"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course.

Why do such different levels of knowledge need to be tested? FCC sez a
Tech is qualified to use any authorized mode/power anywhere on the 2
meter band - but nowhere on the 20 meter band. Code test or no code
test. Why does 20 meters require more technical competency than 2
meters? Why does 14.020 require more technical competency than 14.030?

Yes, there's rules, regs and propagation. But the General and Extra
tests cover a lot more than those three things. The written test
system we have now, and which we have had for decades, FORCES more
technical stuff on prospective hams whether they want it, need it, or
plan to use it, or not.

See 97.1 ... basis and purpose ... the ARS is supposed to promote
technical self-education and experimentation. While it is still sort of
"incentive licensing," using the "carrot" of increased privs on HF is
the FCC's way of promoting that goal.

Also, as I pointed out ... Techs on VHF/UHF stand less of a
chance of causing worldwide interference problems than folks
on HF (and the FCC doesn't like to have to deal with complaints
from other administrations ...)


Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.

And many do not. For non-technical types, learning the written
material can require quite a bit of effort. It took me far longer to
learn the written material than the code way back when. Heck, I was
licensed and on the air long before school got around to things like
electricity and basic trigonometry, let alone how even the simplest
radios work.

However, learning that material at least is in line with 97.1's goals.
Learning how to encode/decode Morse with one's "wetware"
doesn't fall in the same ballpark.

The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

Call that the "ante" effect.

It's not a game of poker ... you either know the material or you don't
and it is not a legitimate purpose of regulation to "make you work xxx
amount to get a license." If someone has to work to learn the material
that's legitimately required, so be it ... if they already know it and don't
have to put forth any (further) effort to learn it, so be it, too.

[snippage]

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the
entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience.

I'm not one of those people.

And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows
them
to do.

It is simply human nature not to value highly what is acquired easily.

I worked hard for many years to gain the technical knowledge and
skills I have ... the fact that I didn't have to put forth additional
effort to pass the extra test doesn't devalue what the license allows
me to do one iota.

But let's talk about this "graduation" thing. In a way, a license IS a
"diploma" or "graduation certificate" - it says you have met the
requirements for that level of privileges. It does NOT say you know
everything there is to know about the subjects covered, or that your
education is complete. Just that you met the minimum requirements.

OK ... goes to the old joke, "What do you call the guy who finished
at the bottom of his class in medical school?" (Doctor)

Hams will have different levels of technical knowledge and skills,
depending on whether they are engineers, plumbers, cab drivers,
etc. (Though there is nothing preventing an interested, intelligent
cab driver from studying on his own and achieving a high level of
technical knowledge and skill.)

So you would either beef up (pun intended) the Tech written or lower
the Tech power level. (I think the latter is more reasonable, btw)

If it were up to me *personally*, I would reduce the power limit for
techs to something around 50W ... those that simply operate commercial
radios wouldn't really be affected, those who have the skill and knowledge
to build higher powered rigs for things like EME, tropscatter, etc. should
have no problem passing at least the General written.

Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

Still doesn't explain why we need the Extra, or even most of the
General.

If you don't get why the FCC uses the "carrot" to promote 97.1
I doubt I can explain it in a way that will cause you to get it.

I strongly suspect that you actually *do* get it, but simply wish
to be contrarian about it because it suits your purpose ... which
appears to be to attempt to justify forcing Morse on everyone
"just because the technical stuff is forced on everyone" (or something
to that effect.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio

Ah - a "carrot" to get them to "jump through the hoop" of more written
testing. Or, to put it another way, it's OK to force people to learn
lots more written-test material, whether or not they are interested,
in order to grant them an HF license, but it's not OK to force people
to learn even a very basic level of Morse code/CW, whether or not they
are interested, in order to grant them an HF license.

Back to 97.1 ...

Seems like a contradiction, since the Tech written test is obviously
adequate for all VHF/UHF modes and frequencies.

... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Sure - but at the same time, VHF/UHF is where many if not most of the
public safety services are. Interference with those services can
easily cost lives.

But I would wager that the vast majority of techs use store-bought rigs
(and with today's interated circuits, SMT manufacturing, etc, they are
generally VERY reliable, statistically-speaking)

[snip]

As for technical contributions, the writtens cover a wide variety of
subjects at a very basic level. Meaning you have to know a little bit
about a lot of things to pass, but knowing a lot about a few things
doesn't help you.

The person who is really interested in, say, antenna systems, is
forced to learn all sorts of stuff about other subjects to pass the
written tests - stuff that he/she may never use and isn't interested
in. Stuff which is not needed for the proper and legal operation of an
amateur station. Sounds like a hoop-jump.

Sounds like sour grapes because your favorite mode is no longer
going to be on government life support.

73,
Carl - wk3c