"Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:c4a6771678b5a0221f9271fbee325279.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...

.. . . .

B. Status of current licensees.

Current licenses could be renewed indefinitely, and would
retain their current operating privileges.

Current Novice, Technician, General, and Advanced class
licensees could up grade to ?Class A? at any time.

Respectfully submitted,

H. Hans Brakob, K0HB

Overall not bad Hans although I don't agree with the two year
apprenticeship, I think one year would be adequate. The one year
"statute of limitations" certainly worked for us early 75W Novices and
many of us were fully up to speed in much less than a year.

w3(c)rv

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"Brian" wrote

Paul, since the only apparent privelege difference in the two proposed
license classes is 50W, and you could operate any amateur frequency in
any mode, why would that deter you from the ARS?

Brian "gets it" !!!!

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its
all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get.

Paul gave an opinion that I didn't understand, so I asked a question.

Perhaps Paul requires "Extra right out of the box" and cannot be
bothered with "lesser" licenses. Until he replies, we'll never know.

Keith wrote in message ink.net...
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

Enter in the number RM-10787, fill out the address
information and upload or type in your comments on
the elimination of morse code testing as a requirement
to operate on HF.

Keith, I've been unable to find the FCC RM-10787 on their site. Could
you post it here?

Thanks, Brian/N0iMD

Amateur radio is a technical hobby,

When did that happen? Not as of recent Im sure.

"Vshah101" wrote

This is just wrong.

Seems right to me, so that's what I recommended to the FCC.

But of course you are certainly free to make a different recommendation
to the FCC, but they don't read rrap. If your recommendation is more
persuasive than mine then yours will be adopted and mine will go in the
bit bucket. So tell the FCC, don't whine to me.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brian" wrote

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...

Brian "gets it" !!!!

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its
all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get.

Damn, Brian, I pay you a compliment and you still get in my case.
What's with that?

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Hans Kohb" wrote in message news:106783d18499657e7c4c6906b22e7bf5.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"Brian" wrote

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...

Brian "gets it" !!!!

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its
all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get.

Damn, Brian, I pay you a compliment and you still get in my case.
What's with that?

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

Hans, I didn't mean it that way. I reread my post and see it was a bit short.

Sorry.

"Brian" wrote in message
m...
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"Brian" wrote

Paul, since the only apparent privelege difference in the two proposed
license classes is 50W, and you could operate any amateur frequency in
any mode, why would that deter you from the ARS?

Brian "gets it" !!!!

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its
all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get.

Paul gave an opinion that I didn't understand, so I asked a question.

Perhaps Paul requires "Extra right out of the box" and cannot be
bothered with "lesser" licenses. Until he replies, we'll never know.

I missed your first message asking "why would that deter you from the ARS?"
Sorry.

Being new to all this (licensed in October of 2001), it is easy for me to
remember my thoughts and feelings prior to being licensed. Here is why it
would have deterred me:
1) Seeing "real" hams being able to run 1500 watts while only being able
to run 50 watts. I would have KNOWN (it doesn't have to be true, I still
would have KNOWN it) that I never would have been able to make a contact.
2) Being treated as a second class citizen -- the Rookie League is not a
fun place to be
3) Basic congenital problem with Time-In-Grade approach. (Please note, I
would not have had a problem with serious theory/operating practice tests as
opposed to the actual Elements 2,3, and 4. I won't have passed them all, I
am sure, but I would not have had a problem with approach.).

Of the above, number 3 would have been the most important to me, I think.
Now that I am licensed, I seldom put out more than 75 watts. Yes, I have an
amplifier, but I checked my log and see that I haven't had it on since early
June (honest). So, experience has showed me how silly 1) above is -- that
does not, however, change how I felt in my pre-licensed days.

I am sure that I am an odd duck -- I never even heard a QSO until after I
was licensed (the purest Extra Lite in captivity).

