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?

From: on Tues, Dec 27 2005 8:45 pm


wrote:
wrote:
rom: "Dee Flint" on Thurs, Dec 22 2005 3:30 pm
"K0HB" wrote in message
"Dee Flint" wrote


Why? With the ease with which the General license will be obtainable, why
would anyone want to start with scaled back privileges?

Exactly, Dee. After all, the current General requires only
two written exams of 35 questions each, and a Morse
Code test of 5 wpm.

So they can "properly" emulate the past and all the "greats"
of "the service." :-)

Gee, Len, you've never qualified for *any* amateur radio license...

Gee, Jim, how many times and how many different ways can you say that?

Brian, it's all Jimmie has left in his verbal arsenal. :-)

He still confuses "qualified" with AUTHORIZED insofar as
"operating."

The FCC is very much AUTHORIZED by Congress to regulate ALL U.S.
civil radio. The FCC AUTHORIZES ability to use the EM spectrum
by means of licensing.

However, neither Congress of the United States nor the Commission
itself requires ANY staffer or commissioner to be licensed in any
of the radio services it regulates. Ergo, under Jimmielogic, the
FCC is "not qualified" to regulate U.S. amateur radio. :-)

That may be why, on 10 December, Jimmie wrote:

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."

The whole point of Jimmie's comment on me was to discourage my
posting. Jimmie's concept of discussion on "amateur radio policy"
is a CLOSED one, limited ONLY to those who have already obtained
an amateur radio license. This is rather wrong in a democratic-
principled society but it fits his insular exclusivity. It also
fits Davie Heil's similar concept about amateur radio, so the
two of them form a mutual-aid enclave in here. Since I don't
agree with the "traditional" ('morse-coded') ideals of old U.S.
amateur radio, Jimmie wants me OUT of the "discussion."

Under Jimmielogic there is NO hope of any unlicensed-in-amateur-
radio person "discussing" anything, regardless of previous
experience in any other radio service. [in Jimmieworld
"amateur radio" is very much different than any other radio
service, therefore ALL unlicensed-in-amateur-radio persons are
"unqualified" to discuss anything] Unlicensed=in-amateur-radio
persons may (in Jimmieconcepts) ask polite questions, but must
never ever disagree with Jimmie (or his mutual opinion aid
enclave) in so doing. At that point, Jimmieguru takes over and
copies off reams of league-speak phrases, elevating amateur
radio to planes of existance far beyond what it really is...just
a hobby. QED.

wrote:
From: on Tues, Dec 27 2005 8:45 pm


wrote:
wrote:
rom: "Dee Flint" on Thurs, Dec 22 2005 3:30 pm
"K0HB" wrote in message
"Dee Flint" wrote

Why? With the ease with which the General license will be obtainable, why
would anyone want to start with scaled back privileges?

Exactly, Dee. After all, the current General requires only
two written exams of 35 questions each, and a Morse
Code test of 5 wpm.

So they can "properly" emulate the past and all the "greats"
of "the service." :-)

Gee, Len, you've never qualified for *any* amateur radio license...

Gee, Jim, how many times and how many different ways can you say that?

Brian, it's all Jimmie has left in his verbal arsenal. :-)

If so then he is more hollow than the strawmen that he trots out.

He still confuses "qualified" with AUTHORIZED insofar as
"operating."

They are synonymous to him.

The FCC is very much AUTHORIZED by Congress to regulate ALL U.S.
civil radio. The FCC AUTHORIZES ability to use the EM spectrum
by means of licensing.

However, neither Congress of the United States nor the Commission
itself requires ANY staffer or commissioner to be licensed in any
of the radio services it regulates. Ergo, under Jimmielogic, the
FCC is "not qualified" to regulate U.S. amateur radio. :-)

Not Qualified?

That may be why, on 10 December, Jimmie wrote:

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."

Wonder if Riley got a copy of that original "Jimmyism"?

The whole point of Jimmie's comment on me was to discourage my
posting. Jimmie's concept of discussion on "amateur radio policy"
is a CLOSED one, limited ONLY to those who have already obtained
an amateur radio license. This is rather wrong in a democratic-
principled society but it fits his insular exclusivity. It also
fits Davie Heil's similar concept about amateur radio, so the
two of them form a mutual-aid enclave in here. Since I don't
agree with the "traditional" ('morse-coded') ideals of old U.S.
amateur radio, Jimmie wants me OUT of the "discussion."

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.

Under Jimmielogic there is NO hope of any unlicensed-in-amateur-
radio person "discussing" anything, regardless of previous
experience in any other radio service. [in Jimmieworld
"amateur radio" is very much different than any other radio
service, therefore ALL unlicensed-in-amateur-radio persons are
"unqualified" to discuss anything] Unlicensed=in-amateur-radio
persons may (in Jimmieconcepts) ask polite questions, but must
never ever disagree with Jimmie (or his mutual opinion aid
enclave) in so doing. At that point, Jimmieguru takes over and
copies off reams of league-speak phrases, elevating amateur
radio to planes of existance far beyond what it really is...just
a hobby. QED.

