"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote:

As you are well aware, part of the FCC's
Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service
is an expectation of technical learning. (snip)

Learning is part of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service,
not the basis and purpose of the license exams. The basis and purpose of
the
license exams is to make possible the basis and purpose of the Amateur
Radio
Service. In other words, to bring people into the Amateur Radio Service so
they can learn. The real learning comes after the exams in what we
actually
do.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

Wow. Good point, Dwight. Maybe that idea of a term limitation license
makes more sense than ever. I haven't been in favor of it...but maybe
there's a part of it I haven't thought of, such as your comment above.

Kim W5TIT

This is where some of the OF's say that all learning must occur prior
to the exam. Basically, nothing more can be learned after the Extra
exam. Except when they "earned" thir commercial licenses. Except
when Len brings up his commercial experience.

See what I mean?

I'm not buying it - never have.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

My response was to your statement that
code itself was unnecessary and I made
that clear that I was addressing that issue
only. (snip)


But my entire message, including the argument in that sentence, was about
the code test. However, within that context, it is indeed true that Morse
code is not "necessary" for Amateur Radio today. The key word is
"necessary," not enjoyable, not great recreation, not useful to make
contacts with friends when conditions are bad, or whatever. Necessary. And,
therefore, if Morse code is not uniquely necessary, it should join the other
modes on the written tests without a unique testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

Why is such a written test necessary? The
use of any of those modes is entirely
optional.


Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the
overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when
using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules
associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly
obvious. Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test?


Prove the necessity for a written test beyond
the most basic rules and regulations.


I've already explained the necessity of the written test in the previous
message and in the paragraph above.


Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must
go beyond those basics.


Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim? This is a
discussion about the code test. I have no desire to expand that into a
discussion about the written exams, including a review of those exams.
Further, I think the value of the written exams is bloody obvious to all.
Therefore, there is nothing to prove.


If what matters is the learning that happens
*after* the license is in hand, why all the fuss
about written tests?


Read my first paragraph above.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Wow. Good point, Dwight. Maybe that
idea of a term limitation license makes more
sense than ever. I haven't been in favor of
it...but maybe there's a part of it I haven't
thought of, such as your comment above.


Learning is one aspect of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service, not the total sum. When discussing term limits on license class,
all aspects of that should be considered. And, when it comes to those other
aspects, there is no real benefit from term limits. Indeed, one could argue
that it may actually harm those other things (reducing our overall numbers,
for example).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

And it has the unique characteristic that
you can't take advantage of it until you
have acquired a basic skill level.

Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode which
you can use without some basic skill level in that mode.

73, Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) Hans thinks that *all* hams should
be qualified (eventually) at at least the
Extra class written level. The purpose of
his proposed LP license is to give newbies
a sample of what ham radio is like, and a
10-year opportunity to learn enough to get
a full-privileges license. (snip)


And I think Hans is barking up the wrong tree with his idea. I don't see
any benefit whatsoever. It doesn't really serve a specific need within the
Amateur Radio community. It doesn't serve the regulatory needs of the FCC.
And it doesn't really serve the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service.

Hans seems to be basing his idea on 97.1(c) and 97.1(d). The first talks
about, "Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules
which provide for advancing skills in both communications and technical
phases of the art." The second talks about, "Expansion of the existing
reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators,
technicians, and electronics experts." Neither of these even suggest the
need for a requirement to advance in license class or get out. And neither
suggests a need for a requirement to learn to a specific level or get out.

Hans also seems to be basing his idea on the faulty premise that one must
advance in license class to learn, advance skills, or increase the reservoir
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts. Of course, that
premise is simply untrue. For example, one can learn about satellite
communications, at least all that one can learn though Amateur Radio, with a
Technician license (no license advancement required). The same with digital
communications. The same with microwave communications. And the same with
moonbounce, SSB, FM repeaters, and a long list of other skills, abilities,
and radio arts.

Finally, I think Hans' idea would have a chilling effect on the Amateur
Radio Service - assigning newcomers (once again) to an outside the
mainstream, subordinate, sub-class with sharp limits on their participation.
If I took my first look at Amateur radio, and saw that as my only option, I
would probably not so politely say where you could stick it. The 'advance or
get out' idea would make that almost a certainty (indeed, why even invest
time, or in radio equipment, if there is even the slightest possibility of
being forced out of something I know so little about at that particular
moment - a potential newcomer).

Luckily, I think the FCC would have enough common sense to realize this
idea is absurd. Sadly, it does seem to have it's supporters within the
Amateur Radio community.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

And I think Hans is barking up the wrong tree with his idea.

I don't bark, and I'm not a dog.

I don't see any benefit whatsoever.

That bothers me not at all. It's the Commission I need to persuade.

Hans also seems to be basing his idea on the faulty premise that one must
advance in license class to learn.....

I don't support that premise at all. Where did you read such off-target
drivel? For more than 40 years I've been an outspoken critic of
(dis)incentive licensing. My plan calls for a very simplified license
structure of a broad-privileged learners permit to gain qualification, and a
single license class after becoming qualified.


Finally, I think Hans' idea would have a chilling effect on the Amateur
Radio Service - assigning newcomers (once again) to an outside the
mainstream......

On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of
amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just at
a more modest power level of 50watts. No more limited-mode isolated and
restricted ghettos like the former Novice class, and greatly expanded
privileges beyond those enjoyed by todays entry-level Technicians.

It's clear to me that you haven't even taken the time to read the proposal
I've made to the FCC. You can view a copy at my website
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb .... click on the left hand column
link to 'FCC Comments'. When you've taken the trouble to actually read what
I've proposed, come back here with reasoned arguments against it. Until
then you are not prepared and ill-qualified to comment.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc.
are all non-necessities. (snip)

Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability
to
use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those
modes and the rules associated with them.

Why is such a written test necessary?
The use of any of those modes is entirely optional.

Which is also the reason why failing to correctly answer any one or two
questions about any individual mode does not result in failing the test.

Morse code should join those modes in that regard.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Certainly seems incnsitent to me....on a mode for mode
comparison basis.

In fact, except for the most basic of rules
and regulations, your argument leads to the
inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service at this point to mandate *any*
learning through a testing requirement.

Can you prove otherwise?

What is there to prove?

Prove the necessity for a written test beyond the most basic rules and
regulations.

Noneed to. The FCC rules require it and I'm content with that.
If you (Jim N2EY) feel otherwise, then petition the FCC for the
change. Unless you or someone else does othat, this is just academic
futility. The code TEST however, has already been acknowledged by
the FCC as not being needed anymore...so the burden of proof to retain
a code test falls on those that wish to keep 5 wpm.

SNIP of additional comparisons of license requirements vs
license privileges

I have also noted that perhaps it is time for some "revamping"
of licensing such that the privileges bear some relationship
to the level of license granted. It will, if that path is
taken, be a protracted process (IMHO).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

Everyone's future happens right after now.

Everyone EXCEPT you, Lennie...

Steve, K4YZ

"Bill Sohl" wrote

I have also noted that perhaps it is time for some "revamping"
of licensing such that the privileges bear some relationship
to the level of license granted. It will, if that path is
taken, be a protracted process (IMHO).

A straightforward plan is already written and in the hands of the FCC.
http://tinyurl.com/wce9

73, de Hans, K0HB