that we make
a new "communicator license, and have people sign affidavits that they
have read part 97

If that's what you want, then you can file an RM asking the
FCC to consider it. Jim N2EY keeps saying the same thing
but admits it is just an argument and he'd never actually do so.

And although there is really no test process needed at all to get on HF
(witness CB'ers that run illegal power levels) I believe that we should
foster technical knowledge qualifications for the ARS.

No argument there...BUT the process still needs a solution and the
hodgepodge of 6 licenses and 6 sets of rules today just isn't needed.
That is why both ARRL and NCVEC have proposed almost identical
3 license plans with the "free" upgrades.

Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get? During the years
when both the Novice and No-Code Technician licenses were available
for new hams, the new hams (including myself) overwhelmingly chose the
No-Code Technician.

Not difficult at all. Many people have taken and passed the test. I
can't think of any good arguments for reducing it.

Think of a very basic entry level that more than just extraordinary
bright kids can take and pass.

I could have passed the Technician exam in 7th grade, and there are
plenty enough people that think I'm as dumb as mud. I wasn't an
exceptional student or even close.

Yet there's no doubt at all that the current Tech is more
difficult than the Novice ever was.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK