|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
KØHB wrote: kb9rqz wrote: are you willing should the issue arise (you know RRAPer and proof) to make the full data avable if asked? Yes. impress as proof Only flaw I saw was I ddi not find were you were id as subitting that log but even that is nitpicking since the point is made if anyone made those contacts http://lists.contesting.com/pipermai...er/065854.html |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
From: Jeffrey Herman on Dec 29, 10:47 am
"K؈B" wrote "Jeffrey Herman" wrote Let's crunch some numbers: Our total MF/HF spectrum consists of just 3.75 MHz, with only about half of it, 1875 kHz, useful for communications at any one particular time of the day. If suddenly, as if by magic, all licensees were granted MF/HF privileges, we could possibly have 670,000 hams attempting to fill that 1.875 MHz. Watch this closely, boys and girls. We're about to be given a demonstration of "figures don't lie, but liars figure". In this case the person "figuring" is no less than a self-proclaimed university "math lecturer", so we're seeing a pro at work! "Self-proclaimed"? Send me an email and I'll give you the phone number of the personnel office -- they'll verify that I've been a Step C Lecturer for 20 years. There's NO need to call long-distance to the University of Hawaii. Everyone can access www.hawaii.edu, click down a few pages to Kapiolani Community College class schedules. Under that will be two classes in Elementary Algebra I taught by Jeffrey Herman. The 2006 class schedule begins 9 January, continues to May 12, 3 credits, course number 24. ELEMENTARY ALGEBRA I is not exactly what one would call "higher mathematics" in any mainland university. A COMMUNITY COLLEGE is still a 2-year "junior college" even though aligned with a University; a "university" is a collection of individual colleges, has always been thus. A LECTURER in mathematics carries with it the concept of some professor of high or many degrees "lecturing in a hall" (mini- auditorium size). Elementary Algebra I is, by title, an INTRODUCTION to mathematics, not even close to beginning The Calculus. Such a "lecturer" is really an INSTRUCTOR, a TEACHER. Nothing wrong with being a teacher, such is well respected by most folks. (I've never understood why liberals resort to name-calling and sarcasm; do they lack the ability to provide a rebuttal in a calm and polite manner?) Well, I've never understood why someone has to "sign" his postings using TITLES which work on the emotional perception of others by omitting full details. Being a "Chief Petty Officer" in the USCG is fine, but there IS a difference between being on active duty and in the reserves. Since the USCG had one of the smallest of all military branches' communications networks, such a title is hardly any relation to the HOBBY of amateur radio...which, when not being used for the purpose of title-rank-privelege personal pleasures, is about radio communications. Okay, I'll grant you that folks have to work and sleep, so let's say at any one time, we have one-fourth of all 670 kilohams on the air, with two per QSO. One-fourth? That averages out to 6 hours of hamming every day by every ham, or 167,500 US hams on the air at any given instant, 24/7. It was a worst-case starting point. Feel free to take that 670,000 and chop it down anyway you please, then divide that figure into bandwidth of usable spectrum at a particular time of day. To be accurate, the 1.7 MHz of 10m should be excluded at this time, bringing that 3.75 MHz of total spectrum bandwidth down to 2.05 MHz. 2,050,000 Hz divided by (670,000 hams divided by 2 hams per QSO) gives the worst-case scenario, about 6 Hz per QSO. Now you can take that figure and use it in any reasonable and realistic manner you please. Actually, I would take your "worst-case scenario" and THROW IT INTO THE DUMPSTER WITH "GREAT FORCE." [borrowing from Hans] First of all, "the bands" as colloquial ham-speak for HF only wouldn't be used ENTIRELY, even by the "highest" class hams. The world above 30 MHz has 99+% of all the bandwidth of amateur radio frequency allocations in the USA. Secondly, "excluding" the 10 meter band is ridiculous. It is entirely BELOW 30 MHz, thus qualifies as being IN "the bands" (those below 30 MHz). Third, there are SEVEN time zones among the United States. Not all radio amateurs would be ON "the bands" at the same time, certainly so during week/work days. For more practical application, one can consider FIVE time zones (excluding the far west and far east portions of Alaska where population is less dense). Fourth, the morseaholics would be down in the "lower halves" of "the bands" playing with the morsemanship skills, pretending to be "pros" at OOK CW. Their numbers would remain relatively the same as now since there is NO great hue and cry by newcomers to do the morse thing. Fifth, the number of no-code-test Technicians is presently on the order of approximately quarter million of all licensees (Technician class is just over 300 thousand, or twice as many as General class). Technician Plus is about 45 thousand. IF, and only IF all those denied HF operating privileges before were now given permission to operate below 30 MHz, the ACTUAL "worst-case" scenario would call for ONLY a doubling of the "bands" occupancy. There is NOTHING approaching the "6 Hz per licensee worst-case" NOW, quite observable by just listening. Sixth, the conventional QSO - as it is done now - is simplex. One licensee is transmitting while the other is listening. In some cases, "netting" has several licensees on the same frequency, but only one transmitting at any one time. There is NO WAY that all licensees would be ON THE AIR at the same time. The most popular US operating event is the ARRL Field Day. And if all 670 kilohams DID have HF privileges, the worst-case scenario above *might* actually occur. NOT in the foreseeable future, i.e., the next decade IMHO. Other than those five "60m" channels allocated for USA hams, how much have radio amateurs gotten since 1979? [1979 is 26 years ago, a quarter century] If you are really, really worried about spectrum space in "the bands," then the time is NOW to start getting some change momentum going. WRC-07 is only two years away. The ARRL has been ineffectual in getting anything more than a few 60m channels. The long-time "pro" hams haven't helped out on that in their efforts of "citing need" to the FCC in regards to the 60m BAND petition. Jeff KH6O -- Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System Hey, I can do that sort of thing in the same style if you can... -- Staff Sergeant, United States Army Signal Corps Retired from regular hours aerospace electronics design engineer Life Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Aircraft flyer, ex-AMA19700 Nationally-published (many times) author Qualified vehicle driver, International and California licensee Industrial and Art Illustrator Feline wrangler and server Guest lecturer on aerospace at select California Magnet Schools Neighborhood Association Speaker Groundskeeper at select Southern California properties Husband to my high school sweetheart Sunnuvagun! :-) |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
