| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
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 |
|
#2
December 31st 05, 12:21 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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 |
|
#3
December 31st 05, 07:30 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote in message oups.com... [snip] Tech has been the defacto "entry level" since 2000. Although the licensing structure was changed in 2000, the Tech license has been the defacto entry license for several years before that. I earned my original license in 1992. All the new licensees that I personally knew started at either Tech or Tech with code. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#4
December 31st 05, 04:01 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 oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: (SNIP) 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%. Perhaps, but that can't be verified easily. 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? Exactly. In the end, it was the doctor's, if anyone, that would have to be assessed as signing off on a waiver that shouldn't have been issued. 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. Neither of which makes testing easier as long as the total syllabus of questions remains the same. If a student is given a list of 100 spelling words to learn, it is neither easier or harder for the student to pass if the spelling test has 20 words or 10 words. In the end, the student still has to learn all the words on the list. (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. Do you see any mass effort to upgrade by currently licensed Novice or Advanced license holders? In fact, there seems to be more than a handful of Advanced that say they'll never upgrade so they can be ID'd as having passed 13wpm morse. 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. In today's environment that shouldn't be a big deal at all. The entire database could probably be imported into an Excel file and given to some college computer science majors and modified in a day or so. This stuff just isn't rocket science anymore. (SNIP) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#5
December 31st 05, 04:11 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: (SNIP) 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%. Perhaps, but that can't be verified easily. Ditto the number of Conditionals that "got waivers in other ways." ;^) |
|
#6
December 31st 05, 06:40 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: (SNIP) 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%. Perhaps, but that can't be verified easily. The FCC database does indicate if someone used a medical waiver. You have to know the codes but they're pretty easy to figure out. Ancient history now anyway, since medical waivers haven't existed for almost six years now. 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? Exactly. In the end, it was the doctor's, if anyone, that would have to be assessed as signing off on a waiver that shouldn't have been issued. 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. Neither of which makes testing easier as long as the total syllabus of questions remains the same. I disagree! If a student is given a list of 100 spelling words to learn, it is neither easier or harder for the student to pass if the spelling test has 20 words or 10 words. In the end, the student still has to learn all the words on the list. No, the student simply has to learn enough words to get a passing grade. And the number of tests was reduced as well, so the chances of squeaking by improved! (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. Do you see any mass effort to upgrade by currently licensed Novice or Advanced license holders? Nope. Novice total is down to about half what it was before restructuring, Advanced is down to about three-quarters. Part of that is clearly attrition, and some is due to upgrading. In fact, there seems to be more than a handful of Advanced that say they'll never upgrade so they can be ID'd as having passed 13wpm morse. Which simply proves their ignorance! The simple possession of an Advanced is not proof of 13 wpm code testing, because: - For a decade or so, an Advanced could be had with 5 wpm code and a medical waiver - For a limited time after the 2000 restructuring, an Advanced could be had by getting a 5 wpm General and a CSCE for the Advanced written. 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. In today's environment that shouldn't be a big deal at all. I know, but FCC sure seems to make a big deal about it. For example, why in the world did FCC decide to renew Tech Pluses as Techs? Why doesn't FCC renew licenses when a modification (address/name change, upgrade, etc.) is done? (see below for possible reason). The entire database could probably be imported into an Excel file and given to some college computer science majors and modified in a day or so. This stuff just isn't rocket science anymore. The problem is that since the database is official Government information, it can't just be handed out that way. And with over 700,000 entries in the amateur radio database alone, (including grace period licenses), checking for mistakes could be a major headache. The main point in trying to understand the FCC mindset is to help craft proposals that have a better-than-snowball's-chance of actually being implemented. --- There was a time when FCC would renew a license with a modification. This helped me out back in the 1970s when I moved a few times (school, job, etc.). Each move got me a new 5 year term on the license. The FCC went to 10 year license terms back in 1983-84 to reduce paperwork. But then FCC changed the rules so that renewal can only be done if the license is within 90 days of expiring, or if a vanity call is issued. The vanity call thing is to avoid pro-rating the fee, IIRC. But why not renew a ham's license whenever the amateur moves? Doing so would reduce the number of interactions each ham would have with FCC unless they didn't change anything for 10 years. One possible reason is enforcement. An enforcement tool that FCC has used recently is to not routinely renew the license of an amateur who is at odds with the Commission. (K1MAN?) The license renewal is "under review" for as long as FCC deems suitable. Obviously it helps not to be handing out renewals all the time for that tool to be effective. Another reason may be to keep the database more accurate. 73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY |
|
#7
December 31st 05, 08:37 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
|
|
#9
December 31st 05, 08:59 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote: On 30 Dec 2005 16:21:17 -0800, wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: cut 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. indeed meaning most of what you have been going aboiut is meaningless cut 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? accorsong the words of Stevie he is and by extention all VE's Steveve has publicaly claimed that he refused to process a (inone case that he admits to) a wiaver. likely there are other example s of VE's doing this it would be ilgeal but it has been done cu Mark, that posting needs to go to Riley. |
|
#10
December 31st 05, 10:01 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote: wrote: On 30 Dec 2005 16:21:17 -0800, wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: cut 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. indeed meaning most of what you have been going aboiut is meaningless cut 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? accorsong the words of Stevie he is and by extention all VE's Steveve has publicaly claimed that he refused to process a (inone case that he admits to) a wiaver. likely there are other example s of VE's doing this it would be ilgeal but it has been done cu Mark, that posting needs to go to Riley. it has gone to the FCC, the FBI, The TN BoN, the AF officers overseeing CAP, the police, and the ARRL VEC if you know how to get it Riley himself please assist me I am more than willing to try the FCC again |
Hybrid Mode
