KØHB wrote:
wrote


License exam at the present General exam level, Called Amateur. All
privs, 10 year renewable. Just like way back when.


There currently are 5 grades of "General". Which do you mean?

One-Star General - Post 1987 Technician given a complimentary
field promotion to General

Two-Star General - Previous Conditional given humanitarian
promotion to General

Three-Star General - Pre 1987 Technician given posthumous
promotion to General

Four-Star General - General who took an actual General
examination in modern times at a VE session

Five-Star General - General who took an actual General
examination in front of a steely eyed FCC official in a noisy
drafty government office in downtown Fargo and had to walk uphill
(both ways) through 10-foot snowdrifts on Good Friday 1954.

73, de Hans, K0HB

****

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. 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.

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. 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.

How do we convince FCC to accept the changes?

By making clear and rational arguments and reasons for
whatever the proposed system may be.

Those are the tough ones!

K0HB's proposed 2 class system addresses all these issues.
But FCC denied his ideas.

FCC originally didn't buy a nocode Tech at some time
in the past but eventually changed its mind. 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. 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.

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.

So Jim, with that in mind, what is your specific proposal?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

For Jim, there is no problem so large nor complex that it cannot be run
away from. We -must- be saddled with a system of licensing and
privileges which are remnants of numerous OBE rules changes, according
to Jim. Not only does he desire the code hurdle to remain, but he is
now claiming that the FCC is the main obstacle to modernization of the
service. Odd, but it is the FCC that is proposing rules changes. Jim
is all about difficulty, hurdles, and obfuscation.

Why not look at the basis and purpose, then design an amateur radio
service around that?

Frank Gilliland wrote:
One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no
renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they
want to continue.

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. 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. That would mean each QSO would be separated by just 22 Hz.

I'll be more generous. Let's pretend that all 3.75 MHz is available
all the time, with say, one-tenth of all operators on at any one time;
now each two-person QSO is separated by 112 Hz. Getting better.

Worried that I didn't take into account frequency re-use? Alright,
suppose we could manage three simultaneous QSOs spread across the country
on a single frequency; each such grouping would now be separated by 336 Hz.
That could be done if we ban phone.

I'll never understand this liberal mentality of wanting to grant
everyone MF/HF privileges; it's no longer a privilege if it's something
that everyone can get practically for free. We received our current
spectrum total at a time (WARC 1979) when we had less than half the
present number of hams. This movement of wanting to "fill up the bands
or we'll lose them" is nonsense.

As Michael Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Jeff KH6O


--
Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System

"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!

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.

Uh huh!

Get real!

The most popular US operating event is the ARRL Field Day. To date, the record
number of logs submitted was 2261 in 2004. The average number of
transmitters-per-log was 2.41. That works out to 2,725 two-way QSO's on the air
at any time. The mix of phone vs CW runs about 60:40. That works out to 1090
CW transmitters and 1635 phone transmitters active at any moment.

Presuming a phone transmitter uses 2400Hz of spectrum and a CW transmitter uses
200Hz, and assuming your 3:1 geographical sharing, that works out to 1.38MHz of
the avaliable 3.75MHz is "busy" at any given QTH, leaving 2.45MHz available for
additional users, and that's on the busiest MF/HF weekend of the year!

So much for your 336 Hz per user!

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

On 28 Dec 2005 20:51:57 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman)
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no
renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they
want to continue.

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.


Ok.....


If suddenly,
as if by magic, all licensees were granted MF/HF privileges,


I said nothing of the sort. You are assuming the changes would be
immediate. My suggestion to allow -EXISTING- licenses to remain valid
wouldn't change anyone's privileges until it's time to renew, at which
time the licensee can either take the one-license test or let it
lapse.


snip rant based on incorrect assumption
I'll never understand this liberal mentality of wanting to grant
everyone MF/HF privileges; it's no longer a privilege if it's something
that everyone can get practically for free.


That pretty much describes the current state of Amateur Radio anyway;
a written test using questions that are publically available (don't
even have to steal them out of the teacher's desk!), a code test at a
speed slower than needed for practical use, and a fee that isn't much
more than the cost of a happy-meal.

But then again, what law requires that an Amateur license must be
-earned-? There isn't one. On the contrary, the law provides that any
citizen who wants a license can get one, and the testing process is
only a method to verify that the prospective licensee knows the rules.

So if you don't like the "liberal mentality" of the law then you
should probably work to change it. Good luck.


We received our current
spectrum total at a time (WARC 1979) when we had less than half the
present number of hams. This movement of wanting to "fill up the bands
or we'll lose them" is nonsense.


I agree, and I don't recall saying anything of the sort.


As Michael Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder."


Lincoln may have been aesthetically challenged, but I'm pretty sure it
was his wife that had the mental disorder.







----== 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 =----

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:21:45 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote in . net:


"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!

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.

Uh huh!

Get real!

The most popular US operating event is the ARRL Field Day. To date, the record
number of logs submitted was 2261 in 2004. The average number of
transmitters-per-log was 2.41. That works out to 2,725 two-way QSO's on the air
at any time. The mix of phone vs CW runs about 60:40. That works out to 1090
CW transmitters and 1635 phone transmitters active at any moment.

Presuming a phone transmitter uses 2400Hz of spectrum and a CW transmitter uses
200Hz, and assuming your 3:1 geographical sharing, that works out to 1.38MHz of
the avaliable 3.75MHz is "busy" at any given QTH, leaving 2.45MHz available for
additional users, and that's on the busiest MF/HF weekend of the year!

So much for your 336 Hz per user!

