"Len Over 21" wrote


None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without
the modern frequency synthesizers ....


Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first
appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades
after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968.

Sunuvagun!

de Hans, K0HB

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

So wouldn't it make sense for FCC to conclude
that there are *not* a lot of people
who are "being kept out" by the code test?

I don't think the code test keeps anyone out of the Amateur Radio
service.

Agreed!

The people who disagree are those who say the code test must go to "foster and
insure growth", that it is a "barrier", etc.

On a somewhat related matter, I also don't think that we need a code
test to prove anyone's worthiness to operate on amateur frequencies
below 30MHz.

I agree partially - if it were up to me, all amateur licenses would require a
code test, not just those with privileges below 30 MHz. (But it's not up to
me).

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Oh, want increased "privileges?" Earn them. Sometimes earning something
(Like a degree, for example.) means "learning" a few things that you may
never use.

One can't "sell" the hobby while imposing things no longer necessary
to it.

Who decides what is "necessary"?

What happens when (not if) that same argument is applied to the written exams?
Most of what is in the written exams is no longer necessary for the legal
operation of an amateur radio station.

Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have a
whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve.
Remember the Regents!

People have been saying that since day one. So what else is new...

The result is bad ideas like NCVEC's "Communicator" license.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote


None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without
the modern frequency synthesizers ....


Wrong again, kind elderly Sir.. "modern frequency synthesizers" first
appeared in amateur radio equipment in the 80's, a couple of decades
after the imposition of "elaborate U.S. sub-division" in 1968.

Sunuvagun!

de Hans, K0HB

uh-oh, Hans, now you've done it......

You've used historical fact to prove that Lenover21 is mistaken about
something.

I'll 'draw fire' with some more historical facts:

- Hams were responsible for and successful at staying inside their allocated
bands and subbands (phone-image vs. cw-data) long before 1968 or "modern
frequency synthesizers".

- The concept of "subbands by license class" was proposed no later than 1964
and accepted in principle by FCC no later than 1965 - without "modern frequency
synthesizers".

- Some HF ham band and subband edges are/were not multiples of 100 kHz (top end
of 20 and 15, for example, or the edges of the old 11 meter amateur band). Many
have been that way since long before 1968 or "modern frequency synthesizers".

- With the exceptions of beacon and repeater operation, hams are not required
by regulation to operate on specific spot frequencies or channels. Nor are they
required to know their precise operating frequency other than that it is inside
the allocated band or subband. Nor are they required to use "modern frequency
synthesizers" or crystal control.

- Inexpensive, stable, precise, accurate self-controlled variable frequency
oscillators have been available for hams to build or buy since long before
1968.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

"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.

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

"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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote


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!


My proposal to FCC asks for a one-term, privilege-rich beginners permit,
and a "full-privilege" standard license with an exam including the
material currently covered on the Tech/General/Extra written
examinations. Current licensees could continue to renew in their
existing class, or upgrade to the new "standard" license class.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PAMNO (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).

73 de Alun, N3KIP