From: K0HB on Dec 29, 7:18 am
wrote You'll probably see that raised to 100-150 W on HF because there are so many ~100 W rigs in existence. The 50W number was chosen because it's a "safe" level according to OET thinking. If there were a 50W permit, manufacturers would quickly market a 50W rigs, just as they manufacture 10W versions of many popular rigs for the JA market. The EXACT RF power output maximum is rather irrelevant. The market can decide the de facto power level after the FCC picks an arbitrary level to fit the greenies' anti-radiation mindset. But "re-takeable" - if someone took the Class B test again, they'd get another 10 years as Class B - right? Not in my proposal. Jimmie has difficulty grasping new concepts. 1) What test would be required for upgrade to Class A for current licenses? Pass the Class A test. Like I said, difficulty in grasping... 2) Would there be any experience requirement for Class B hams that wanted to upgrade to Class A? I originally proposed a "time in grade" requirement, but in retrospect I can't find a logical regulatory reason to defend the idea. There isn't any logical regulatory reason for "time in grade." All that existed before is the CONCEPT in some hams' minds that amateur radio was a 'service' and thus had to be 'professional' as a guild or craft or union. Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY and should be regulated as such. 3) If the licenses are issued "for life", how would FCC know when an amateur expired unless next-of-kin sent official notification? Since no benefits accrue to an "expired" ham, the FCC has no interest in their passing. Were there EVER any benefits for an expired licensee? Other than the follow-on-to-new-rules-changes grandfathering? 4) What would happen to the vanity callsign program under your plan? Obviously a Class A could get a callsign from any block, but what would be available to Class B? Each new licensee would get a new call in sequential order. Vanity calls would be available to any licensee without regard to "blocks". Well, on the practical side (of dealing with some amateurs), this would put a crimp in the VANITY system of getting "snazzy 1x2" callsigns for 'youngsters.' :-) The 1x2 callsign has very much been an ego-trip for many hams and deemed quite desireable with the 'guru' status of an 'old- timer.' With only ONE 'block' instead of five at one time, there isn't any need for 'blocks' of favoritism. [new concepts are still difficult for some to grasp] I would suggest a stricter control at the Commission on CLUB calls, perhaps with an extra alphabetic character reserved for those in the future. It's been obvious that many hams have violated the spirit of the club license in the past, fabricated fictitious "clubs" in order to gather many licenses and callsigns (for whatever their personal purpose). Such club calls have been the SAME as the sequential callsign granting and, as such, take out some of the callsigns that might be desired by others under the Vanity system. There is little point in having club calls essentially undifferentiable with individual calls as it is now. Club activities would normally be different than individuals' activities. But, that is a minor matter of no real consequence now and that minor subject is only good for more flaming in here. All in all, Hans, I can see your new concept is logical, sensible, simpler in regulatory structure than it has been for decades. The biggest problem will be with all those other ego-boo types who NEED the 'seniority' emotional baggage of being "better than others." :-) |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Dec 27 2005 8:45 pm cut They do try to run people off who happen to disagree with them. I even entertained thoughts of leaving the group at one time, but I won't let them run me off. I plan to turn off the lights when this group is done. Between Steve and Mark, that may be sooner than I thought. I am sorry for my part in that BB and most of the rest, but one looks at ones opitions and makes one choices, in this case By trying to fight fire with hotter flame I have some success not as much as I would like when I get some new inspriation I will shifitng tactics a bit but stevie posts a lot less attack threads this and and by reading my title you generaly stay out of the them if you like like I have said I have decided to reshape the wasteland of RRAP to something I can be more comforatble in. prehaps ymay you are less other than Stevie Dave and Hans. I offer my apolgies. To steve and Dave I wish basicaly plague, to Hans the vsiosn to see whatever the heck you are doing cut |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
KØHB wrote:
wrote You'll probably see that raised to 100-150 W on HF because there are so many ~100 W rigs in existence. The 50W number was chosen because it's a "safe" level according to OET thinking. OK. Also, almost any "100W" rig can be run at 50 W. If there were a 50W permit, manufacturers would quickly market a 50W rigs, just as they manufacture 10W versions of many popular rigs for the JA market. Maybe. My point is only that you'd probably see lots of comments wanting it raised to 100-150 W. Not a deal-killer in any event. But "re-takeable" - if someone took the Class B test again, they'd get another 10 years as Class B - right? Not in my proposal. So it's one 10-year Class B per person - just like the old Novice. That part might not survive the process because FCC would have the additional admin work of making sure someone had never held a Class B before. But again, it's not a deal-killer in any event. 1) What test would be required for upgrade to Class A for current licenses? Pass the Class A test. So everyone is on an even footing WRT upgrading to Class A. This raises another question.... Obviously after the change took place there would be only two test elements - call them Element A and Element B. Obviously getting a Class B would require passing Element B and getting a Class A would require passing Element A. But would Class A also require passing Element B if a person did not hold any class of license before? Or would Element A include everything that was in Element B? Just a detail, really, but for completeness sake... 2) Would there be any experience requirement for Class B hams that wanted to upgrade to Class A? I originally proposed a "time in grade" requirement, but in retrospect I can't find a logical regulatory reason to defend the idea. Plus it would be one more admin thing to do. OK 3) If the licenses are issued "for life", how would FCC know when an amateur expired unless next-of-kin sent official notification? Since no benefits accrue to an "expired" ham, the FCC has no interest