RadioBanter - US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea,
although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's
licence, and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine
need for more than two licences, though.

Then what you'd want, ideally, is a single class of license whose
written test would at least be equivalent to the current written
requirements for Extra - all in one go.

Not really, although the element 4 questions should be included in the pool
for it.

Devil's Advocate mode = ON

But why are the Element 4 questions needed at all? For that matter, why are
most of the Element 3 questions needed (See below)

Also, I don't think subband restrictions by
licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same
for the whole band.

They are a good idea because they act as an incentive. Of course if
there were only one class of license, they would no longer exist.

Incentive subbands run counter to the core purpose of testing - to ensure
competency. The appropriate level of competency for access to a different
part of the same band at the same power level is, um, let me see - the
same. Big surprise, huh?

By that logic, (insuring competency) there is no reason for any of the Element
4 questions at all, because a General has all of the bands, modes and power
levels of Extras.

So *if* we accept the idea that the only reason for license testing is to
insure competency, and that the General test insures competency for the bands
and modes allocated to it, then there's no reason for the Extra at all.

In fact, we can go a step farther. The Technician allows full power on all
authorized modes and bands above 30 MHz. Therefore, if the reason for testing
beyond the Tech is to insure HF competency, then the only questions that should
be on the General are those specific to HF competency.

Devil's Advocate mode = OFF

The problem with the above argument is that there are reasons for license
testing beyond simply insuring competency.

Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on
the whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the
spectrum.

How restricted, and which bands?

I'm not sure how much, maybe QRP, maybe a bit more. It doesn't really
matter exactly which bands, harmonically related combinations such as 40
and 15 would be good.

The power level and bands *do* matter IMHO!

I think that an ideal entry level license would include parts or all of
*all* HF/MF amateur bands. Here's why:

1) Propagation on the various bands varies widely with time of day,
time of year and sunspot cycle. Having the widest possible selection of
bands would allow an entry-level amateur to use the best band for a
given set of conditions and resources, and also affords an opportunity
to learn about the various bands, propagation, etc.

Bands spread throughout the spectrum would acheive that without giving them
every band.

But why not give them every band and let them make the choice?

2) One of the biggest problems facing many amateurs is antenna
restrictions. Another is equipment cost. Often an amateur has to make
do with compromise antennas and equipment which limit the choice of
bands. Having the widest possible selection of bands would allow an
entry-level amateur to use the best band for a given antenna/rig
combination, and also affords an incentive to upgrade so more space on
most bands could be earned.

Or gaining those bands that their random wire works best on might be an
incentive to upgrade, if you look at it from another angle.

How are they to know which bands work best with their setup if they cannot use
some of them?

Why not simply give the broadest selection possible and let the newcomer sample
whatever looks/sounds interesting?

Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The
problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a
scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make
this idea impracticable.

Not at all!

All that would be required would be:

1) Existing license classes other than Extra closed off to new licenses
after a certain date. They keep their existing privileges and can
renew/modify indefinitely.

2) Existing license holders could upgrade to Extra by passing the
required written tests.

3) The new entry-level license class has its own privilege set.

4) Existing license holders other than Extra get the combined
privileges of their existing license and the new entry level license.

Eventually everyone in the closed-off license classes will either
upgrade or leave by attrition, and the rules governing them can be
removed without an NPRM. For example, we're down to about 30,000
Novices now, and dropping every month. When the last Novice is gone
from the database, the rules about that license class can be removed
from Part 97.

Your transition plan is messy, and unlikely to appeal to the FCC as it
leaves many loose ends.

FCC was offered some very neat transition plans before the last restructuring.
All were turned down. So they obviously aren't in any hurry to tie up loose
ends.

"Messy" is in the eye of the beholder. Under the above plan, we would probably
have a less-complicated band chart than today.

There are all kinds of variations possible. For example, consider this one:

- Extra renamed "Full", otherwise stays as is.

- Advanced gets all 'phone privileges

- "Entry", General, and Tech/Novice get General privileges. Only difference is
power level allowed.

- All classes except "Full" and "Entry" are closed off to new issues.

This isn't my ideal, just an example. Why wouldn't FCC go for it if a majority
of comments supported it?

K0HB/Hans' proposal makes more and more sense....

73 de Jim, N2EY