wrote:


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

Rip Van Deignan... overslept.

The last I looked, the restructuring took effect in April 2000.

Hence,

"...my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments..."

Should have said

"...my Y2K restructuring NPRM comments..."


Alas, I'm not above misplacing an adjective or adverb at 5am, however, the
gist of my comments is still accurate. Nitpick if you have nothing better to
add.

On Mar 4, 7:03 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 4, 11:51 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Mar 4, 10:09 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:

[snip]

All of amateur radio is fine for the casual operator.

Ok then, let's do the same as some typical European countries. Only one
license class and every one takes the equivalent of the Extra class
written
exam. Prior to the no code change, they did not have entry level
licenses.
All licenses took the same written (basically equivalent to our Extra
written) and those who passed code got everything while those who didn't
were VHF/UHF only. When the code was dropped, they folded the two groups
into one. No need to haul out the many variations that existed. While
some
countries did have an entry license with a simpler written there were
others
who didn't. In some countries, you had to take formal classes and you
were
not allowed to take the test if you had just studied on your own.

Dee, N8UZE

So when the European countries were dropping the code you didn't want
to be like the European countries. But now you want to be like the
European countries? Dee, make up your mind.

You read into conclusions that are not there. I did not say anything about
wanting to be like the European countries. I was pointing out the fallacy
of trying to make our system match the European approach.

A fallacy? I guess we can forget about CEPT.

If you get your
wish of a single license class, the FCC may choose to go that route. It's
more of a cautionary note, the "be careful what you wish for sort of thing."

True enough. Hillary wished for a Palistinian Homeland. I hope she's
happy there.

Personally I think two or three license classes is appropriate and have
thought so since I became involved in amateur radio.

Dee, N8UZE

I think one or two would be appropriate.

On Mar 4, 5:00�pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
* *[which the FCC received in 1998, *not* in 2000...]

Rip Van Deignan... *overslept.

The last I looked, the restructuring took effect in April 2000.

Hence,

"...my Y2K NPRM restructuring comments..."

Should have said

"...my Y2K restructuring NPRM comments..."

Alas, I'm not above misplacing an adjective or adverb at 5am, however, the
gist of my comments is still accurate. Nitpick if you have nothing better to
add.

You don't get "gist," tweetie. My Reply to Comments was to
YOUR Comments on FCC 98-143 and YOUR Comment was
dated 1998. Do you want a copy? :-) [it's still in the ECFS
for 98-143]

On Mar 4, 3:45�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

* ...

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. *Amateur radio has been driven by a
weird group of "initiation fanatics." *Like they are kinda "inducting"
ya into a cult or somethin'. *Or, kinda like joinin' the masons. *Weird
group who never outgrew high school and college frat initiations into
"secret societies."

Everyone has to do it like They did...blah, blah, blah. :-(

Veddy FORMAL in everything, absolutely CORRECT
protocol or one faces "ex-communication."

"That's the way 'we' do it..." is the rationale, only proving
that They think they own the turf.

73, LA

Dee Flint wrote:

...
Too big a step in privileges and test material to go with just Tech and
Extra. If one must boil it down to two, then General and Extra would be a
better split.

Dee, N8UZE


Well, with smc and computer buses setting standards, most amateurs are
NOT going to be building their own equipment, indeed, none may (by this,
I mean not in the conventional sense of yester-decades.)

Amateur radio will go component and the case, most likely, will look
like the case of a custom built computer (indeed, at this time the
computer and communications radio seem destined to meld into the same
package), when as long as manufacturers obey standards these "component
cards" will plug in and interface with all other standard meeting
components manufactured by either the same manufacturer or any other
manufacturer. In other words, a sound card by one manufacturer with
mate up with any other manufacturers receiver, or receiver components.
Same with the xmitter and amp components.

A state of the art communication receiver will have "it works in a drawer."

