RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

December 14th 05, 04:32 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

Considering that Len hasn't even started, that's hardly a surprise...

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps.

The ONLY alternative? :-)

If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes.

Jim just got through posting that in 1936 the code speed was *increased
and the written exams made *more comprehensive for the three license
classes at the time. Later, all priveleges were granted to the
General class license.

That's the history.

Sad, but true.

From before 1936, until 1951, full amateur privileges in the USA
required a Class A license. (15 years including the WW2 shutdown)

From 1951 until 1953 full amateur privileges in the USA required an
Advanced or an Amateur Extra license. (2 years)

Did the General license convey the modes and power privs that the
Advanced and Extra licenses conveyed?

Look it up.

Hi!

From 1953 until 1968 full amateur privileges in the USA required a
Conditional, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra license. (15 years)

(the requirements for full privileges were lowered in early 1953)

From 1968 until the present time, full amateur privileges in the USA
have required an Amateur Extra license. (37 years)

Did the General and Advanced licenses convey the modes and power privs
that the Extra license conveyed?

I think you know the answer.

I think you are right.

Then they were taken away.

37 years ago. I lost privileges. You and Len did not.

The entire USA amateur service lost in a big way,

How? Extras did not lose any privileges back then. Others could
get back the "lost" privileges by taking a test or two.

Nobody lost any bands, power or modes except Novices, who
lost 2 meter 'phone.

Was it necessary to punish amateurs?

but you find a way to personalize it.

The rules changes of 1968 and 1969 affected me at the time.

They affected everyone after you as well.

They did not affect you and they did not affect Len.

You're simply wrong on that one, Quitefine.

Now, one license class with the equivalent of the General Class exam is
"lowering the requirements."

Yes, it would be.

Does the Advanced and Extra licenses convey the modes and power privs
that the General license conveyed?

What do you think?

I think you know what I think.

Why does one have to "upgrade" through license
classes?

One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box".
You haven't.

One doesn't have to upgrade at all. At one time the General conveyed
all amateur priveleges, and few amateurs tested higher.

Which is one reason the rules were changed in 1968 and 1969.

Which is another reason that those license classes were arbitrary and
redundant at the time. They remain so today.

And FCC was convinced that wasn't a good thing. FCC is still convinced
of the need for at least 3 license classes.

Yeh, yeh, yeh. Using the same logic, if the FCC were conviced that a
Morse Code exam were still a good idea, they would have a specification
for Morse Code in the regulations.

Nope.

Yep.

FCC specifically mentions the need for a 3 level license system in the
NPRM.

The FCC specifically excludes any definition or specification for Morse
Code.

Just because no one at the FCC is paying attention doesn't mean that
the present rules are worthwhile.

"No one at the FCC is paying attention"?

Just because they disagree with you?

It was just a guess. Why else would they allow such arbitrary and
redundant rules, exams, and license classes to exist?

You might want to read the current NPRM. Pay particular attention to
footnote 142...

Asleep at the wheel.

FCC's not asleep.

Coma?

Then the FCC
implemented the Incentive Licensing System which you loved, took away
priveleges, and the rest is history. Now you say that going back to
all priveleges for the General exam is lowering requirements.

And it would be. The standards were reduced in the Great Giveaway of
1953. You want a repeat of that.

Presently, every mode and every power limit privilege is permitted to
General, Advanced, and Extra licensee. That means that the Advanced
and Extra exams are arbitrary and redundant.

In your opinion, yes, but not in my opinion. And not in FCC's opinion.

You could be correct. And if you're correct then it is the General and
Advanced licensees that are getting a nearly free ride. They must be
stripped of privs.

But let's explore your statement there a bit.

"Presently, every mode and every power limit privilege is permitted to
General, Advanced, and Extra licensee."

That's true, as far as it goes. But it's also true that, presently,
every
mode and every power limit privilege is permitted to Technician,
Technician Plus, General, Advanced, and Extra licensees.

I understand the reason for the split in privs between the Tech/Tech+
and the G/A/E licensees. The reason for that barrier no longer exists,
but the exam and licensing schema has not kept pace. Time to perform a
top-down review, starting with basis and purpose.

So by *your* logic (not mine), the General, Advanced
and Extra exams are arbitrary and redundant.

The Technician exam is weak on HF issues. What do you think?

You need to have REAL distinctions is Testing Material VS Priveleges
between the license classes.

There are real distinctions in the tested material. The distinctions
in privileges are less clear.

As I said.

Those distinctions do not presently exist.

Sure they do. The trouble you perceive is that they're not directly
related to the
additional privileges granted.

Time to reconcile.

The knowledge and skill required to operate 1,500 watts of CW at 14.024
is EXACTLY the same knowledge and skill required to operate 1,500 watts
at 14.026

How do you know? Have you ever done it? I think not!