in their passing. The biggest problem I can see is that a lot of callsigns would become unavailable unless next-of-kin wrote letters to FCC. Which may be good - or bad. 4) What would happen to the vanity callsign program under your plan? Obviously a Class A could get a callsign from any block, but what would be available to Class B? Each new licensee would get a new call in sequential order. Vanity callswould be available to any licensee without regard to "blocks". So there could be Class B hams with 1x2s and Class A hams with 2x3s.... Some might object to that. However, since the rules would go into effect only after notice was given, all existing hams would have adequate time to upgrade to whatever "old" class of license they wanted before the change took place. They would also have adequate time to get a vanity call before the change. In addition, the granting of vanity calls to Class B would be an added incentive for them to upgrade before the license ran out, because their callsign would be immediately available to others when their Class B ran out - unless they upgraded. --- I'm not sure whether I like this proposal or not. But that's beside the point, really. What's really interesting is that it meets practically all of the criteria I mentioned earlier: - Nobody loses any privileges - Nobody gains any privileges without testing - No real increase in admin work (Class A is really a rebadged, lifetime Extra, and Class B is one new class). - Some admin work will actually decrease. Only one upgrade per ham will be possible. No renewals. Only two test elements. - No big changes to the VEC or QPC systems IOW, it's a complete proposal - just needs to be written up in the proper format. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:18:18 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote in t: wrote You'll probably see that raised to 100-150 W on HF because there are so many ~100 W rigs in existence. The 50W number was chosen because it's a "safe" level according to OET thinking. If there were a 50W permit....... Why even have a "learner's permit" at all? Looks to me like the hobby got along just fine all these years without one, so why start now? In fact, I recently picked up a 1940 edition of the ARRL Handbook, and at that time there was only one license with no learner's permit. The concept (according to the second chapter) was to memorize the code while building your first receiver, listen on your receiver to improve your code while building your first transmitter, and all the while studying for the written test. Sounds like a plan to me. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:18:18 GMT, "KØHB" wrote in t: wrote You'll probably see that raised to 100-150 W on HF because there are so many ~100 W rigs in existence. The 50W number was chosen because it's a "safe" level according to OET thinking. If there were a 50W permit....... Why even have a "learner's permit" at all? Looks to me like the hobby got along just fine all these years without one, so why start now? ?? The current license structure is a direct descendant of the 1951 restructuring that gave us a system with licenses called Novice, Technician, General, Conditional, Advanced, and Extra. In fact, I recently picked up a 1940 edition of the ARRL Handbook, and at that time there was only one license with no learner's permit. Read it some more. In 1940 there were three classes of US amateur radio license - Class A, Class B and Class C. That system was in place from 1933 to 1951, The concept (according to the second chapter) was to memorize the code while building your first receiver, listen on your receiver to improve your code while building your first transmitter, and all the while studying for the written test. Sounds like a plan to me. That's what I did. The question is how much should be required to get the intitial license. In 1940, the minimum requirement for the Class B or C license was 13 wpm Morse Code, sending and receiving, plus a written test of about 50 questions that included multiple choice questions, drawing schematic and block diagrams, and answering some essay questions. Since then, the requirements have changed somewhat... |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote So there could be Class B hams with 1x2s and Class A hams with 2x3s.... Yup. Some might object to that. There are also people who might object to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight sweaters, and no bra, but I ignore them. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:18:18 GMT, "KØHB" wrote in t: wrote You'll probably see that raised to 100-150 W on HF because there are so many ~100 W rigs in existence. The 50W number was chosen because it's a "safe" level according to OET thinking. If there were a 50W permit....... Why even have a "learner's permit" at all? Looks to me like the hobby got along just fine all these years without one, so why start now? In fact, I recently picked up a 1940 edition of the ARRL Handbook, and at that time there was only one license with no learner's permit. The concept (according to the second chapter) was to memorize the code while building your first receiver, listen on your receiver to improve your code while building your first transmitter, and all the while studying for the written test. Sounds like a plan to me. the best answer is to allow for some reduced size of a question pool but the more I look at what is suggested the more I don't see the point Jim attirude makes it look an awfull lot like just another scheme to set anf maintian classism in the ARS ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
KØHB wrote: wrote So there could be Class B hams with 1x2s and Class A hams with 2x3s.... Yup. Some might object to that. There are also people who might object to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight sweaters, and no bra, but I ignore them. Hans you proposals are well thought out they have some merit but one have you read tany of the thread on the English Fl license holders or the AU fellows do you have in your bag of tricks some way of heading of such abuse? or coments on why this propoasal will not endgender the same sort of abuse? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
On 29 Dec 2005 20:04:16 -0800, wrote in
