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

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!"

wrote:
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

I think the new full priv license should be at the General test level.
If you take Frank's suggestion to expire 100% of the present licenses
and everyone retests, then everyone will hold an "A" license within 10
years and they can complain all they want.

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

And that is the question, "What is necessary?"

perhaps we could serve the interest in Class with several tests each
could be studied and taken in sections with CSSE's for each

And ARRL and W5YI pulling in $10 for each exam?

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

Do you think Steve would help you set up a station? I'd rather not
rely on the "generosity" of other amateurs for my station.

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

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

"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

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

"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

"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

"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