The computer is the model and sets the standard communication equipment
must now come up to, to go state of the art. Manufacturers resist this
because proprietary equipment provides them more profit in such a small
market. Indeed, most manufacturers want to sell you the whole
transceiver so no other manufacturer can see part of the sales.

As soon as the standard is set by an innovative, bold and progressive
corp. the rest will see the light and fall into conformance.

In the long run should increase profits from communications sales
DRAMATICALLY! However, with the dyed-in-wool resistance this is meet
through monopoly communications manufacturers--this may still be a
decade away, amateurs suffer in the meantime.

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 4, 6:56 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

[snip]

Also keep in mind that the General test
of the past was much harder than today's General as they took a lot of
that
material and moved it to the new license classes.

No, it wasn't. It is substantially more difficult today. And don't
forget that half of the OLD General test is now called "Technician."


There were several changes. There was the change to the incentive licensing
where material was moved from the General to the Advanced and Extra. That
changed General test was the one that was the same for the Technician and
the General. Then a decade later or so, the General test was split to a
Tech written and General written.

Third, the Advanced and Extra Exams have been combined, thereby
dumbing down the Extra, bringing it closer to the present General
Exam,


Combining material does not dumb down a category. Dumbing down requires
removing material. The material has not been removed. It has made the
Extra harder because you cannot take the material in smaller chunks. You
still have to learn all the same material but do it all at once.

So what do you get when you combine questions from a lower license
class with that of a higher license class? You have REDUCED standards
for that higher license.

No you do not as no material was removed. It's actually more difficult
because you have to do it all at once.


Imagine the old Novice Q pool being combined with the Extra Q pool for
the Extra license... that should magnify my point so that even you can
see it.


Nope it does not make your point. Only if material is removed does it
become easier. If you just combine material without removing any, you make
it harder.

The
only "break" is that you end up taking one written test of 50 questions
instead of two tests of 40 and 50 questions for a total of 90 questions.
Today's Extra exam has an 800+ question pool to select from for that 50
question test.

Miccolis has covered this...

not pushing it toward an MSEE like some of you would like to
think.

I've never made that assertion nor implied it. That MSEE has to learn a
whole lot more than was ever covered in the Amateur radio exams.

Are you an MSEE?


Nope but as part of my degree, I had to take basic electronics courses and
they were more detailed than what is on the ham exams. I can't even begin
to imagine that MSEE level.

So if there is so little difference between the Technician and
General Exams, and the Extra has been dumbed down to Advanced level,
why do we still have people wanting more superfluous license classes
that are growing closer together in difficulty allatime?


That is not a valid conclusion. There was no material dropped so it was not
dumbed down.

I did not say there is so little difference between the Tech and General.

I believe you did, but will accept that is not what you meant (unless
you say it again).

Merely that it is reasonable for a person to study to go to General
either
right at the beginning or shortly thereafter.

That would be known as the "Old General." They were split in the
Spring of 1987.


I am talking about the General test as it exists since the changes in April
of 2000.

Nor has the Extra been dumbed down to the Advanced class.

Sure it has.


I've taught the material. It has not not been dumbed down. Either way,
whether you took the two tests separately or took today's single test, the
same quantity of material has to be learned.

If you were to
talk to any of the people who earned their Extra under the pre-2000
system,
they will tell you that the Advanced class written test was the hardest
of
all the writtens.

It was. I took and passed both.

So the Extra was already dumbed down, and now it is combined with a
lower class pool...

Sounds really, really dumbed down now.


See above.

[snip]

When the system was changed, all the material for both the
Advanced and Extra went into the new Extra question pool

Which is why it's dumbed down.


Not when all the material was kept.

And in the end, it's still allabout Morse Code with you.

That conclusion is not based on any of the opinions I have expressed in
this
thread or any other.

Dee, it's based upon all of the opinions that you express.


If you choose to believe that, not my problem. I'm into encouraging people
to explore the many facets of amateur radio.

