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.

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.

1) What test would be required for upgrade to Class A
for current licenses?

Pass the Class A test.

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.

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.

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".

73, de Hans, K0HB

"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

"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

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

"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