I can understand and accept people thinking that anyone as ignorant as me
should not have been granted full privileges. At no time did I say that I
DESERVED such privileges -- only that the suggested two class system would
have deterred me from entering this great hobby -- perhaps rightly so.

As a purely practical matter, if an approach similar to yours came into
existence, I would suggest a 100 watt limit rather than 50 watts. Given that
the vast majority of modern transceivers run 100 watts output, enforcing a
50 watt maximum would be problematical at best.

73

Paul AB0SI

" wrote in message . net...
"Brian" wrote in message
m...
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
news:2459ee62a6f0efa423239c8e05539568.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"Brian" wrote

Paul, since the only apparent privelege difference in the two proposed
license classes is 50W, and you could operate any amateur frequency in
any mode, why would that deter you from the ARS?

Brian "gets it" !!!!

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans, its quite easy to "get it" when the subject makes sense. Its
all the other nonsensical stuff on here that I don't get.

Paul gave an opinion that I didn't understand, so I asked a question.

Perhaps Paul requires "Extra right out of the box" and cannot be
bothered with "lesser" licenses. Until he replies, we'll never know.

I missed your first message asking "why would that deter you from the ARS?"
Sorry.

Being new to all this (licensed in October of 2001), it is easy for me to
remember my thoughts and feelings prior to being licensed. Here is why it
would have deterred me:
1) Seeing "real" hams being able to run 1500 watts while only being able
to run 50 watts. I would have KNOWN (it doesn't have to be true, I still
would have KNOWN it) that I never would have been able to make a contact.

I cannot understand that. All the amateur literature is chock full of
examples of QRP operations where worldwide contacts take place using
mere milliwatts.

FWIW, I've never run more than 100 watts from my home station on HF.

2) Being treated as a second class citizen -- the Rookie League is not a
fun place to be

Tell me about it, but I think the times have changed. Lotsa OF's here
are whimsical about their rookie days.

But you didn't start as an Extra, did you?

In 1987 when I became a ham, we were called Novices. We were shuttled
to bands of little or no CW activity (ghettos) to somehow learn from
each other. There was little or no activity at the tail end of the
Novice Era.

Technician was the consolation prize for passing the General exam but
flunking the 13 wpm code.

Today, Technician is the starting point, and I don't consider the
label Technician to be the equivalent of "Rookie League." Novice,
however, always smacked of "Rookie."

With Hans proposal, the new hams are mainstreamed and can easily learn
from some highly seasoned operators.

3) Basic congenital problem with Time-In-Grade approach. (Please note, I
would not have had a problem with serious theory/operating practice tests as
opposed to the actual Elements 2,3, and 4. I won't have passed them all, I
am sure, but I would not have had a problem with approach.).

If you're a bright guy and the "serious theory/operating" tests, you
would have passed -providing- the QP continues to be published. If
not, then you'd find the Extra ranks occupied by mostly electronic
technicians and engineers.

Of the above, number 3 would have been the most important to me, I think.
Now that I am licensed, I seldom put out more than 75 watts. Yes, I have an
amplifier, but I checked my log and see that I haven't had it on since early
June (honest).

I believe you.

So, experience has showed me how silly 1) above is -- that
does not, however, change how I felt in my pre-licensed days.

True. And this is the argument that I use with the current Morse Code
exam being administered. It is not Morse Code, it is Farnsworth at
13-15 WPM, not the Morse at the specified 5wpm.

The OF's here say that the testee can request the old Morse exam and
not take it Farnsworth styled. I say they don't even know the
difference, so how could they?

I am sure that I am an odd duck -- I never even heard a QSO until after I
was licensed (the purest Extra Lite in captivity).

Don't fool yourself. There were lots of "Code-Tape Extras" in days
gone by.

I can understand and accept people thinking that anyone as ignorant as me
should not have been granted full privileges. At no time did I say that I
DESERVED such privileges -- only that the suggested two class system would
have deterred me from entering this great hobby -- perhaps rightly so.

