PAMNO (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.

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?

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.


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.

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.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY


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

73 de Alun, N3KIP

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
[snip]
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. Also, I don't think subband
restrictions by licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the
propagation is the same for the whole band.


It's not a matter of propagation. It's simply that band restrictions
are far easier to enforce. With a quick lookup of the call sign, you
can tell if the operator is staying within his privileges.


I agree that is why the FCC like it. It would work just as well with whole
bands, though, and actually offer a better incentive, e.g. there would be a
real incentive to get the bands inbetween the entry level ones to fill in
when propagation doesn't work on those ones for where you want to talk to.

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. 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.

Enforcement issues make this idea impractical not the "vested
interests" of those already licensed. It is impossible to determine if
a person is staying within his/her power restrictions unless you are
right next to the transmitter to make measurements. I've worked QRP
stations that nearly pegged my meter and other times could not pull a
kilowatt station out of the mud.

Power limits would rely solely on the honor system. This has worked
reasonably well so far for two reasons: 1) the majority of hams are
decent people and 2) the basic radio comes out of the box with 100
watts, which works reasonably well so there is not a lot of temptation
to hook up an amplifier and work illegally.

However you say "very restricted power". I'm assuming that you mean
something substantially less than today. So then you would have a
situation where the beginner has purchased a radio that significantly
exceeds his power privileges with no one being able to detect that
he/she is exceeding those privileges if they choose to operate it at
full power.

Or are you going to propose that they cannot purchase or own a radio
that exceeds their power privileges?? This would be a very bad
proposal. That would require mandating that hams show their licenses
to purchase equipment. It would have to also be illegal for a non-ham
to purchase such equipment even for a gift. It would be illegal for a
beginner to purchase almost all used equipment on the market. He'd, by
law, have to take the expensive, new equipment route. Or the
manufacturers might respond with cheap, low quality equipment that
would be unsuitable to connect to an amplifier (once the beginner
upgraded) as it would have the same problems as amplified CBs do now.

There may even be other ramifications of "very limited power"
privileges.

It is far better to select easily enforced requirements (i.e. band
limits) than items that are not easily enforced or items that require
creating an entire hierarchy of new regulations to support it.

Most of the rewards and privileges we get in life often have little
relationship to what we did to get them. Just look at our jobs.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



You are sure right about jobs, Dee! And I admit power limits have their
difficulties, although I still think they are appropriate for less
qualified hams, whether they can really be enforced or not. I still think
that a real incentive is to get more bands, not just more bits of the same
ones.

Alun, N3KIP

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.


It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General tests
that are not repeated in the Extra class test.

Right you are, Dee.

That would mean an exam of at least 100 questions, allowing for
overlap and the simplification of some rules. And the prospective ham
would have to pass it all in one shot.

Would that *really* be optimum for the ARS?

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
om:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.


It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General
tests that are not repeated in the Extra class test.

Right you are, Dee.

That would mean an exam of at least 100 questions, allowing for
overlap and the simplification of some rules. And the prospective ham
would have to pass it all in one shot.

Would that *really* be optimum for the ARS?

73 de Jim, N2EY


When the UK had a single theory test it had 95 questions of all levels of
difficulty. I thought that was optimum, so, of course, they did away with
it!

"Alun" wrote in message
...
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.


It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General
tests that are not repeated in the Extra class test.

Right you are, Dee.

That would mean an exam of at least 100 questions, allowing for
overlap and the simplification of some rules. And the prospective ham
would have to pass it all in one shot.

Would that *really* be optimum for the ARS?

73 de Jim, N2EY


When the UK had a single theory test it had 95 questions of all levels of
difficulty. I thought that was optimum, so, of course, they did away with
it!

Perhaps optimum for demonstrating the competency of the prospective ham but
probably not optimum in encouraging people to get into the hobby. People
would be put off by the amount of material that they would be required to
study and simply quit after a few days.

Although those who lost privileges with the introduction of the 5 step
licensing system were rightfully upset by this, still the data shows that
amateur radio had its largest and longest lasting sustained growth after
this was implemented. People want to take it in "bite size" chunks rather
that swallowing the whole ham (pun intended) at once.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On 23 Sep 2004 19:44:05 GMT, Alun wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

SNIP
- The concept of "subbands by license class" is intended to reward the
passing of more-advanced written tests.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I know what it's intended to do, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.
Consider our neighbours to the North who have to get an Advanced to access
40 and the WARC bands. That makes more sense than subbands. (That's only an
example - I'm not suggesting adopting the Canadian system wholesale).

Not quite correct, Alun - under the current license structure, access
to the Amateur bands in Canada is as follows:

Basic license - access to all Amateur bands over 30 MHz.
Advanced license only - same band access as Basic license only.
Basic license plus Morse Code - full access to all Amateur bands.
Advanced plus Morse Code - same band access as Basic plus Morse Code.