The knowledge and skill required to operate 1500 watts of CW on 14.024
includes Morse Code skill, too.

But let's suppose your claim about 14.026 is true.

Let's not for the moment. You now need to explain how it is different.
Provide detail.

Then wouldn't it also be true that the knowledge and skill required to
operate
1,500 watts of CW on 144.026 MHz is EXACTLY the same knowledge and
skill
required to operate 1,500 watts on 14.026 MHz?

There are differences in the behavior of RF at VHF frequencies. An
environmental assessment will begin to expose that.

And wouldn't it also be true that the knowledge and skill required to
operate
1,500 watts of CW on 14.026 MHz is EXACTLY the same knowledge and skill
required to operate 1,500 watts on 13.976 MHz?

Different service, but you're getting the point. Bravo!

I don't know if you really want to be a freebander, though.

Why can't Technicians operate on 14.026? Why can't hams operate on
13.976?

And there you go with the ultimatums and strawmen.

And while we're on the subject....

Why are hams only allowed 1500 watts output? Why not 3000, or
5000, or 10,000?

Go to Italy. They may have waivers.

Up until about 20 years ago, all US hams were allowed up to
1000 W input on AM voice. With plate modulation and a
final amplifier efficiency of 75%, that could mean 750 watts
of carrier output, and 3000 watts peak output at full modulation.
The 1500 watt rule cut that in half. Why?

Physics?

Some years back, QCWA proposed to FCC that all hams who had held
a General, Conditional or Advanced before the changes took place in
1968
should get an automatic upgrade to Extra because they lost privileges
then.
FCC said no way.

Some years back, the ARRL wanted to keep 13 and 20wpm code exams.

FCC said no way.

Actually that's not true.

The 1998 ARRL proposal would have eliminated the 13 and 20 wpm code
tests
and replaced them with a 12 wpm code test. IIRC, General code test
would have
gone to 5 wpm in their proposal.

And moments prior to that proposal, the ARRL had NO proposal. But they
saw Carl and the NCI walking up the steps to the FCC office...

Sorry you feel that way.

Why?

Is the 50 question Extra written exam too difficult?

With you, it's all about making entry difficult.

Not at all. It's about reasonable and attainable standards.

Then why do you bring up difficulty?

Is the 50 question Extra written exam too difficult to be
considered "reasonable and attainable"? After all,
that exam is all that separates a General and an Extra
anymore (since April 2000).

Again you bring up difficulty. Why?

Arbitrary is not reasonable.

Redundant is not reasonable.

Superfluous is not reasonable.

What is necessary?

If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

Right.

And if there were only one license, regardless of
what it would be called, its test(s) would
have to contain everything that is now contained in
the three written tests for the Amateur Extra.
Otherwise the standards would be reduced.

No, it wouldn't. Strawman.

If you're willing to reduce the standards, the testing
could be reduced. It's clear that's no problem for
you.

You think I want a 49 question exam? Hi!

I think you want the licensing standards lowered even more than
they have been already.

I want the necessary amount of regulation required, without arbitrary,
redundant, or superfluous license exams, license classes, and
privileges.

BTW, many of the exams are 49 or 48 or 47 questions because of the bad
questions presently in the QP.

That should be fixed.

We are self-regulating, after all.

The General License used to convey ALL AMATEUR PRIVELEGES.

That ended 37 years ago. Why do you live in the past?

You're funny, Jim.

Would you like to go back to the General test of 1968? Testing
at FCC offices only unless you lived more then 175 miles from
an exam point, no CSCEs, no published question pools, 30
day wait to retest. Oh yes, and 13 wpm code, sending and
receiving.

It's always an ultimatum strawman with you, isn't it?

I'm simply pointing out where your line of reasoning leads.

You saw where it leads. It leads to the elimination of arbitrary,
redundant, and superfluous licensing exams, classes, and privileges.

You want to go back to the past for one little piece but not
the rest.

No. I've already shown that the VE system could implement the exam.
No one would have to travel 175 miles to their nearest FCC office.
I've already shown that the FCC plan to leave presently licensed
Novices and Advanced amateur to the actuarial tables is OK with me.

Why do you say otherwise?

Sorry, but no one proclaimed you King Jim of Amateur Radiodom.

I've never claimed to be an expert, king, or anything other than
what I am.

You like arbitrary, redundant and superfluous exams, classes, and
privileges?

Apparently my knowledge and skills intimidate you, so that you
have to attack me personally rather than argue facts and opinions.

Apparently they do not. The mode chosen to provide the example of
arbitrary privs was done for your ease of understanding, not mine. And
you quickly grasped the concept and took it to its logical extension,
which would mean a freefall of your prestige and stature in the amateur
community. That scared you.

No one proclaimed you king either.

Remember, I am not the one seeking power and prestige through amateur
radio. I've been a proponent of the one license (classless) service
for a long, long time.