As a purely practical matter, if an approach similar to yours came into
existence, I would suggest a 100 watt limit rather than 50 watts. Given that
the vast majority of modern transceivers run 100 watts output, enforcing a
50 watt maximum would be problematical at best.

There are technical reasons that Hans suggested the 50W maximum.
Safety. And you'll recall from the exams that you took, that beyond
50W on Ten meters, you'd have to accomplish the calculations for RF
safety. 100W would require the safety calculations to be tested as
well. That is a clear cut-off/point of distinction to me.

To be honest, on HF, the Japanese market is full of 10W transceivers
made specifically for their 10W license, and I would not object to 10W
being the standard on HF and 50W on VHF+ for the limited license.

Given a 50W limit and 100W transceivers being a virtual standard, I
can see more than a little room for abuse. But in the great scheme of
things, that's a 3db abuse and probably hardly enforceable.

73

Paul AB0SI

Paul, you have a good discussion and the most important point was your
pre-license days impressions of the service. The ARRL would be wise
to pay attention to the image that interested newcomers have to our
service/hobby. And the naming of the license class is but one
argument that has been discussed here previously.

73, Brian

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
" wrote in message
. net...

1) Seeing "real" hams being able to run 1500 watts while only being
able
to run 50 watts. I would have KNOWN (it doesn't have to be true, I still
would have KNOWN it) that I never would have been able to make a
contact.

I cannot understand that. All the amateur literature is chock full of
examples of QRP operations where worldwide contacts take place using
mere milliwatts.

Please pardon the large deletetions, but the message was geting l-o-n-g.
grin

I always assume anyone "pushing" an activilty is doing so through
rose-colored glasses. The ARRL obviously wants new hams. The ARRL telling me
I could "work the world" with a few watts was taken with a kilo or three of
salt. Interstingly enough (well, to me, at least), the inforamtion on QRP I
read only reinforced this. It seemed that QRP was the Gold Standard -- so
telling me that one could do all sorts of great things at low power was
equivilent as tellig me that Tiger Woods can hit straight drives 350 yards.
That's nice -- but what does it have to do with me?

If my thoughts about this were at all typical, we have to do a better job of
educating and convincing maybe-wanna-bes. I admit that I have no idea if my
concerns here weere typical or not. I came from a totally non-technical
background. The idea that I could talk around the world on less power than
used by the bulb in my reading lamp was impossible to accept.

2) Being treated as a second class citizen -- the Rookie League is
not a
fun place to be

Tell me about it, but I think the times have changed. Lotsa OF's here
are whimsical about their rookie days.


Ya, well, folks talk fondly of their boot camp days, too. grin.


But you didn't start as an Extra, did you?

Yes, I did. If I was offered the opportunity for full previldges, it seemed
silly not to take advantage of the opportunity. The attraction of ham radio
was working the world, so entering as a Technician simply didn't appeal to
me. I studied code as well as General and Extra material (The Tech exam
didn't require any study -- one can pass that with simple common sense. A
fair number of the questions seem the equivilent to "Someone is using your
favoirte frequency. You should: A) Crank up the power and blast the bozo
B) Report him to Homeland Security C) Find a free frequency D) Vote
Republican").


In 1987 when I became a ham, we were called Novices. We were shuttled
to bands of little or no CW activity (ghettos) to somehow learn from
each other. There was little or no activity at the tail end of the
Novice Era.

Technician was the consolation prize for passing the General exam but
flunking the 13 wpm code.

Today, Technician is the starting point, and I don't consider the
label Technician to be the equivalent of "Rookie League." Novice,
however, always smacked of "Rookie."

See above for my comments.

With Hans proposal, the new hams are mainstreamed and can easily learn
from some highly seasoned operators.