.com: Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:18:18 GMT, "KØHB" wrote in t: wrote You'll probably see that raised to 100-150 W on HF because there are so many ~100 W rigs in existence. The 50W number was chosen because it's a "safe" level according to OET thinking. If there were a 50W permit....... Why even have a "learner's permit" at all? Looks to me like the hobby got along just fine all these years without one, so why start now? ?? The current license structure is a direct descendant of the 1951 restructuring that gave us a system with licenses called Novice, Technician, General, Conditional, Advanced, and Extra. So the proposed "learner's permit" would be equivalent to..... what? In fact, I recently picked up a 1940 edition of the ARRL Handbook, and at that time there was only one license with no learner's permit. Read it some more. In 1940 there were three classes of US amateur radio license - Class A, Class B and Class C. That system was in place from 1933 to 1951, I browsed through it some more but I didn't see any mention of the different classes of licenses. You may be right and it may be there, but I haven't found it yet. Nor have I found any mention of a "learner's permit". The concept (according to the second chapter) was to memorize the code while building your first receiver, listen on your receiver to improve your code while building your first transmitter, and all the while studying for the written test. Sounds like a plan to me. That's what I did. The question is how much should be required to get the intitial license. In 1940, the minimum requirement for the Class B or C license was 13 wpm Morse Code, sending and receiving, plus a written test of about 50 questions that included multiple choice questions, drawing schematic and block diagrams, and answering some essay questions. Sounds fair to me. And if you're going to keep the code then 13wpm is just about right. When I learned Morse I found that it's hard to learn at a rate slower than 12wpm. Plus, that's about the minimum speed needed for any practical use (from what I hear across the spectrum). Since then, the requirements have changed somewhat... I think the term is "dumbed down". Still, I don't see any point in having a learner's permit. It's not like driving a car........ ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Still, I don't see any point in having a learner's permit. It's not like driving a car........ when I had leaners permit long time ago, I steped on wrong pedal an drove dady's car into church doors. momma always say I going to hell for that when she drinking but sheok rest time. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
an Old friend wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote: Still, I don't see any point in having a learner's permit. It's not like driving a car........ when I had leaners permit long time ago, I steped on wrong pedal an drove dady's car into church doors. momma always say I going to hell for that when she drinking but sheok rest time. more forgery np stevei you can go one either being a PoS or inspiring them after al nothing I can realy to stop you |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
KØHB wrote:
wrote So there could be Class B hams with 1x2s and Class A hams with 2x3s.... Yup. Some might object to that. There are also people who might object to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight sweaters, and no bra, but I ignore them. I don't! I pay lots of attention to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight sweaters, and no bra.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote So there could be Class B hams with 1x2s and Class A hams with 2x3s.... Yup. Some might object to that. There are also people who might object to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight sweaters, and no bra, but I ignore them. I don't! I pay lots of attention to pretty girls wearing lipstick, tight sweaters, and no bra.... WHERE !?!?!?! |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote ...... what is your specific proposal? I propose that new license applications be available in two classes, namely "Class B" and "Class A". The "Class B" learners permit would have an entry-level test (basic regulations, safety, operating procedures, basic DC and AC electronics). This class would have full frequency and mode privileges, power limited to 50W output. The permit would be issued for a period of 10 years, and be non-renewable. The "Class A" license test would be of a difficulty level similar to the current Extra class test, and would have full privileges at power levels up to 1500W, equivalent to current Extra Class license holders. This license would be issued "for life" without requirement for renewal. Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would retain their current operating privileges. Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class licensees could upgrade to "Class A" at any time. Given the non-renewable aspect of your Class B and a difficulty level for Class A being set to approximate today's Extra; I think that presents a very large jump from B to A in one test element. Today, even with 3 element steps to Extra we see limited (i.e. about 15%) of today's hams going to Extra. Once code is gone, some of that will increase, but I suspect many people find their needs addressed at Tech or General. Perhaps a set of 3 classes, A, B & C would make more sense wherby Class A would be as Hans proposes, Class C would be the non-renewable Class B he proposed and we call my suggested Class B a renewable version of the Class C. Class B would be 100% identical to Class C except it would be renewable and it would have a test element equivalent to todays General. Just some more thoughts, what say you folks? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"Bill Sohl" wrote Given the non-renewable aspect of your Class B and a difficulty level for Class A being set to approximate today's Extra; I think that presents a very large jump from B to A in one test element. My proposal gives you a generous 10 years to prepare. Perhaps a set of 3 classes, A, B & C would make more sense wherby Class A would be as Hans proposes, Class C would be the non-renewable Class B he proposed and we call my suggested Class B a renewable version of the Class C. Class B would be 100% identical to Class C except it would be renewable and it would have a test element equivalent to todays General. Just some more thoughts, what say you folks? Your proposal perpetuates the caste system currently in place which stratifies and divides hams into arbitrary ranks. That mentality absolutely needs to be destroyed. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:22:16 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote Given the non-renewable aspect of your Class B and a difficulty level for Class A being set to approximate today's Extra; I think that presents a very large jump from B to A in one test element. My proposal gives you a generous 10 years to prepare. Perhaps a set of 3 classes, A, B & C would make more sense wherby Class A would be as Hans proposes, Class C would be the non-renewable Class B he proposed and we call my suggested Class B a renewable version of the Class C. Class B would be 100% identical to Class C except it would be renewable and it would have a test element equivalent to todays General. Just some more thoughts, what say you folks? Your proposal perpetuates the caste system currently in place which stratifies and divides hams into arbitrary ranks. That mentality absolutely needs to be destroyed. glad to see your ointerest in ending this problem a question that needs to be answered why does the uresulting "Ham class" have to the exactly the equal of the extra? do you or anyone in fact think that you can keep the OT's from claiming the new "A's" are just dumbed down anyway just what do Ham needs to know anyway, to get on the air today anyway? thatis what the test should cover to assume a number for the classes of license is assume we need a question set ofsuch and such a size perhaps we could serve the interest in Class with several tests each could be studied and taken in sections with CSSE's for each perhaps in that would would some some set of tests that if you pass these 3 (out of say 5 test) or a given set on operating a class of license could exist allow the new hams to use a set up staion (the staionm ust be assemebled by the fulll ham) but these sorts of changes would allow the ARS to all but eliate seperate classes and yet preserve what ever level is NEEDED to assure safe operation in the ARS 73, de Hans, K0HB _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Bill Sohl wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote ...... what is your specific proposal? I propose that new license applications be available in two classes, namely "Class B" and "Class A". The "Class B" learners permit would have an entry-level test (basic regulations, safety, operating procedures, basic DC and AC electronics). This class would have full frequency and mode privileges, power limited to 50W output. The permit would be issued for a period of 10 years, and be non-renewable. The "Class A" license test would be of a difficulty level similar to the current Extra class test, and would have full privileges at power levels up to 1500W, equivalent to current Extra Class license holders. This license would be issued "for life" without requirement for renewal. Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would retain their current operating privileges. Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class licensees could upgrade to "Class A" at any time. Given the non-renewable aspect of your Class B and a difficulty level for Class A being set to approximate today's Extra; I think that presents a very large jump from B to A in one test element. That depends on the level required of the B license, doesn't it? Note that some things will be eliminated from the pools for both Element A and Element B. For example, since both licenses would have access to all amateur frequencies and modes, all the questions about various license-class subbands and mode restrictions would disappear. Today, even with 3 element steps to Extra we see limited (i.e. about 15%) of today's hams going to Extra. So far, anyway. Once code is gone, ??Once code is gone?? Or once the code *test* is gone? some of that will increase, but I suspect many people find their needs addressed at Tech or General. Or maybe the code test isn't the problem it is often presented to be. More than half of the current US amateur licensees have passed all the code testing they need for Extra, yet only about 15% have gotten that license - even though the rules haven't changed in almost six years. Perhaps a set of 3 classes, A, B & C would make more sense wherby Class A would be as Hans proposes, Class C would be the non-renewable Class B he proposed and we call my suggested Class B a renewable version of the Class C. Class B would be 100% identical to Class C except it would be renewable and it would have a test element equivalent to todays General. So a person would start out with a Class C, and could upgrade to Class B or Class A. What that system does is essentially rebadge the current Tech/General/Extra system with a few changes. Just some more thoughts, what say you folks? Is the Extra written so tough that it's unreasonable to expect hams to pass it even after 10 years? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
From: "K0HB" on Fri, Dec 30 2005 4:22 pm
"Bill Sohl" wrote Given the non-renewable aspect of your Class B and a difficulty level for Class A being set to approximate today's Extra; I think that presents a very large jump from B to A in one test element. My proposal gives you a generous 10 years to prepare. Absolutely generous, easily enough time to "prepare." Perhaps a set of 3 classes, A, B & C would make more sense wherby Class A would be as Hans proposes, Class C would be the non-renewable Class B he proposed and we call my suggested Class B a renewable version of the Class C. Class B would be 100% identical to Class C except it would be renewable and it would have a test element equivalent to todays General. Just some more thoughts, what say you folks? Your proposal perpetuates the caste system currently in place which stratifies and divides hams into arbitrary ranks. That mentality absolutely needs to be destroyed. I absolutely agree with that. With just one "class" everyone is free to try any band, any mode, as they wish. Those that want to specialize in certain bands with specific modes can continue to do so. The Commission is, and has been, quite free with OPTIONS open to most licensees. To paraphrase Gene Kranz' famous line during Apollo 13's near disaster, "Option is no failure!" |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: Scattered around several other threads there have been several dialogs as to how many licenses the USA should have for amateur radio. The options suggested so far seem to be: (a) 1 License (b) 1 License plus a "lerner's license" (c) 2 Licenses plus a "lerner's license" (d) 3 Licenses (e) 3 Licenses plus a "lerner's license" What I wonder about these is how the individual proponents of each would set the "difficulty level" of each in comparison to current Tech/Gen/Extra AND how they see privilege differences (in terms of power levels and/or band segments and modes) in multiple license options. That's just the beginning, Bill. The devil is in the details, limited by what FCC has written in various NPRMs and R&Os: - No existing licensee should lose privileges - No existing licensee should gain privileges without taking the required tests - No free upgrades - No significant extra admin work for FCC - FCC sees the optimum level as 3 license classes, none of which have a limited term and all of which are renewable. None of the above is defined by any FCC rules. That's true, Bill. But from FCC actions and reactions over the past 20 years plus, it's pretty clear that FCC is acting in accordance with those ideas. It may appear so to you, but I don't believe such is the case in an absolute sense. We'll just have to disagree on that. I believe the ARRL also would disagree with you (IMHO). When has the FCC acted in such a way as to *not* be in accordance with those rules? At the moment there are 3 licenses being issued, but even that can be changed as the FCC is not locked into their past decisions because of prior comment in any NPRM and/or R&O. Of course! But at the same time, FCC isn't