[snip]

All government testing should be straight forward.

All of the testing is straight forward. The Extra is merely difficult
not
convoluted.

So all of the matierial is straight forward? Good.


[snip]

Why should anybody even bother with such a limited license? It would be
so
limited people would get bored and drop out or immediately upgrade. Not
worth the investment of time.

Not children, not scouts. I guess we don't want to attract newcomers
for a lifetime of amateur radio, just the retirees.


The children and the scouts seem to thrive on the challenges. It is the 20
somethings, 30 somethings, and 40 somethings that seem not to want
challenges.

[snip]

Although the "incentive licensing" had major implementation issues, it
did
have the benefit of bringing people into the hobby since they could take
the
material in smaller bites instead of having to learn everything all at
the
same time. It achieved that goal.

Smaller bites? That wasn't the purpose of Inventive Licensing.


That was exactly the purpose of Incenting Licensing.

Dee, N8UZE

On Mar 4, 4:53�pm, wrote:
On Mar 4, 6:56 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:





wrote in message

roups.com...

On Mar 4, 11:38 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

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

roups.com...

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

...

[snip]

As I see it, there simply is no longer a need for an "entry level"
license.

Why not?

As I suspected, and Len asserted, "It's all about Morse Code" with
some of you's guys.

Not at all. *There is such a wide range of enjoyable activities available
that I want people to be able to explore them. *For the same reason
(expanding one's range of activities and knowledge base), I've dragged
Extra
class licensees over to the VHF station at Field day to show them what
can
be achieved on those frequencies. *While there are many Extras familiar
with
the VHF/UHF possibilities, for some reason the Extras in the club I
belong
to it have not really explored them.

I was referrign to Code Testing.

Not relevant to anything I have said in this thread. *It is not about code
testing but about each of us "being all that we can be".

...an army of one. *Try to keep up with the changes.

Salute! :-)

The
only "break" is that you end up taking one written test of 50 questions
instead of two tests of 40 and 50 questions for a total of 90 questions.
Today's Extra exam has an 800+ question pool to select from for that 50
question test.

Miccolis has covered this...

I thought I had?

For the new QP with the General set to start on 1 Jul 07 there
are a total of 1679 questions for all three writtens. Since only
120 questions make up all three, the number of possible test
questions are in a ratio of 13.99:1. That is MORE than the
10 minimum required in FCC regulations.

The Extra class exam (50 questions) has a ratio of 16.04:1
pool to required, new General 13.86:1, Techinician that
began in January is 11.20:1.

Just thought I'd toss that into the maelstrom. :-)

73, LA

not pushing it toward an MSEE like some of you would like to
think.

I've never made that assertion nor implied it. *That MSEE has to learn a
whole lot more than was ever covered in the Amateur radio exams.

Are you an MSEE?

*So if there is so little difference between the Technician and
General Exams, and the Extra has been dumbed down to Advanced level,
why do we still have people wanting more superfluous license classes
that are growing closer together in difficulty allatime?

I did not say there is so little difference between the Tech and General.

I believe you did, but will accept that is not what you meant (unless
you say it again).

Merely that it is reasonable for a person to study to go to General either
right at the beginning or shortly thereafter.

That would be known as the "Old General." *They were split in the
Spring of 1987.

Nor has the Extra been dumbed down to the Advanced class. *

Sure it has.

If you were to
talk to any of the people who earned their Extra under the pre-2000 system,
they will tell you that the Advanced class written test was the hardest of
all the writtens. *

It was. *I took and passed both.

So the Extra was already dumbed down, and now it is combined with a
lower class pool...

Sounds really, really dumbed down now.

That is where the bulk of the difficult technical
material was. *The Extra class test addressed more detailed knowledge of the
rules, regs, what it takes to be a VE,

My opinion is that the VEC needs to cover being a VE, not a
additional, superfluous license class.

and a small amount of technical
material. *

A very small amount.

