| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#31
December 29th 05, 05:20 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
From: K0HB on Dec 28, 8:20 pm
"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. Makes sense... 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. Also makes sense... Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would retain their current operating privileges. Makes more sense... Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class licensees could upgrade to "Class A" at any time. The only non-sense is in the objections of all those who use their present "extra" license class title to show how "good" they are and "better than average." While a certain party in here will mumble on about class "A" and "B" have been done before (as class designations) the good thing about the alphabetic arbitrary "names" is that none of those carry any emotional baggage which now exists with the present six-class naming scheme (yes, Jimmie, I know that the FCC is only issuing "new" licesnes in three classes, but the old ones still exist in the FCC databases). VEs would have it easier with so few test-proctorings and that might mean long times between VE testing sessions, somewhat delaying entry of newcomers (to either A or B classes). |
|
#33
December 29th 05, 01:15 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
KØHB wrote:
"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. You'll probably see that raised to 100-150 W on HF because there are so many ~100 W rigs in existence. The permit would be issued for a period of 10 years, and be non-renewable. But "re-takeable" - if someone took the Class B test again, they'd get another 10 years as Class B - right? 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. Some questions, Hans (minor details, really): 1) What test would be required for upgrade to Class A for current licenses? Would the testing be the same for all current license classes - IOW, would a current Novice face the same test to get Class A as a current Advanced? 2) Would there be any experience requirement for Class B hams that wanted to upgrade to Class A? IOW, could an unlicensed person go for Class A "right out of the box"? 3) If the licenses are issued "for life", how would FCC know when an amateur expired unless next-of-kin sent official notification? (Yes, having nonexpiring licenses means the apparent number of hams would cause apparent growth, but OTOH it would also make the numbers less and less a reflection of reality) 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? --- One interesting side-effect of your plan is that a brand-new Class B will be allowed on frequencies that an old-timer Advanced (or any other non-Extra) is not allowed on. Imagine the fracas that would cause! bwaahaahaa! Of course, the counterargument is that "it's an incentive for existing hams to upgrade to Class A!" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#34
December 29th 05, 01:25 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
|
|
#35
December 29th 05, 03:18 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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 |
|
#36
December 29th 05, 04:10 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
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: 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). 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. 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. .. 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. ....and, can I presume that you would be in opposition to the Tech being changed in that or any other way? 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 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. 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. ) 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. 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. 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. (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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#37
December 29th 05, 06:47 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"KØHB" 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 demonstra tion of "figures don't lie, but liars figure". In this case the person "figurin g" 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. (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?) 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. 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. 73, Jeff KH6O -- Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System |
|
#38
December 29th 05, 07:12 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"Jeffrey Herman" wrote To be accurate, the 1.7 MHz of 10m should be excluded at this time... Why? Is it not useful spectrum? The ARRL 10m contest was run less than 2 weeks ago. I snagged a WAS in less than 3 hours of play. Here is a small sample of other representative scores: Call QSOs Mults Hrs Score NX5M 1880 180 32 981,360 N3OC 1359 167 28 657,312 W4MYA 1198 170 30 617,440 W5YAA 1219 141 20 516,906 K4FJ 1036 154 30 494,648 N4RV 1079 146 22.7 480,340 KR0B 999 140 32 440,160 N2RM 1037 141 13 431,742 VE1OP 954 123 14.6 401,472 KY1V 894 138 32 353,224 N4GN 828 135 ~12 344,520 K6RIM 883 124 12.7 343,728 NU4SC(@W4MEL) 804 136 30 338,912 KI9A(@WE9A) 710 123 17 276,380 K3WW 635 134 13 268,000 N4CW 515 135 225,990 W7RN(K5RC) 703 102 6 171,564 N4BAA 512 78 18 160,368 WX3B 614 104 14 156,416 W6OAT 473 107 8:00 148,516 W2AU 412 119 14.55 146,013 K0GAS 453 78 141,192 W4NF 480 106 7.5 124,444 KM5VI 597 92 ~18 117,944 AA3B 432 66 12 114,048 W6TE 521 93 11 112,158 K4IU 400 82 8.53 109,060 N3BB 414 56 3 92,736 VO1HE 423 88 9.5 90,288 K5NA 1300 88 32 457,600 K4OJ(N4KM) 1170 83 24 388,440 N4WW(K8NZ) 1099 84 34 369,264 N5DO 1004 77 27 309,232 K9BGL 878 81 284,472 N6ZZ 870 81 282,204 WJ9B 892 77 32 274,428 W9WI 749 80 240,000 W3BP 760 74 20 224,690 N2NT 666 79 12 210,456 N5ZK(W5ASP) 700 68 14 185,232 K8AJS 612 70 23.5 171,360 W0ZA 607 607 24 167,532 N5NA 564 69 15 155,664 KU8E 564 67 13.4 151,152 K2BA 506 56 7.73 113,344 K3JT 320 62 6.5 79,608 N3RD 300 64 7 76,800 K0RI 300 63 17 75,600 NN7ZZ(N5LZ) 307 57 8 69,996 KA2D 265 61 16 64,904 The preliminary "claimed score" list runs several hundred more lines, but I think this sample discredits your notion that 10m should be excluded from the "useful" spectrum. 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. Then you should have done so. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
#39
December 29th 05, 07:23 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
KØHB wrote: "Jeffrey Herman" wrote To be accurate, the 1.7 MHz of 10m should be excluded at this time... Why? Is it not useful spectrum? The ARRL 10m contest was run less than 2 weeks ago. I snagged a WAS in less than 3 hours of play. Here is a small sample of other representative scores: Call QSOs Mults Hrs Score NX5M 1880 180 32 981,360 cut for breifity are you willing should the issue arise (you know RRAPer and proof) to make the full data avable if asked? |
|
#40
December 29th 05, 07:39 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
kb9rqz wrote:
are you willing should the issue arise (you know RRAPer and proof) to make the full data avable if asked? Yes. http://lists.contesting.com/pipermai...er/065854.html |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