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB


He also forgot to discount the time spent by hams typing in newsgroups
instead of working their stations.







----== 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 =----

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no
renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they
want to continue.

That's a good way to get the number of US hams down to about half what
it is now...

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.

That depends what you mean by "useful for communications".

If you're talking about DX-with-limited-power-and-antennas, the figure
varies all
over the place with the time of day, year, solar cycle, etc. There are
times when
nothing over 5 MHz is very useful, and times when all the bands are
"wide open".

OTOH, if we include things like regional and local QSOs, bands that are
useless
for DX (80 meters at midday, 15 meters at midnight at the bottom of the
cycle)
are 'useful' a lot more of the time.

Note also that 1.7 MHz of that 3.75 MHz is the ten meter band.

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.

More like 661,000, actually. As it stands now, about half that number
(in the USA) have lots of HF privileges (add up the current number
of Generals, Advanceds, and Extras - see the thread "ARS License
Numbers")

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.

Whoa! That means every ham is on HF six hours a day, every day! 42
hours on HF per week!

A more realistic figure, I would say, is something like one hour per
day
per ham. Sure, there will be some who are more active, but also some
who
are far less active.

That would mean each QSO would be separated by just 22 Hz.

Well, let's see....

One hour per day per ham, with two hams per QSO, and 660,000 hams,
means
13,750 QSOs simultaneously. That's 136 Hz per QSO.

I'll be more generous. Let's pretend that all 3.75 MHz is available
all the time, with say, one-tenth of all operators on at any one time;
now each two-person QSO is separated by 112 Hz. Getting better.

2.4 hours per day per ham on HF - every day? That's 16.8 hours per
week.

Worried that I didn't take into account frequency re-use? Alright,
suppose we could manage three simultaneous QSOs spread across the country
on a single frequency; each such grouping would now be separated by 336 Hz.

Using my numbers it works out to maybe 408 Hz

That could be done if we ban phone.

Ah, but many 'phone QSOs are round-tables with more than two hams per
QSO.
If an SSB round table uses 2400 Hz, but has six hams in it, the
Hz-per-ham is
only 400...

And modesd like PSK31 use less than 100 Hz....

I'll never understand this liberal mentality of wanting to grant
everyone MF/HF privileges; it's no longer a privilege if it's something
that everyone can get practically for free.

What "liberal mentality"?

Let's look at the record:

1983-1984: FCC testing is turned over to VECs, Q&A pools are published,
sending test is waived: Reagan Administration.

1987 Technician/General written is split in two: Reagan Administration

1990-1991: Medical waivers for code tests (as a favor to a foreign
King),
Technician loses its code test: Bush I administration

1998-2000: 3 license classes closed off to new issues; written exams
reduced,
code test reduced to 5 wpm: Clinton Administration

2003: S25.5 code test requirement eliminated from treaty: Bush II
administration

2005: FCC proposes complete elimination of code test: Bush II
administration.

Then there's BPL - who supported that idea?

We received our current
spectrum total at a time (WARC 1979) when we had less than half the
present number of hams.

Compare how many hams with General/Advanced/Extra licenses existed then
and now...

All three WARC bands added only 250 kHz to our HF allocations.

This movement of wanting to "fill up the bands
or we'll lose them" is nonsense.

The bigger question is: With over 300,000 US hams holding
General, Advanced or Extra licenses, (all of which have lots of
HF/MF privs), why aren't the bands busting at the seams 24/7??

Everyone who can meet the license requirements should get the
license. That's all there is to it.

As Michael Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Michael Savage? What's his call?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no
renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they
want to continue.

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. 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. That would mean each QSO would be separated by just 22 Hz.

I'll be more generous. Let's pretend that all 3.75 MHz is available
all the time, with say, one-tenth of all operators on at any one time;
now each two-person QSO is separated by 112 Hz. Getting better.

Sounds like the old argument for the Morse Code Exam - to keep people
out of amateur radio.

Worried that I didn't take into account frequency re-use? Alright,
suppose we could manage three simultaneous QSOs spread across the country
on a single frequency; each such grouping would now be separated by 336 Hz.
That could be done if we ban phone.

Ah! The perfect width for CW. Could be a renaissance for the mode.

I'll never understand this liberal mentality of wanting to grant
everyone MF/HF privileges;

I'll never understand the liberal mentality wanting set asides of
public domain for few priveleged people to have a little fun. Kind of
reminds me of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge where only F&W scientists are
ever likely to set foot. Kind of reminds me of the falsified bobcat
fur that F&W tried to use to close off 15 million acres of public lands
to sportsmen.

it's no longer a privilege if it's something
that everyone can get practically for free.

If they meet the necessary government requirements.

We received our current
spectrum total at a time (WARC 1979) when we had less than half the
present number of hams. This movement of wanting to "fill up the bands
or we'll lose them" is nonsense.

Yet we lost unused spectrum.

As Michael Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Jeff KH6O

He is correct.

On 28 Dec 2005 14:56:19 -0800, wrote in
. com:

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no
renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they
want to continue.

That's a good way to get the number of US hams down to about half what
it is now...


Possibly. It could also reduce the inter-ham bickering to about half
of what it is now, which would make the service much more appealing to
potential -new- hams, myself included.








----== 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 =----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 28 Dec 2005 14:56:19 -0800, wrote in
. com:

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no
renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they
want to continue.

That's a good way to get the number of US hams down to about half what
it is now...


Possibly. It could also reduce the inter-ham bickering to about half
of what it is now, which would make the service much more appealing to
potential -new- hams, myself included.

We might be able to accept Jim's unsupervised counting.