When the system was changed, all the material for both the
Advanced and Extra went into the new Extra question pool

Which is why it's dumbed down.

And in the end, it's still allabout Morse Code with you.

That conclusion is not based on any of the opinions I have expressed in this
thread or any other.

Dee, it's based upon all of the opinions that you express.





In the exam sessions, we actively encourage a person to try the
General when they pass the Tech exam. *Those applicants that have chosen
to
develop an understanding of the Tech material (i.e. learn the antenna
equation and how to use it rather than memorizing the lengths for the
questions that might occur on the test) usually come within a couple of
points of passing the General. *Some would have passed the General if
they
had simply known to also memorize the General frequency priviliges along
with the material they already knew.

Did you say memorize? *Wouldn't you rather they understood the
frequency privileges?

I don't bother getting involved with that discussion as most just try to
twist it to suit their own purposes. *There is some material that must be
memorized just as frequencies and equations. *Other things must be
understood as to when and how to use those equations.

Fair enough, but I had to bring it up.

The material on the Tech and General is straight forward enough that it
can
be grasped by just about anyone with a moderate amount of study. *If one
looks at it in terms of return (license & range of privileges) versus
investment (study), the General is perfectly reasonable as a first
license
step.

All government testing should be straight forward.

All of the testing is straight forward. *The Extra is merely difficult not
convoluted.

So all of the matierial is straight forward? *Good.





On the other hand, let's look at an "entry level" license and exam. *You
have got to cover rules, safety (including RF radiation safety), and good
operating practices as a bare minimum. *By the time you do this, you've
already got a significant portion of what you would need for a General
class
license. *Your return (license & privileges) versus investment (study)
for
an entry level license, is just not that worthwhile.

If you remove the RF Safety, and change the power levels below that
required for an RFEA, then you have the makings of a simplified
amateur class.

Why should anybody even bother with such a limited license? *It would be so
limited people would get bored and drop out or immediately upgrade. *Not
worth the investment of time.

Not children, not scouts. *I guess we don't want to attract newcomers
for a lifetime of amateur radio, just the retirees.

Those countries that have folded their two license classes into one class
often had a written test that was equivalent to our Extra not our General
for both and the only differentiating item was the code test. *Thus they
really had no "entry" license.

I wasn't allowed to talk about Japan. *You shouldn't be allowed to
talk about anonymous countries.

Never said one wasn't allowed to talk about Japan. *Merely pointed out the
invalidity of trying to compare the systems.

Invalidity?



They had VHF/UHF licenses and full licenses.
The US has been somewhat unusual in that there is a license (General)
that
has a significant range of privileges on all bands with a moderate level
level of testing.

Dee, N8UZE-

The General once conveyed ALL AMATEUR PRIVILEGES.

Sheesh!

And the

wrote:

Code -was- the barrier.

If the amateur radio licensing statistics posted on Speroni's web site are
any indication, then code -wasn't- the barrier.

Feb 2007's licensing statistics clearly show the downward trend in amateur
radio licensing continues unabated.

wrote:

...
Everyone has to do it like They did...blah, blah, blah. :-(

Veddy FORMAL in everything, absolutely CORRECT
protocol or one faces "ex-communication."

"That's the way 'we' do it..." is the rationale, only proving
that They think they own the turf.

73, LA


Yep, those guys are here alright.

Now don't get me wrong. Intelligent, organized, logical, structured and
mutually respective exchanges over the waves I SUPPORT!

Good ole boy rules I don't have much use for, I am not a "joiner"
either. One-on-one rag chews, and a few old guys chewin' the rag on a
subject all enjoy is where it is at--non-formal--relaxed ...

Strange, the few I do exchange conversation with are kinda like me, I
like it that way. If you are a non control freak, I'll most likely
enjoy ya', whether you agree with me or not.

My BIGGEST turnoff? Pseudo-military, self-important-bags-of-hot-wind!

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

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