"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
news:21581ca121ce6e1a0cb83d94148bf23d.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just
WHY
should there be testing for a ham license?

Because your transmissions travel on a "public thoroughfare", there is
a
requirement to ensure that you have demonstrated the knowledge to
operate without negative impact on the other users of that resource,
sort of like you need a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways.
73, de Hans, K0HB

Well said Hans.

Well said indeed, but what if enough people just reject that logic?
What if it is decided that the licenses just need to be bought? Say 200
bucks a shot? Or maybe a yearly sort of thing. Why have any other
qualifications for the license?

- Mike KB3EIA -

When the FCC takes that position then I'll fight
against it. For now, that's just empty speculation.
I have long sgo stated my opposition to any
elimination of written testing...and, have made
suggestions to the VCCs on ways to improve
written testing.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
NCI Director

I fully agree with Bill ... I will also oppose any attempt to eliminate
written testing on technical, RF safety, rules/regs, etc.

The way it works is a slow, gradual reduction of written testing, not
complete elimination all in one go.

Consider the 2000 restructuring. IIRC, to get a full-privileges
license, we went from 5 written tests totalling 190 questions
(30/35/35/50/40) to 3 written tests totalling 120 questions
(35/35/50). For a General, it went from 3 written tests totalling 100
questions to 2 questions totalling 70 questions. Technician got the
biggest reduction - from two tests totalling 65 questions to one test
of 35 questions.

Yes, the Q&A pools were merged and the rules simplified, but does that
account for the large drop in both the number of tests and number of
questions? Note that the NPRM comments were full of suggestions to
improve the written tests. Indeed, if there was any subject in which
there was general consensus among those responding, it was that the
written tests were either adequate as they were or needed to be
improved. But all that was done was to reduce written testing and
remove the requirement that each test contain a certain number of
questions from each category.

In fact I recall that several of us were in agreement back before
restructuring that the then-current tests for a Tech were inadequate
for the privileges granted, particularly being able to run 1500 W
output at meat-cooking wavelengths. But FCC disagreed, and cut the
testing for a Tech almost in half.

Some folks here have proposed either a single license class, or at
most two license classes. It is logical to conclude that such changes
would result in even less written testing.

Perhaps the rewording of S25 wrt written testing standards will have
an effect - but I sincerely doubt it.

I have read that W5YI, Fred Maia, has proposed making the license
tests "less technical" in order to attract more newcomers. Perhaps
this is where the misunderstanding about NCI's stand on written
testing originated.

THAT's
what separates ham radio from "personal radio services."

That and a lot more. Like the use of a wide variety of bands and modes
- including Morse/CW.

But to ask the devil's advocate question:

Why MUST there be so much written testing for an amateur license,
given that most hams use modern, manufactured equipment today, and
that almost all FCC enforcement actions against hams are for
"operating" violations rather than technical ones?

73 de Jim, N2EY