likely to change their mind in the near future on those issues unless somebody comes up with a really killer argument for the change. How does any proposed system handle all these requirements? It doesn't, nor does it have to. It becomes an issue of making athe case for whatever is being proposed. And that has to be done in a way that will convince FCC. Particularly, to convince FCC to overrule decisions it made just recently. Of course. Not impossible, but an uphill go. Clearly the ARRL still believes and appears to be still supportive of an entry level (learner's permit) despite what the FCC may have already said. From reading the NPRM, it seems to me that FCC isn't against an entry-level license at all. FCC simply sees the Technician as the entry-level license for US ham radio, and also sees no reason to change that - even though several proposals have tried to change FCC's mind. As proposed by the ARRL, the Learner's license would (IMHO) involve a less intense syllabus of material and access to some HF. My understanding is that they're just asking for some more HF privileges for Techs. . IF that is the case, and ARRL accepts FCC mindset to leave Tech as entry level, then what gets changed to make the Tech an entry level per ARRL mindset. Tech has been the defacto "entry level" since 2000. ...and, can I presume that you would be in opposition to the Tech being changed in that or any other way? No, you can't. I'd have to see the proposed change first before deciding if I'm fer it or agin it. What you're seeing is the classic "Law of Unintended Consequences". If FCC does what they propose, eliminating the code test will also eliminate any way for Technicians to get any HF privileges except by upgrade to General. Ageed...which is why I believe there will be some changes made sometime down the road. How do we convince FCC to accept the changes? By making clear and rational arguments and reasons for whatever the proposed system may be. I'm sure that almost all the proposals and commenters thought they were making "clear and rational arguments". Of course they did. But FCC said no. But FCC said no to all of them involving more privs for Techs, new license classes, automatic upgrades, and much more. Yet nothing in the FCC's rejection even comes close to stating their decision is absolute/final and irrevocable based on the princioples that you ascribe to the FCC. Of course not! No regulatory agency is ever going to say that any decision is final and/or irrevocable. Those are the tough ones! K0HB's proposed 2 class system addresses all these issues. But FCC denied his ideas. (SNIP of history of nocode....because in the end, it came to pass anywayregardless of who originated the idea. ) Point is, the FCC was pushing it for a long time. FCC also left 13wpm and 20wpm as requirements for many years with the lack of change/elimination of said 13/20 wpm elements supposedly waiting for a "consensus" in the amateur ranks. Perhaps. Yet anyone who could come up with a doctor's note could get a medical waiver. Such notes were never hard to get. But in the overall perspective waivers were used only by a relatively small percentage of new hams. I've heard figures as high as 10%. In the few VE sessions I assisted in I don't recall ever seeing one being used. Was the waiver process abused by some? Probably, but it wasn't a wide practice at all. Who can say what constitutes "abuse" if the person got a doctor's note? In spite of the lack of any consensus on code the FCC did, in fact, end 13/20wpm test elements in April 2000 based on arguments and the FCC's own conclusions at that time. Yep. FCC also reduced the written tests at the same time and closed off three license classes to new issues. I presume you mean the FCC reduced the number of written tests as opposed to the overall difficulty of the test material since the syllabus for the now three remaining test elements did not change. What FCC did was to reduce both the number of tests and the total number of questions for each class of license. (SNIP) End result is less admin work for FCC. No more medical waivers, only three written elements instead of five, and eventual elimination of some rules. That eventual elimination, unless changes are made by the FCC, could well be upwards of 50+ years assuming there are some Advanced hams who are in their 20s. Only true if those hams continue to renew and never ever upgrade. Bottom line, every statement or opinion offered by the FCC in any NPRM and/or R&O is not cast in stone and can end up being revisited and changed at a later review. Agreed - but at the same time, getting them to do so is an uphill battle. Particularly when such an change will result in more work for FCC. On the issue of a learners license I see no additional work for FCC if there are only one or two other licenses as some (e.g. Hans) have proposed. The big admin issue with new license classes is that the database has to be re-done. So Jim, with that in mind, what is your specific proposal? I've given it here several times. Perhaps I'll dig it out and post it again. Does it reflect any of the options I listed above? I'll post it and you can decide. My point is not that change is impossible, but that FCC isn't likely to adopt changes that violate the above principles. In your opinion that is. In fact, several of the principals you listed are only your interpretation based on FCC decisions as opposed to the FCC ever articulating or stating them as fact. They're observations based on FCC's behavior for more than 20 years. Can you cite examples where FCC did not act according to them? For example, more than one proposal wanted free upgrades. FCC said no to all of them, and gave reasons why. (See footnote 142...) Neither of us may be around to collect on this bet, but I'll bet you a dinner anywhere that sometime down the road the FCC will "simplify" the rules and regs by renewing Advanced as either Extra or General when the number of Advanced drops to a small percentage of all amateurs. You don't have to bet me, Bill, we'll do dinner one of these days eventually. I'm just sorry I missed the chance to meet Carl in person when he was down here some months back. I also believe that IF a learner's license does come to pass, the FCC will make all current Novice licenses renewable to that new license name AND will make the rules for the existing Novice the same as whatever rules and privileges are given to the new learner's class. That's not unreasonable - particularly considering that there are only about 29,000 Novices left and the number keeps dropping every month. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:22:16 GMT, "KØHB"