The Advanced allows more privileges - high power operation, ability to
sponsor a Club station, act as control operator for a repeater, become
a designated Examiner, build and / or repair your own transmitting
equipment, and a few others.

A Basic ticket (which uses a 100 question exam, and covers the same
material as the US Tech and General exams combined, more or less) plus
Morse is all you currently need for an "all access" Amateur Radio pass
up here!

Source: http://www.rac.ca/regulatory/allband.htm


73 de Alun, N3KIP

73, Leo

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

SNIP
- The concept of "subbands by license class" is intended to reward the
passing of more-advanced written tests.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I know what it's intended to do, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.

It makes perfect sense.

Consider our neighbours to the North who have to get an Advanced to access
40 and the WARC bands. That makes more sense than subbands.

No, it doesn't. What that does is to crowd certain bands and empty others.

(That's only an
example - I'm not suggesting adopting the Canadian system wholesale).

So which bands would you give to entry-level?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

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.



It would also need to include those elements from the Tech and General
tests
that are not repeated in the Extra class test.


Need? I doubt that the one classer's want the test level at the Extra
level to begin with, and might go apoplectic if the Tech and General
tests were included!

Then they're asking for wholesale downgrading of the written testing standards.
Bad idea.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Alun" wrote in message
.. .
[snip]
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. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by
licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same
for the whole band.

It's not a matter of propagation. It's simply that band restrictions are
far easier to enforce. With a quick lookup of the call sign, you can tell
if the operator is staying within his privileges.

Exactly!

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. 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.

Enforcement issues make this idea impractical not the "vested interests" of
those already licensed. It is impossible to determine if a person is
staying within his/her power restrictions unless you are right next to the
transmitter to make measurements. I've worked QRP stations that nearly
pegged my meter and other times could not pull a kilowatt station out of the
mud.

And the vagaries of antenna installation make it even less clear. I'd rather
have QRP and an excellent antenna than high power and a mediocre one.

Power limits would rely solely on the honor system. This has worked
reasonably well so far for two reasons: 1) the majority of hams are decent
people and 2) the basic radio comes out of the box with 100 watts, which
works reasonably well so there is not a lot of temptation to hook up an
amplifier and work illegally.

Also, amplifiers are fairly expensive, and the dBs per dollar can be steep.

However you say "very restricted power". I'm assuming that you mean
something substantially less than today. So then you would have a situation
where the beginner has purchased a radio that significantly exceeds his
power privileges with no one being able to detect that he/she is exceeding
those privileges if they choose to operate it at full power.

That's exactly the situation in Japan.

Or are you going to propose that they cannot purchase or own a radio that
exceeds their power privileges?? This would be a very bad proposal. That
would require mandating that hams show their licenses to purchase equipment.
It would have to also be illegal for a non-ham to purchase such equipment
even for a gift. It would be illegal for a beginner to purchase almost all
used equipment on the market. He'd, by law, have to take the expensive, new
equipment route.

Unless he/she bought used QRP stuff.

On top of that is the fact that a newcomer couldn't buy a transceiver until the
license was earned. So how is a newbie supposed to get a hands-on feel for the
ham bands?

In the bad old days of separate rx/tx, it was common for a would be ham to buy
or build a receiver and become familiar with ham radio before getting a
license. That's how many of us learned the code, too. Still a good idea, only
now the new ham now gets a transceiver in most cases. "No gear without a
license" would end that.

Or the manufacturers might respond with cheap, low quality
equipment that would be unsuitable to connect to an amplifier (once the
beginner upgraded) as it would have the same problems as amplified CBs do
now.

There may even be other ramifications of "very limited power" privileges.

New operator + compromise antenna + very low power = frustration.

It is far better to select easily enforced requirements (i.e. band limits)
than items that are not easily enforced or items that require creating an
entire hierarchy of new regulations to support it.

Yep.

Most of the rewards and privileges we get in life often have little
relationship to what we did to get them. Just look at our jobs.

In the case of subbands-by-license-class, there's another angle. The restricted
parts of the bands are usually less crowded. And they're where the DX often
hangs out, and where the contest overflow goes first. So they're "prime real
estate".

73 de Jim, N2EY

Wow! I just looked at the responses from my original post ... I didn't
mean to start a War.

Still looking for the basic question of WHEN will licensing restructuring
happen?

Thanks to all for the heated responses.



"Joe Guthart" wrote in message
...
What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse code
requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many countries
have already removed the morse code requirement to gain access to HF.
Sure there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code
alive. I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long? Can't
they come to some decision quickly. Anyone have a proposed timeline of
when this will be settled.