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.

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. 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.

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.

Jason Hsu, AG4DG
usenet AAAAATTTTTT jasonhsu.com
http://www.jasonhsu.com/ee.html

"Jason Hsu" wrote in message
om...
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.

Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get?

I would venture to say it is harder to get than the Novice (if we
still had novice testing) . That's the
problem as percieved by ARRL, NCVEC and other.

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.

But that's probably because you were an adult and only the Tech
gave sufficient VHF capability to allow you to engage in voice
operations, especially via FM.

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 that was again most likly because you didn't want to
be limited to the Novice HF and limited VHF privileges.

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.

The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice
license obsolete.

I agee only to the extent that VHF operations had become a much
greater part of ham radio capabilities.

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.

True to a point, but that again was a result of operating
privileges, not (IMHO) the locense difficulty of 5 wpm.

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?

You'll have to ask ARRL...but before you do, kook at the
privileges to be granted to new Novice class under both ARRL
and NCVECs petition. Before the Novice was almost an exclusive
HF with code operating license. That will change significantly.
The Novice was a gateway for many of us when getting on the
air really was pretty much an HF only thing. The Novice clearly
offered a great starting point for youth...far more than does
today's tech.

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.

I disagree. I believe they want an easier entrance license than
tech that allows youth to get a license AND offers a full array
of operating privileges (HF, VHF, SSB, FM, CW, etc) to that
license. Today's Novice is effectively an HF non-phone lcense
and todays Tech is clearly a VHF/UHF only license. That's
the problem.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Jason Hsu" wrote in message
om...

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.

Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get?


I would venture to say it is harder to get than the Novice (if we
still had novice testing) . That's the
problem as percieved by ARRL, NCVEC and other.

Probably was harder than the Novice, at least question wise. but we
aren't talking about orders of magnitude harder. I like how Jim N2EY
puts it, that the old tests tested more in depth on fewer subjects,
while the new Technician tests test more subjects to lesser depth.



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.


But that's probably because you were an adult and only the Tech
gave sufficient VHF capability to allow you to engage in voice
operations, especially via FM.

That is a *big* reason, and was why I went the Technician route. A
smaller reason is the element one test. For some of us, that was a lot
harder. But both were a big part of the demise of the old Novice class.


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 that was again most likly because you didn't want to
be limited to the Novice HF and limited VHF privileges.


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.

The record is clear. The No-Code Technician license made the Novice
license obsolete.


I agee only to the extent that VHF operations had become a much
greater part of ham radio capabilities.


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.


True to a point, but that again was a result of operating
privileges, not (IMHO) the locense difficulty of 5 wpm.

I think it was a little bit of both, Bill. Mostly privileges, but there
is a sizable minority that find Element 1 daunting. If I hadn't, I
probably would have become a novice long before they ever had a no-code
Tech.


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?


You'll have to ask ARRL...but before you do, kook at the
privileges to be granted to new Novice class under both ARRL
and NCVECs petition. Before the Novice was almost an exclusive
HF with code operating license. That will change significantly.
The Novice was a gateway for many of us when getting on the
air really was pretty much an HF only thing. The Novice clearly
offered a great starting point for youth...far more than does
today's tech.


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.


I disagree. I believe they want an easier entrance license than
tech that allows youth to get a license AND offers a full array
of operating privileges (HF, VHF, SSB, FM, CW, etc) to that
license. Today's Novice is effectively an HF non-phone lcense
and todays Tech is clearly a VHF/UHF only license. That's
the problem.

But is the Technician license all that hard? I barely studied for mine,
I might be as guilty as the PCTA's that like to talk about how a person
can "get" Morse in one weekend, but I'm amazed that people would
consider the Technician test too hard.

Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a
good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no
requirements? Learn as they go?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a
good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no
requirements? Learn as they go?

- Mike KB3EIA -

If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will tell
any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to
General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a
good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no
requirements? Learn as they go?

- Mike KB3EIA -

If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will
tell
any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to
General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise.

Do you really believe that bringing in a new ham at the
proposed novice level isn't worth it?

My goal or objective would be to encourage
as many new people, especially kids, to get a novice license
and just see how it goes from there.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a
good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no
requirements? Learn as they go?

- Mike KB3EIA -

If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will
tell
any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to
General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise.

Do you really believe that bringing in a new ham at the
proposed novice level isn't worth it?

My goal or objective would be to encourage
as many new people, especially kids, to get a novice license
and just see how it goes from there.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

It is worthwhile to encourage them to become a ham yes and I will do so.
But from the discussion of what is proposed to be on the "new novice" or
communicator tests, a one evening two hour session will do to cover the
material in more depth than they will need. I'm not going to set up a
single session one hour class. It's too much hassle to get a room, books,
etc for that. I would willingly tutor individuals at my home for that
license for a few hours but will not run a class for it. I'd set up the
class so the first week, we discuss that study guide which they will have
been asked to read in advance. We will discuss any questions that they may
have on it. The remaining class weeks would cover the material to go on to
General.