Your proposal perpetuates the caste system currently in place which stratifies and divides hams into arbitrary ranks. That mentality absolutely needs to be destroyed. A Vietnamese proverb I include in my syllabus each semester says, "If you study you'll become what you desire; if you do not study you'll never become anything." That exactly describes what separates any particular segment of a population from another, including hams. There is no "caste system" in amateur radio, for a caste is defined being born into a particular social class and never being able to move from that class. What separates an Extra from an Tech is not a "caste system" but rather who had the motivation to study versus who didn't. You sound like a socialist, Hans -- a believer in one and only one class in a society. No 73 for socialists, Jeff KH6O -- Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... Scattered around several other threads there have been several dialogs as to how many licenses the USA should have for amateur radio. The options suggested so far seem to be: (a) 1 License (b) 1 License plus a "lerner's license" (c) 2 Licenses plus a "lerner's license" (d) 3 Licenses (e) 3 Licenses plus a "lerner's license" What I wonder about these is how the individual proponents of each would set the "difficulty level" of each in comparison to current Tech/Gen/Extra AND how they see privilege differences (in terms of power levels and/or band segments and modes) in multiple license options. Cheers, Bill K2UNK You left out my concept. That is two licenses. These would be General and Extra (no "learner's permit" type of license). The difficulty levels would be comparable to today's General and Extra. Privileges would be the same as today's General and Extra. For General, that would mean blending the current Tech & General material to create a single test. My opinion is that test would need to be about 50 questions. The Extra could remain unchanged. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: [snip] What you're seeing is the classic "Law of Unintended Consequences". If FCC does what they propose, eliminating the code test will also eliminate any way for Technicians to get any HF privileges except by upgrade to General. Perhaps it is not "Unintended". It may be precisely what the FCC wanted to do. It is a way of increasing the motivation to upgrade. In reading the NPRM, there is a distinct feeling, IMHO, that the FCC does NOT want people to stay at the introductory level. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"Dee Flint" wrote there is a distinct feeling, IMHO, that the FCC does NOT want people to stay at the introductory level. Well that's pretty obvious, isn't it, since they closed the introductory level to new applicants at the last restructuring! Which raises the next question --- who CARES what the FCC wants. They should serve the wants of the people, not the other way around. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"Jeffrey Herman" wrote A Vietnamese proverb I include in my syllabus each semester says, "If you study you'll become what you desire; if you do not study you'll never become anything." Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System I'll remember that for the next time I want to impress a Vienamese bimbo. Meanwhile here's a proverb from Bokonon which I include in my lectures: "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." You sound like a socialist, Hans -- a believer in one and only one class in a society. Quite the opposite, Jeffrey, I'm a staunch Libertarian, and I believe that the only legitimate interest that government has in Amateur Radio licensing is to determine if the applicant is qualified or not qualified, not to social-engineer the Amateur Service into an arbitrary layer cake of good/better/best operators. 72.5 ---- (when you don't care enough to give the very best), de Hans, K0HB -- Master Chief Petty Officer, US Navy Philosophy Lecturer, University of RRAP System |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: [snip] Perhaps. Yet anyone who could come up with a doctor's note could get a medical waiver. Such notes were never hard to get. But in the overall perspective waivers were used only by a relatively small percentage of new hams. In the few VE sessions I assisted in I don't recall ever seeing one being used. Was the waiver process abused by some? Probably, but it wasn't a wide practice at all. I only saw two cases of waivers being used. One was my ex-husband and I personally knew how severe his problem was. Naturally I was not a VE at those sessions. The other case was at a test session where I was taking my Extra exam. Someone did come in and present his waiver. [snip] Yep. FCC also reduced the written tests at the same time and closed off three license classes to new issues. I presume you mean the FCC reduced the number of written tests as opposed to the overall difficulty of the test material since the syllabus for the now three remaining test elements did not change. The syllabus for the Extra class license most certainly did change. The material that had formerly been on the Advanced license was rolled into the Extra exam. However, due to timing issues there was a very short window of time where anyone upgrading was taking the Extra exam that did not include that material as the question pool took a while to revise. The syllabus for the Technician also changed although not as dramatically and again timing issues came into play so that there was a window where the exams had not yet been updated. But it was revised to cover the material that had been on the old Novice exam as well as including the Technician material. The only syllabus that was unaffected was that of the General license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote in message oups.com... [snip] Tech has been the defacto "entry level" since 2000. Although the licensing structure was changed in 2000, the Tech license has been the defacto entry license for several years before that. I earned my original license in 1992. All the new licensees that I personally knew started at either Tech or Tech with code. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
I absolutely agree with that.+ (if one agrees with this Oldster, all is good, otherwise you will spend a week as a cashier in the Wal-Mart checkout lane) With just one "class" everyone is free to try any band, any mode, as they wish. Those that want to specialize in certain bands with specific modes can continue to do so. (I think I'll try 11 meters, thank you) The Commission is, and has been, quite free with OPTIONS open to most licensees. To paraphrase Gene Kranz' famous line during Apollo 13's near disaster, "Option is no failure!" And may I say, "Age is no excuse." So, Lennie, Star Spangled Banner music sully forth and do your best to address the varicose veins that make your legs appear as an Allied map of the Rhine River crossing of WW II. Those old legs must have jumped from an uncountable number of perfectly good aircraft...or were pushed from the backs of moving Deuce-and-a-Halfs to join the rest of the roadside detritus. The latter is most likely how you served. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
I think I love you, Dee.
