Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Do we really need a new Novice class? | Policy | |||
Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
There is no International Code Requirement and techs can operate HF according to FCC Rules | General | |||
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | Policy | |||
Hey CBers Help Get rid of Morse Code Test and Requirement | Policy |