I want to bring new hams into the hobby but I'm simply not going to spend my
time teaching material that simple. Nothing against the people or even
really against the material. I simply expect a better return on my
investment of time. I will not get that teaching material aimed at the
elementary school level when I am teaching adults. To me the satisfaction
comes in seeing their faces light up when we've conquered a difficult
chapter.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Bill Sohl wrote:

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a
good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no
requirements? Learn as they go?

- Mike KB3EIA -

If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will

tell

any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to
General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise.


Do you really believe that bringing in a new ham at the
proposed novice level isn't worth it?

If the tests are going to be geared to "an average sixth grader", and
one of the requirements is to sign a paper stating that you have read
part 97, exactly what is the class going to consist of? And since ther
is a good possibility that the General test is going to end up being at
the level of the Technician license.

I know I'm mixing proposals there, but the point is, maybe the new
novice or communicator should be easy enough that people *don't* have to
take any classes for it.


My goal or objective would be to encourage
as many new people, especially kids, to get a novice license
and just see how it goes from there.

Sure, I will work with whatever we have. That doesn't mean that I have
to like it tho'

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a
good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no
requirements? Learn as they go?

- Mike KB3EIA -



If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will tell
any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to
General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I would agree, *if* you mean that you will do a class where people,
partway in your
class, get the "Novice" or whatever it's called, and then continue on to
General.
How to enforce "no drop-outs" is another question....

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Indeed, if we support the lowered power limits, and all, is there a
good argument for simply letting Novices on the air with no
requirements? Learn as they go?

- Mike KB3EIA -



If the new "Novice" or "Communicator" proposals get instituted, I will
tell
any beginning class that I teach that we are going to go all the way to
General. It won't be worth my time to teach otherwise.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I would agree, *if* you mean that you will do a class where people,
partway in your
class, get the "Novice" or whatever it's called, and then continue on to
General.
How to enforce "no drop-outs" is another question....


Sure no problem with them taking the Novice as they feel like it. It might
even be beneficial as they will, as did we all, struggle a bit to get on the
air. What could be more convenient than going to a class you are already
enrolled in? I would stress the point that they can bring questions to
class as it will benefit all the other students. As to enforcing
attendance, we give our classes through the Parks and Recreation Department,
etc. They charge for the use of the room. Thus the students have to pay a
registration fee and that must be for the whole course that goes directly to
the Parks and Recreation depart. So some will stay just because they have
paid for the entire thing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

Is the No-Code Technician license THAT hard to get?

I would venture to say it is harder to get than the Novice (if we
still had novice testing) . That's the
problem as percieved by ARRL, NCVEC and other.

Granted, a No-Code Novice (if it existed) would be easier to get than
a No-Code Technician license. But if the No-Code Technician license
was too hard but the Coded Novice license was easy to get, then why
didn't more new hams get the Novice license first and then upgrade to
Technician Plus later?

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.

But that's probably because you were an adult and only the Tech
gave sufficient VHF capability to allow you to engage in voice
operations, especially via FM.

OK, but giving Tech Plus privileges to No-Code Technicians would give
this new entry-level class the same HF privileges that the Novice
licensees have. Also, removing the 5 wpm requirement for the General
class would make it easier for No-Code Technicians to upgrade. This
would resolve the issue of the lack of HF privileges for the No-Code
Technicians. If the Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges aren't enough,
then an expansion of them would be called for. A modest expansion of
Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges would be MUCH more sensible than
automatic upgrades to the General class.

Although I believe the 5 wpm exam should be eliminated for all license
classes, I oppose the free upgrades from No-Code Technician to General
because the Technician exam was never intended to prepare people to
use General class privileges and the General class license was never
intended to be an entry-level license. Most people (except for a few
of the most strident pro-code testers who want to brag about passing
the 13 wpm exam) have no objections to the free upgrades from Advanced
to Amateur Extra since most of the current Amateur Extra exam question
pool was previously in the Advanced exam question pool. But the same
argument does NOT apply in upgrading Technicians to General. If the
General exam were that unnecessary, then why wasn't it merged in the
restructuring of 2000, and why won't it be eliminated in the ARRL
proposal? I highly doubt that anyone staunchly favors free upgrades
from Technician to General. I think this part of the ARRL proposal is
simply the result of insisting on both a 3-class system AND a new
Novice class. In my opinion, either current Novices should be merged
into the Technician class (with Tech Plus privileges), OR there should
be 4 license classes (Novice, Technician, General, Amateur Extra).

I disagree. I believe they want an easier entrance license than
tech that allows youth to get a license AND offers a full array
of operating privileges (HF, VHF, SSB, FM, CW, etc) to that
license. Today's Novice is effectively an HF non-phone lcense
and todays Tech is clearly a VHF/UHF only license. That's
the problem.

I still think that the Technician license is fine as an entry-level
license and that the Technician exam isn't terribly hard - just an
extended version of the old Novice exam. If a No-Code Novice license
is created, it should NOT be at the expense of the Technician license.
As I mentioned before, offering HF privileges to current Technicians
doesn't require upgrading them to General - simply giving No-Code
Technicians the Tech Plus privileges would accomplish this. Offering
HF voice privileges (in addition to the slice of 10m) to current
Technicians can be done by adding more voice privileges to the
license. Automatic upgrades to General are not necessary and are
unwarranted.

Jason Hsu, AG4DG