I like women with strong opinions. I like women who can out bench press 200 pounds with one hand. I especially like women who squeeze my nuts into a corner. Woger AB8MQ |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: (SNIP) FCC also left 13wpm and 20wpm as requirements for many years with the lack of change/elimination of said 13/20 wpm elements supposedly waiting for a "consensus" in the amateur ranks. Perhaps. Yet anyone who could come up with a doctor's note could get a medical waiver. Such notes were never hard to get. But in the overall perspective waivers were used only by a relatively small percentage of new hams. I've heard figures as high as 10%. Perhaps, but that can't be verified easily. In the few VE sessions I assisted in I don't recall ever seeing one being used. Was the waiver process abused by some? Probably, but it wasn't a wide practice at all. Who can say what constitutes "abuse" if the person got a doctor's note? Exactly. In the end, it was the doctor's, if anyone, that would have to be assessed as signing off on a waiver that shouldn't have been issued. In spite of the lack of any consensus on code the FCC did, in fact, end 13/20wpm test elements in April 2000 based on arguments and the FCC's own conclusions at that time. Yep. FCC also reduced the written tests at the same time and closed off three license classes to new issues. I presume you mean the FCC reduced the number of written tests as opposed to the overall difficulty of the test material since the syllabus for the now three remaining test elements did not change. What FCC did was to reduce both the number of tests and the total number of questions for each class of license. Neither of which makes testing easier as long as the total syllabus of questions remains the same. If a student is given a list of 100 spelling words to learn, it is neither easier or harder for the student to pass if the spelling test has 20 words or 10 words. In the end, the student still has to learn all the words on the list. (SNIP) End result is less admin work for FCC. No more medical waivers, only three written elements instead of five, and eventual elimination of some rules. That eventual elimination, unless changes are made by the FCC, could well be upwards of 50+ years assuming there are some Advanced hams who are in their 20s. Only true if those hams continue to renew and never ever upgrade. Do you see any mass effort to upgrade by currently licensed Novice or Advanced license holders? In fact, there seems to be more than a handful of Advanced that say they'll never upgrade so they can be ID'd as having passed 13wpm morse. Bottom line, every statement or opinion offered by the FCC in any NPRM and/or R&O is not cast in stone and can end up being revisited and changed at a later review. Agreed - but at the same time, getting them to do so is an uphill battle. Particularly when such an change will result in more work for FCC. On the issue of a learners license I see no additional work for FCC if there are only one or two other licenses as some (e.g. Hans) have proposed. The big admin issue with new license classes is that the database has to be re-done. In today's environment that shouldn't be a big deal at all. The entire database could probably be imported into an Excel file and given to some college computer science majors and modified in a day or so. This stuff just isn't rocket science anymore. (SNIP) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message Yep. FCC also reduced the written tests at the same time and closed off three license classes to new issues. I presume you mean the FCC reduced the number of written tests as opposed to the overall difficulty of the test material since the syllabus for the now three remaining test elements did not change. The syllabus for the Extra class license most certainly did change. The material that had formerly been on the Advanced license was rolled into the Extra exam. However, due to timing issues there was a very short window of time where anyone upgrading was taking the Extra exam that did not include that material as the question pool took a while to revise. The syllabus for the Technician also changed although not as dramatically and again timing issues came into play so that there was a window where the exams had not yet been updated. But it was revised to cover the material that had been on the old Novice exam as well as including the Technician material. Agree as to the specific syllabus for Tech and Extra (both increased in overall material). My point was that the total material covered did not become less than it was before. The only syllabus that was unaffected was that of the General license. Agreed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: [snip] What you're seeing is the classic "Law of Unintended Consequences". If FCC does what they propose, eliminating the code test will also eliminate any way for Technicians to get any HF privileges except by upgrade to General. Perhaps it is not "Unintended". It may be precisely what the FCC wanted to do. It was a screwy idea anyway. Old Tech w/o HF, Old Tech with HF, Tech Plus, New Tech w/o HF, New Tech (no Plus) with HF. Good grief! Forget incentives. License people to be "Amateur Radio Operator" and be done with it. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: (SNIP) FCC also left 13wpm and 20wpm as requirements for many years with the lack of change/elimination of said 13/20 wpm elements supposedly waiting for a "consensus" in the amateur ranks. Perhaps. Yet anyone who could come up with a doctor's note could get a medical waiver. Such notes were never hard to get. But in the overall perspective waivers were used only by a relatively small percentage of new hams. I've heard figures as high as 10%. Perhaps, but that can't be verified easily. Ditto the number of Conditionals that "got waivers in other ways." ;^) |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Dee Flint wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: [snip] Perhaps. Yet anyone who could come up with a doctor's note could get a medical waiver. Such notes were never hard to get. But in the overall perspective waivers were used only by a relatively small percentage of new hams. In the few VE sessions I assisted in I don't recall ever seeing one being used. Was the waiver process abused by some? Probably, but it wasn't a wide practice at all. I only saw two cases of waivers being used. One was my ex-husband and I personally knew how severe his problem was. Naturally I was not a VE at those sessions. I don't see a problem with that, but I still consider a pass/fail exam for just one operating mode to be insane. The other case was at a test session where I was taking my Extra exam. Someone did come in and present his waiver. [snip] Sometimes Extra VE's talk about the folks who have waivers, even the ones they recommended the process to. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
KØHB wrote: "Jeffrey Herman" wrote A Vietnamese proverb I include in my syllabus each semester says, "If you study you'll become what you desire; if you do not study you'll never become anything." Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System I'll remember that for the next time I want to impress a Vienamese bimbo. Vietnamese proverbs, huh? I'm going to guess that Jeff wants his "students" to think he's a vietnam vet. Meanwhile here's a proverb from Bokonon which I include in my lectures: "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." Pokomon sounds very wise. You sound like a socialist, Hans -- a believer in one and only one class in a society. Quite the opposite, Jeffrey, I'm a staunch Libertarian, and I believe that the only legitimate interest that government has in Amateur Radio licensing is to determine if the applicant is qualified or not qualified, and to enforce... not to social-engineer the Amateur Service into an arbitrary layer cake of good/better/best operators. But, but, but if the Government couldn't determine who the very best operators were, then QST would have no "antique radio" article to write about in the January issue of QST. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Randy wrote: (I think I'll try 11 meters, thank you) Bye and Good Luck! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com