Most hams I have met on the air have been remarkably considerate and
friendly. The bozo to human ratio is lower (MUCH lower) here than in my
other hobby of tournament bridge. Unfortunately, the ratio is not nearly as
good in some of the ham newsgroups (this group included, I am afraid). I
started reading all the rec.radio.amateur newsgroups as soon as I become
interested in ham radio. Without exaggeration, I came very close to
discarding the idea of getting my license because of some of the attitudes I
saw here. I think this might be a more serious problem in hurting recruiting
than is realized. Ditto the forums on QRZ, EHAM, et al.

3) Basic congenital problem with Time-In-Grade approach. (Please
note, I
would not have had a problem with serious theory/operating practice
tests as
opposed to the actual Elements 2,3, and 4. I won't have passed them all,
I
am sure, but I would not have had a problem with approach.).

If you're a bright guy and the "serious theory/operating" tests, you
would have passed -providing- the QP continues to be published. If
not, then you'd find the Extra ranks occupied by mostly electronic
technicians and engineers.

Unless the deregulation mania passes, Question Pools are going to continue.
If the idea is focussed on learning, I can not think of a worse approach. My
goal, I admit, was passing the Elements -- the QP made it clear to me that
the ONLY purpose of the Elements was to pass them and forget them. I do
disagree with you, Brian, that one would need to be an EE to pass a
meaningful Extra exam.

Of the above, number 3 would have been the most important to me, I
think.
Now that I am licensed, I seldom put out more than 75 watts. Yes, I have
an
amplifier, but I checked my log and see that I haven't had it on since
early
June (honest).

I believe you.

So, experience has showed me how silly 1) above is -- that
does not, however, change how I felt in my pre-licensed days.

True. And this is the argument that I use with the current Morse Code
exam being administered. It is not Morse Code, it is Farnsworth at
13-15 WPM, not the Morse at the specified 5wpm.

The OF's here say that the testee can request the old Morse exam and
not take it Farnsworth styled. I say they don't even know the
difference, so how could they?

Intersting. I didn't know that was an option.


I am sure that I am an odd duck -- I never even heard a QSO until after
I
was licensed (the purest Extra Lite in captivity).

Don't fool yourself. There were lots of "Code-Tape Extras" in days
gone by.

I can understand and accept people thinking that anyone as ignorant as
me
should not have been granted full privileges. At no time did I say that
I
DESERVED such privileges -- only that the suggested two class system
would
have deterred me from entering this great hobby -- perhaps rightly so.

As a purely practical matter, if an approach similar to yours came into
existence, I would suggest a 100 watt limit rather than 50 watts. Given
that
the vast majority of modern transceivers run 100 watts output, enforcing
a
50 watt maximum would be problematical at best.

There are technical reasons that Hans suggested the 50W maximum.
Safety. And you'll recall from the exams that you took, that beyond
50W on Ten meters, you'd have to accomplish the calculations for RF
safety. 100W would require the safety calculations to be tested as
well. That is a clear cut-off/point of distinction to me.

Ten meters? Oh ya, I remember 10 meters from the good old days of last
summer when it was open. grin Silly jokes aside, I understand and
appreciate the safety consideration. An excllent point.

To be honest, on HF, the Japanese market is full of 10W transceivers
made specifically for their 10W license, and I would not object to 10W
being the standard on HF and 50W on VHF+ for the limited license.

Also intersting. Perhaps the same would happen here if Hans' proposal became
operative. If so, it would certainly make sense.


Given a 50W limit and 100W transceivers being a virtual standard, I
can see more than a little room for abuse. But in the great scheme of
things, that's a 3db abuse and probably hardly enforceable.

73

Paul AB0SI

Paul, you have a good discussion and the most important point was your
pre-license days impressions of the service. The ARRL would be wise
to pay attention to the image that interested newcomers have to our
service/hobby. And the naming of the license class is but one
argument that has been discussed here previously.

73, Brian

Thanks for the interesting exchange.


73, Paul