On Mar 4, 3:11�pm, wrote:
On Mar 4, 1:10 pm, "
wrote:





On Mar 4, 7:54?am, wrote:

On Mar 4, 10:25 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message
On Mar 4, 9:10 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in message

There will ultimately be two classes of ham radio license.

Tech, and Extra.

Or Class A and Class B. A VHF+ entry-level license, and a license with
all
privileges.

Just as I suggested in my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments, I might add.

* *[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

Rip Van Deignan... *overslept.





I disagree. ?My bet is that we'll indeed have a de facto two level
license
system but I think they will be General and Extra.

I've been on record for a long, long time advocating a one license
"system." ?However, I've compromised with Hans suggestion of a simple
entry level license, and a full license. ?Whover said we needed more
license classes ought to have his head examined.

Well it's hard to say what the right number of classes is. ?I would advocate
two licenses: ?a 50 question General exam and a 50 question Extra exam. ?The
material in the Tech & General tests has enough overlap and is basic enough
that it would not be a big hardship on applicants to master the combined
material. ?Going straight from a Tech or other entry level test to Extra is
a huge jump in both quantity and complexity of the material. ?It would
certainly discourage a lot of people and might increase the drop out rate.

I disagree. ?The "top" license, Amateur, should be the current General
exam, and the entry level license, Limited Amateur, should be
something much less.

* *An ENTRY level license NAME loaded with denigrating
* *adjectives is not a good way to attract anyone. *Using
* *"novice" or "beginner" or "apprentice" or "tyro" or "newbie"
* *MIGHT attract a younger teener but is a turn-off to most
* *anyone over 18. *"Limited" might be an "accurate"
* *adjective but it is still emotionally-loaded as a descriptor.

* *Even a "tyro" marketing person would have tossed the
* *"Novice" name in the trash long ago. *:-(

* *If anything, just call the entry class for Entry class...

We could go French and call it the enfante' class.

May Eiffel drop your tower! :-)

Or Airman First Class, Airman Second Class, Airman Third Class...

Humphhh...no ME, blue-suiter... :-(

* *Morsemanship skills could have used an on-air learning
* *period for many. *It was never an intellectual skill but a
* *psychomotor thing that some had trouble with despite
* *some saying "oh, no trouble at all for 'me'." * :-(

"If I can do it anyone can. *And if they can't then they're not
special like me and don't belong..."

They are spay-shull. Shades of SNL and the "church lady!"

* *If any ham club wants to have specialized classes on
* *morsemanship skills, that's fine with me. *Those interested
* *in that can do the classroom thing all they want, then try
* *it out for real with their radios later. *That's the SAME
* *way one learns theory in classroom environments, then
* *tries it out on real radio hardware later.

Sounds real good to me.

The military did NOT restrict newbies from a successful
morse code class to "entry level" spectrum spaces.
They were expected to PERFORM as directed.

The same with voice operators. Once they learned
the various radios in school they were out in the field,
NONE having any "entry level" spectrum spaces.

Now, not all in here have had military experience. None
of those realizes that the military is primarily trained to
DESTROY the enemy. Using radios while the enemy
is busy trying to destroy you is one of the harshest
environments I know. There's no "entry level" for that,
either, no spay-shull space for "novice killers." :-(

There's wayyyy too much emphasis on this class-
distinction nonsense in a HOBBY activity that is
not allowed (by law) to be a commercial radio service.

73, LA