|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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 |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:58:23 GMT, "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" i go for choice a or b (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. I see no merit in power limits unless the point is to drop some sorts of questions out the learner license pool to keep it smaller but the difficulty of the main test should be enough to be roughly famier what what is need for safe operation without undue accidnetal interference I aleraner liecen priveldge simlar to the old noivce adding 2 m and 6m (no p[ower limits except preahps as above hf access bas before with voice mode premitted (by either sliding the sgement up into voice or sliding voice down to old novice bands both have merit both have problems) Cheers, Bill K2UNK everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 BTW with the exalant response steve you can look forward to seeing this email addy on RRAP a while Mark Morgan _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK (b) one license, one learner's permit. License exam at the present General exam level, Called Amateur. All privs, 10 year renewable. Just like way back when. Leaner's permit called Limited, nonrenewable, ever. Term is 2 years. No grace period. If you want back in, you pass the "General" exam. Limited to 100W ERP on HF, except 5MHz limited to 50W ERP, and 50W ERP on VHF+. Participation on 5MHz limited to emergency training nets and emergency nets. All mode privs except power, no automated or robot stations, no repeater control. Thanks for asking. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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. How does any proposed system handle all these requirements? How do we convince FCC to accept the changes? Those are the tough ones! K0HB's proposed 2 class system addresses all these issues. But FCC denied his ideas. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
On 27 Dec 2005 15:45:54 -0800, wrote in
. 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 One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they want to continue. - No significant extra admin work for FCC A single license would -reduce- the FCC's workload by mere simplification. - FCC sees the optimum level as 3 license classes, none of which have a limited term and all of which are renewable. The FCC has changed it's opinion on that subject several times. IIRC, there were once six different license classes (please correct me if I'm wrong). How does any proposed system handle all these requirements? It ain't rocket surgery. How do we convince FCC to accept the changes? Boycott the ARRL? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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 |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote License exam at the present General exam level, Called Amateur. All privs, 10 year renewable. Just like way back when. There currently are 5 grades of "General". Which do you mean? One-Star General - Post 1987 Technician given a complimentary field promotion to General Two-Star General - Previous Conditional given humanitarian promotion to General Three-Star General - Pre 1987 Technician given posthumous promotion to General Four-Star General - General who took an actual General examination in modern times at a VE session Five-Star General - General who took an actual General examination in front of a steely eyed FCC official in a noisy drafty government office in downtown Fargo and had to walk uphill (both ways) through 10-foot snowdrifts on Good Friday 1954. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
KØHB wrote: wrote License exam at the present General exam level, Called Amateur. All privs, 10 year renewable. Just like way back when. There currently are 5 grades of "General". Which do you mean? One-Star General - Post 1987 Technician given a complimentary field promotion to General Two-Star General - Previous Conditional given humanitarian promotion to General Three-Star General - Pre 1987 Technician given posthumous promotion to General Four-Star General - General who took an actual General examination in modern times at a VE session Five-Star General - General who took an actual General examination in front of a steely eyed FCC official in a noisy drafty government office in downtown Fargo and had to walk uphill (both ways) through 10-foot snowdrifts on Good Friday 1954. 73, de Hans, K0HB **** |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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? |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Frank Gilliland wrote:
One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they want to continue. 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. 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. That would mean each QSO would be separated by just 22 Hz. I'll be more generous. Let's pretend that all 3.75 MHz is available all the time, with say, one-tenth of all operators on at any one time; now each two-person QSO is separated by 112 Hz. Getting better. Worried that I didn't take into account frequency re-use? Alright, suppose we could manage three simultaneous QSOs spread across the country on a single frequency; each such grouping would now be separated by 336 Hz. That could be done if we ban phone. I'll never understand this liberal mentality of wanting to grant everyone MF/HF privileges; it's no longer a privilege if it's something that everyone can get practically for free. We received our current spectrum total at a time (WARC 1979) when we had less than half the present number of hams. This movement of wanting to "fill up the bands or we'll lose them" is nonsense. As Michael Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder." Jeff KH6O -- Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System |
Q How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"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 demonstration of "figures don't lie, but liars figure". In this case the person "figuring" is no less than a self-proclaimed university "math lecturer", so we're seeing a pro at work! 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. Uh huh! Get real! The most popular US operating event is the ARRL Field Day. To date, the record number of logs submitted was 2261 in 2004. The average number of transmitters-per-log was 2.41. That works out to 2,725 two-way QSO's on the air at any time. The mix of phone vs CW runs about 60:40. That works out to 1090 CW transmitters and 1635 phone transmitters active at any moment. Presuming a phone transmitter uses 2400Hz of spectrum and a CW transmitter uses 200Hz, and assuming your 3:1 geographical sharing, that works out to 1.38MHz of the avaliable 3.75MHz is "busy" at any given QTH, leaving 2.45MHz available for additional users, and that's on the busiest MF/HF weekend of the year! So much for your 336 Hz per user! Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
On 28 Dec 2005 20:51:57 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman)
wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they want to continue. 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. Ok..... If suddenly, as if by magic, all licensees were granted MF/HF privileges, I said nothing of the sort. You are assuming the changes would be immediate. My suggestion to allow -EXISTING- licenses to remain valid wouldn't change anyone's privileges until it's time to renew, at which time the licensee can either take the one-license test or let it lapse. snip rant based on incorrect assumption I'll never understand this liberal mentality of wanting to grant everyone MF/HF privileges; it's no longer a privilege if it's something that everyone can get practically for free. That pretty much describes the current state of Amateur Radio anyway; a written test using questions that are publically available (don't even have to steal them out of the teacher's desk!), a code test at a speed slower than needed for practical use, and a fee that isn't much more than the cost of a happy-meal. But then again, what law requires that an Amateur license must be -earned-? There isn't one. On the contrary, the law provides that any citizen who wants a license can get one, and the testing process is only a method to verify that the prospective licensee knows the rules. So if you don't like the "liberal mentality" of the law then you should probably work to change it. Good luck. We received our current spectrum total at a time (WARC 1979) when we had less than half the present number of hams. This movement of wanting to "fill up the bands or we'll lose them" is nonsense. I agree, and I don't recall saying anything of the sort. As Michael Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder." Lincoln may have been aesthetically challenged, but I'm pretty sure it was his wife that had the mental disorder. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Q How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:21:45 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote in . net: "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 demonstration of "figures don't lie, but liars figure". In this case the person "figuring" is no less than a self-proclaimed university "math lecturer", so we're seeing a pro at work! 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. Uh huh! Get real! The most popular US operating event is the ARRL Field Day. To date, the record number of logs submitted was 2261 in 2004. The average number of transmitters-per-log was 2.41. That works out to 2,725 two-way QSO's on the air at any time. The mix of phone vs CW runs about 60:40. That works out to 1090 CW transmitters and 1635 phone transmitters active at any moment. Presuming a phone transmitter uses 2400Hz of spectrum and a CW transmitter uses 200Hz, and assuming your 3:1 geographical sharing, that works out to 1.38MHz of the avaliable 3.75MHz is "busy" at any given QTH, leaving 2.45MHz available for additional users, and that's on the busiest MF/HF weekend of the year! So much for your 336 Hz per user! Beep beep de Hans, K0HB He also forgot to discount the time spent by hams typing in newsgroups instead of working their stations. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote: One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they want to continue. That's a good way to get the number of US hams down to about half what it is now... 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. That depends what you mean by "useful for communications". If you're talking about DX-with-limited-power-and-antennas, the figure varies all over the place with the time of day, year, solar cycle, etc. There are times when nothing over 5 MHz is very useful, and times when all the bands are "wide open". OTOH, if we include things like regional and local QSOs, bands that are useless for DX (80 meters at midday, 15 meters at midnight at the bottom of the cycle) are 'useful' a lot more of the time. Note also that 1.7 MHz of that 3.75 MHz is the ten meter band. 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. More like 661,000, actually. As it stands now, about half that number (in the USA) have lots of HF privileges (add up the current number of Generals, Advanceds, and Extras - see the thread "ARS License Numbers") 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. Whoa! That means every ham is on HF six hours a day, every day! 42 hours on HF per week! A more realistic figure, I would say, is something like one hour per day per ham. Sure, there will be some who are more active, but also some who are far less active. That would mean each QSO would be separated by just 22 Hz. Well, let's see.... One hour per day per ham, with two hams per QSO, and 660,000 hams, means 13,750 QSOs simultaneously. That's 136 Hz per QSO. I'll be more generous. Let's pretend that all 3.75 MHz is available all the time, with say, one-tenth of all operators on at any one time; now each two-person QSO is separated by 112 Hz. Getting better. 2.4 hours per day per ham on HF - every day? That's 16.8 hours per week. Worried that I didn't take into account frequency re-use? Alright, suppose we could manage three simultaneous QSOs spread across the country on a single frequency; each such grouping would now be separated by 336 Hz. Using my numbers it works out to maybe 408 Hz That could be done if we ban phone. Ah, but many 'phone QSOs are round-tables with more than two hams per QSO. If an SSB round table uses 2400 Hz, but has six hams in it, the Hz-per-ham is only 400... And modesd like PSK31 use less than 100 Hz.... I'll never understand this liberal mentality of wanting to grant everyone MF/HF privileges; it's no longer a privilege if it's something that everyone can get practically for free. What "liberal mentality"? Let's look at the record: 1983-1984: FCC testing is turned over to VECs, Q&A pools are published, sending test is waived: Reagan Administration. 1987 Technician/General written is split in two: Reagan Administration 1990-1991: Medical waivers for code tests (as a favor to a foreign King), Technician loses its code test: Bush I administration 1998-2000: 3 license classes closed off to new issues; written exams reduced, code test reduced to 5 wpm: Clinton Administration 2003: S25.5 code test requirement eliminated from treaty: Bush II administration 2005: FCC proposes complete elimination of code test: Bush II administration. Then there's BPL - who supported that idea? We received our current spectrum total at a time (WARC 1979) when we had less than half the present number of hams. Compare how many hams with General/Advanced/Extra licenses existed then and now... All three WARC bands added only 250 kHz to our HF allocations. This movement of wanting to "fill up the bands or we'll lose them" is nonsense. The bigger question is: With over 300,000 US hams holding General, Advanced or Extra licenses, (all of which have lots of HF/MF privs), why aren't the bands busting at the seams 24/7?? Everyone who can meet the license requirements should get the license. That's all there is to it. As Michael Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder." Michael Savage? What's his call? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Jeffrey Herman wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote: One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they want to continue. 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. 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. That would mean each QSO would be separated by just 22 Hz. I'll be more generous. Let's pretend that all 3.75 MHz is available all the time, with say, one-tenth of all operators on at any one time; now each two-person QSO is separated by 112 Hz. Getting better. Sounds like the old argument for the Morse Code Exam - to keep people out of amateur radio. Worried that I didn't take into account frequency re-use? Alright, suppose we could manage three simultaneous QSOs spread across the country on a single frequency; each such grouping would now be separated by 336 Hz. That could be done if we ban phone. Ah! The perfect width for CW. Could be a renaissance for the mode. I'll never understand this liberal mentality of wanting to grant everyone MF/HF privileges; I'll never understand the liberal mentality wanting set asides of public domain for few priveleged people to have a little fun. Kind of reminds me of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge where only F&W scientists are ever likely to set foot. Kind of reminds me of the falsified bobcat fur that F&W tried to use to close off 15 million acres of public lands to sportsmen. it's no longer a privilege if it's something that everyone can get practically for free. If they meet the necessary government requirements. We received our current spectrum total at a time (WARC 1979) when we had less than half the present number of hams. This movement of wanting to "fill up the bands or we'll lose them" is nonsense. Yet we lost unused spectrum. As Michael Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder." Jeff KH6O He is correct. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
On 28 Dec 2005 14:56:19 -0800, wrote in
. com: Jeffrey Herman wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote: One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they want to continue. That's a good way to get the number of US hams down to about half what it is now... Possibly. It could also reduce the inter-ham bickering to about half of what it is now, which would make the service much more appealing to potential -new- hams, myself included. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Frank Gilliland wrote: On 28 Dec 2005 14:56:19 -0800, wrote in . com: Jeffrey Herman wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote: One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they want to continue. That's a good way to get the number of US hams down to about half what it is now... Possibly. It could also reduce the inter-ham bickering to about half of what it is now, which would make the service much more appealing to potential -new- hams, myself included. We might be able to accept Jim's unsupervised counting. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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! |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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 |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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. 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. 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. 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. 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". But FCC said no to all of them involving more privs for Techs, new license classes, automatic upgrades, and much more. 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. No, that's not how it happened, IIRC. FCC first proposed a nocodetest ham license for the USA in 1975, as part of their "two-ladder" restructuring. (If you think "incentive licensing" made things complex and took away privs from existing hams, you should see what FCC proposed in 1975!) That 1975 proposal was so uniformly opposed by hams, ARRL, and other groups that it went nowhere. About the only part of it that was enacted was the renewal of Conditionals as General, and the Novice becoming full renewable like other licenses. Then in 1983 FCC tried again to get a nocodetest ham license. And again ARRL and others opposed it so strongly that the idea went nowhere. Finally in 1990, FCC tried again, and let it be known that this time they wouldn't take no for an answer. This was when 220 was under attack from land mobile, and ARRL decided to propose a new license class that would be a sort of "VHF/UHF Novice". No code test, simple written test, and the centerpiece of the privs would be 220 MHz privileges. The idea was that new hams would fill up 220 so much that it couldn't be reassigned. FCC saw through that idea, plus didn't want another license class, so they just dropped the code test for the Technician. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. My point is not that change is impossible, but that FCC isn't likely to adopt changes that violate the above principles. For example, more than one proposal wanted free upgrades. FCC said no to all of them, and gave reasons why. (See footnote 142...) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
Frank Gilliland wrote: On 28 Dec 2005 14:56:19 -0800, wrote in . com: Jeffrey Herman wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote: One license. Existing licenses would be valid until expiration with no renewals -- they would need to pass the single-license test if they want to continue. That's a good way to get the number of US hams down to about half what it is now... Possibly. It could also reduce the inter-ham bickering to about half of what it is now, which would make the service much more appealing to potential -new- hams, myself included. hear hear bear repating so I will scerwing the attribution to make sure it is excised by google et all ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
|
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
"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. |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
an old friend wrote:
hear hear bear repating so I will scerwing the attribution... At the very *least*, you've done that. Enjoy that new toupee. Dave K8MN |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
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"] |
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). |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
wrote: 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). But will Jim allow it? He already has it in his mind that the FCC doesn't license amateur radio (Dec 10), so he must have stepped up to the plate as the authority that must be dealt with in these matters. So at the end of the day, it is Miccolis that must be convinced. ;^) |
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 |
How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?
|
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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? |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com