The Holy Grail is just a hobby? Get ready for some off-topic british
humor.



bb

From: on Dec 28, 4:33 pm

wrote:
From: on Tues, Dec 27 2005 8:45 pm
wrote:
wrote:
rom: "Dee Flint" on Thurs, Dec 22 2005 3:30 pm
"K0HB" wrote in message
"Dee Flint" wrote


Gee, Len, you've never qualified for *any* amateur radio license...

Gee, Jim, how many times and how many different ways can you say that?

Brian, it's all Jimmie has left in his verbal arsenal. :-)

If so then he is more hollow than the strawmen that he trots out.

But, those hollow strawmen are very easy to build...and so
he keeps on making them...


He still confuses "qualified" with AUTHORIZED insofar as
"operating."

They are synonymous to him.

Maybe Jimmie is listening to his strawmen speak in his ear?


The FCC is very much AUTHORIZED by Congress to regulate ALL U.S.
civil radio. The FCC AUTHORIZES ability to use the EM spectrum
by means of licensing.

However, neither Congress of the United States nor the Commission
itself requires ANY staffer or commissioner to be licensed in any
of the radio services it regulates. Ergo, under Jimmielogic, the
FCC is "not qualified" to regulate U.S. amateur radio. :-)

Not Qualified?

Not in Jimmieworld. ONLY those who already possess official,
valid amateur radio licenses are - in Jimmieworld - "qualified"
to discuss any amateur radio regulations. That way, there is
little conflict due to so many who were required to operate
under the older regulations...which Jimmie passed.


That may be why, on 10 December, Jimmie wrote:

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."

Wonder if Riley got a copy of that original "Jimmyism"?

Doesn't matter if the "special counsel" to the Commission got
it or not. Any permanent staffer at the Commission can see
that Jimmie got it WRONG in public.


The whole point of Jimmie's comment on me was to discourage my
posting. Jimmie's concept of discussion on "amateur radio policy"
is a CLOSED one, limited ONLY to those who have already obtained
an amateur radio license. This is rather wrong in a democratic-
principled society but it fits his insular exclusivity. It also
fits Davie Heil's similar concept about amateur radio, so the
two of them form a mutual-aid enclave in here. Since I don't
agree with the "traditional" ('morse-coded') ideals of old U.S.
amateur radio, Jimmie wants me OUT of the "discussion."

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.

Well, I must admit that there is MUCH posting in this group
that isn't needed (too much cross-posting), full of anony-
mousies that like to cuss and say nasty words, and the Dudly
who refuses to admit he was defeated years ago.


Under Jimmielogic there is NO hope of any unlicensed-in-amateur-
radio person "discussing" anything, regardless of previous
experience in any other radio service. [in Jimmieworld
"amateur radio" is very much different than any other radio
service, therefore ALL unlicensed-in-amateur-radio persons are
"unqualified" to discuss anything] Unlicensed=in-amateur-radio
persons may (in Jimmieconcepts) ask polite questions, but must
never ever disagree with Jimmie (or his mutual opinion aid
enclave) in so doing. At that point, Jimmieguru takes over and
copies off reams of league-speak phrases, elevating amateur
radio to planes of existance far beyond what it really is...just
a hobby. QED.

The Holy Grail is just a hobby?

NOT the Holy Grail of the Judeo-Christian world, the holy grail of
the Church of Saint Hiram. What Jimmie learned in Seminary was
the holy grail of the Church of St. Hiram.

Amateur radio really IS just a hobby, not a profession, not a
"national service" in any way, shape, or form.

There should be NOTHING negative about having a HOBBY. There are
so many different hobbies in this large land, as diverse as there
are different people. What gets bad is when certain hobbyists
demand that THEIR ideas about that hobby MUST apply to everyone
else...or else...

One problem with amateur radio is that, to exist, it must radiate
RF. That requires the FCC to regulate it. The FCC regulates it
by establishing license test regulations. The amateur radio
hobbyists can now point to their "official" licenses and make a
big fuss of how spay-shull they are, "taking tests" to prove how
"qualified" they are, and strutting around like they are a
"national service" of something. Wannabe professionals, stuck
with the classification of "amateurs" (which no doubt rankles
the self-important types in the hobby).


Get ready for some off-topic british humor.

Monty Python strikes again? :-)

"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" was a funny-once comedy movie.
Worth the price of a DVD rental, but not a cinema ticket, if you
ask me. Anglophiles seem to lap that stuff up. Well, it is
better than Pauly Shore on a good night, but not much more... :-)

[Pauly Shore is the son of Mitzi Shore who owns the Comedy Store
nightclub here in Los Angeles...which doesn't make him any good
at comedy but he does have "connections"]

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

From: on Wed, Dec 28 2005 11:37 am


Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:

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?

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?

Brian, I find your last sentence to be most clear-headed
and refreshing in this din of inequity. Good point!

wrote:
From: on Wed, Dec 28 2005 11:37 am


Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:

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?

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?

Brian, I find your last sentence to be most clear-headed
and refreshing in this din of inequity. Good point!



Thank you.

I need to stop listening to obstructionists like Jim whose only purpose
on RRAP is to tell us what the FCC thinks. Sheesh! I hope Coslo gets
that BBS up and running soon.