Is someone who expresses an opinion here somehow claiming a
royal role?

I'm glad that you easily grasp the concept that these are, after all,
only our opinions. Not "Statements of Fact," nor "Assertions of Fact."
Expressing an opinion does not make one a liar.

However, you need to realize that I advocate a review of ALL government
that presently exists, not just amateur radio. The review should start
with, "What is the purpose of government?" Refer to the U.S.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights often.

Use the present VE system, 50 question exam (or 49 questions if you
must), no code test.

Thanks for playing.

IOW, you want to lower the standards from three written tests totalling

120 questions, and one code test, to just one 50 question written test.
For all US Amateur Radio privileges.

The 50 question (or 49) exam was your proposal.

What is necessary?

Are 200 questions necessary?

So what you propose is that all new amateurs would
have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests
for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an
amateur radio license.

Is that what you want?

You're the one who loved the Incentive Licensing System which took
priveleges away from fully qualified amateurs.

Who said I "loved" it?

You have defended Incentive Licensing against every challenger.

I've defended the concepts. Is that not allowed?

Love is allowed. John Lennon said, "All we need is love."

You're the one who
loves unnecessary licensing requirements.

none of the license requirements I support are
"unnecessary".

General exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Advance exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Extra exam earns all legal modes and all legal power.

Technician exam earns all legal modes and all legal power, too.

Helluva ENTRY level license, huh?

See where your line of reasoning leads?

Yes, I do. And the Technician class is an artifact left over from an
ITU rule that was kluged together when the Novice Class went bust.

The Advanced and Extra exams and the Advanced and Extra license classes
are ARBITRARY and REDUNDANT.

To you - but not to FCC.

You now speak for the FCC?

You're the one who supports lowering the standards
again and again.

That is merely your jaundiced opinion.

"Jaundiced"? Or accurate?

Necessary rules. Necessary exam(s). Necessary license classes all
tied to privileges granted.

The testing standards have been lowered again and again in the past
25-30 years.
But that's not enough for you - you want them to be lower still. I
disagree, that's all.
But it's not me you have to convince - it's FCC.
--

So let's see what you're proposing:

- Full amateur privileges for the testing of a General license,
without any code test.

Actually not - what you want is full amateur privileges for
*less* written testing than is currently required for a General
license, without any code test.

You could probably drop the rhetoric about code tests.

- All existing Generals, Advanceds, and Extras get full
privileges. Some Technicians and Technician Pluses
who passed the Tech written when it was same as
General get full privileges too.

Two questions:

What happens to existing Novices and Technicians who
haven't passed the General written?

What happens to them now???

I'm asking what your one-class-of-license plan would do
for them. It's your plan, not mine.

Why? The FCC is presently dealing with it fairly.

FCC has repeatedly refused free (no-test) upgrades.

So?

So you have to convince FCC to reverse that policy if you
want your plan put into effect.

Why? Why must I do what you say???

You are acting very king-like.

FCC has said that the optimum system for the
future is a 3 level system, but that they'll keep the
closed-out classes until they disappear by attrition.

So?

So you have to convince FCC to reverse that policy if you
want your plan put into effect.

The plan can be put into effect without harassing people who don't want
to do anything with their existing licenses.

You want the FCC to intern these folks? I understand that Ft Chaffee
is underutilized.

How will you convince them to do otherwise?

I don't intend to convincee the FCC to give free upgrades. I don't
intend to convince the FCC to accept one class of license. I don't
intend to convince the FCC to do anything other than keep closed-out
classes until they disappear by attrition.

Then please don't expect FCC to give free upgrades.

Did't state that, didn't suggest that. Why do you keep putting your
scarecrow out there?

Don't expect FCC
to implement less than 3 classes of licenses. And don't expect
FCC to lower the testing standards any more than is already proposed.

What is proposed is the elimination of the code exam. You're welcome
to confine your discussions on rrap to that.

I -expect- good government.

Aren't you getting it? Your party has controlled the White House
for 17 of the past 25 years. The same party that gave us a B-movie
actor for 8 years and now a failed oilman for another 8.

IIRC, the White House nominates the FCC Commissioners....

Angry white male? Is that you?

I -expect- the FCC to eliminate arbitrary and redundant licensing
requirements and license classes.

IOW, you expect the FCC to agree with you on everything without
you having to convince them.

You expect the FCC to agree with me even if I should put forth a
convincing proposal?

Hi! You angry white males are all the same.

The FCC looks foolish for not having dealt with these issues already.

To whom? Perhaps you should tell the FCC they look foolish...

You thought the '98 NPRM was clearly written?

You thought the '03 RO dealt with reorganization sufficiently?

You think the present Code question is able to be dealt with in a
vacuum?

You think the present inconsistencies in the amateur regulations,
exams, licenses, and privileges is healthy for the ARS?

Yeh, the FCC looks stupid to me.