"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"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

None of the other modes requires any skill at all beyond connecting the
pieces per the diagrams and typing on the keyboard or pushing a mike button.
Although typing is a skill, it is not radio specific and the hunt & peck
typist gets by. Virtually anyone can put set up & run in an afternoon once
they have acquired the equipment. The skill requirement to operate other
modes is insignificant. I've operated both RTTY and packet and other
digital modes and found them totally boring but I have had experience with
them and there simply is no specific skill required.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

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? (snip)


Well, lets see where I could have gotten that from. First, you propose a
non-renewable license with a specific time limit to upgrade to a higher
license class. That certainly fits what I said. Second, you justify the
entire proposal by claiming the current tests are "not adequate to insure a
high level of expertise in new applicants." This introduces the idea of
raising the level of learning. And, finally, you set the license test all
must take to upgrade at "a difficulty level similar to the current Extra
class test." Those three together only suggest one thing - you don't think
the lower class operators today re knowledgeable enough, you feel all should
be forced to improve on that, and you offer the most difficult license test
available today as the sole means to accomplish it. Perhaps you can explain
where I'm wrong in that.


(snip) My plan calls for a very simplified
license structure of a broad-privileged
learners permit (snip)


The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all. You
introduced the proposal by claiming the current tests "are not adequate to
insure a high level of expertise in new applicants." But you later propose a
greatly simplified test for those new applicants (much more basic than
today's Technician test). How can you "insure a high level of expertise in
new applicants" by offering a even more simplified test?


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. (snip)


More modest power levels? That 50 watts you propose is 1,450 watts less
than what Technicians can use today. That's a pretty significant hit, not a
modest one. As for privileges, once the code test is gone, Technicians can
gain considerable HF privileges by taking the General written. Your proposal
would intentionally take that away by setting the bar to upgrade even higher
(the Extra class test). And, if newcomers fail to reach that higher bar, out
they go - their non-renewable license is gone.

And if this isn't all about assigning newcomers to a subordinate class,
why don't you change the names of those new licenses you propose - Class A
for the entry license class and Class B for the other license class? As it
is, it's clear only someone who has taken an Extra class-like test can be a
"Class A" Amateur Radio Operator.


It's clear to me that you haven't even taken
the time to read the proposal I've made to
the FCC. (snip)


I've read the proposal and what you've said about the proposal in this
newsgroup. I stand by what I've said here and in the previous message.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Morse code is uniquely necessary. (snip)


Saying so doesn't make it true, Dee. Within the goals and purposes of the
Amateur Radio Service, and to justify a unique testing requirement, how is
Morse code uniquely necessary today? Do remember recreational use is not
sufficient enough to justify a unique testing requirement (recreational use
is equally applicable to all modes and they don't have a unique testing
requirement).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

None of the other modes requires any skill
at all beyond connecting the pieces per the
diagrams and typing on the keyboard or
pushing a mike button. (snip)


Really? You mean all those things I did to get a properly operating
station (putting coax and connectors together, waterproofing, antenna
tuning, SWR tests, ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a microphone,
equipment grounding, lightning protection, RF exposure level estimates, and
so on) wasn't really needed and didn't really require any skills to do
properly? Well, I guess I'll just forget about all that stuff in the future.


(snip) Virtually anyone can put set up & run in
an afternoon once they have acquired the
equipment. (snip)


In an afternoon? You mean I wasted all those days it took to get
everything in my station working just right, not counting all the time I've
spent fiddling around to get even better performance since then. Well,
you're obviously a much more gifted operator than I am.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.

What's unique is that most people old enough to pass the amateur radio license
exams do not already have Morse skills, and will have to learn Morse skills in
order to use the mode. But the vast majority of those same people already
posess the skills to use other modes.

So what it comes down to is that a little serious skill-learning is required to
use Morse on the air, except for a very few people who have learned Morse
elsewhere. I think that plain, simple fact bothers some of the most vociferous
and abusive anti-code-test folks.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

None of the other modes requires any skill
at all beyond connecting the pieces per the
diagrams and typing on the keyboard or
pushing a mike button. (snip)


Really? You mean all those things I did to get a properly operating
station (putting coax and connectors together, waterproofing, antenna
tuning, SWR tests, ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a microphone,
equipment grounding, lightning protection, RF exposure level estimates, and
so on) wasn't really needed and didn't really require any skills to do
properly?

Not at all. Just that all those things (except RF exposure estimate) were
optional and your choice, determined by the technologies you decided to use.

And most of them were not on your license tests. You figured out how to do them
as a matter of practical necessity, not to pass a test.

Well, I guess I'll just forget about all that stuff in the future.

(snip) Virtually anyone can put set up & run in
an afternoon once they have acquired the
equipment. (snip)

In an afternoon? You mean I wasted all those days it took to get
everything in my station working just right, not counting all the time I've
spent fiddling around to get even better performance since then. Well,
you're obviously a much more gifted operator than I am.

I've set up a complete Field Day station in much less than an afternoon. Again,
almost none of the skills needed were on the license tests.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

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? (snip)


Well, lets see where I could have gotten that from. First, you propose a
non-renewable license with a specific time limit to upgrade to a higher
license class.

Just like the old Novice class license that brought hundreds of thousands of
new hams into amateur radio. Hans' proposal recycles that old idea.

That certainly fits what I said. Second, you justify the
entire proposal by claiming the current tests are "not adequate to insure a
high level of expertise in new applicants." This introduces the idea of
raising the level of learning. And, finally, you set the license test all
must take to upgrade at "a difficulty level similar to the current Extra
class test." Those three together only suggest one thing - you don't think
the lower class operators today re knowledgeable enough, you feel all should
be forced to improve on that, and you offer the most difficult license test
available today as the sole means to accomplish it. Perhaps you can explain
where I'm wrong in that.

Looks right to me. Point is, newcomers would have a decade to do so.

(snip) My plan calls for a very simplified
license structure of a broad-privileged
learners permit (snip)

The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all. You
introduced the proposal by claiming the current tests "are not adequate to
insure a high level of expertise in new applicants." But you later propose a
greatly simplified test for those new applicants (much more basic than
today's Technician test). How can you "insure a high level of expertise in
new applicants" by offering a even more simplified test?

The idea isn't that they'll have a high level of expertise right off, but that
they'll reach that level through the 'incentive' of having to either upgrade or
leave the air.

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. (snip)

More modest power levels? That 50 watts you propose is 1,450 watts less
than what Technicians can use today. That's a pretty significant hit, not a
modest one.

Sure. But at the same time, they will have all frequencies and all modes.
That's a pretty significant increase.

As for privileges, once the code test is gone, Technicians can
gain considerable HF privileges by taking the General written.

Right now, Technicians can gain almost all priviliges by passing the General
written (only 35 questions) and the 5 wpm code receiving test. Been that way
for almost three years.

Your proposal
would intentionally take that away by setting the bar to upgrade even higher
(the Extra class test). And, if newcomers fail to reach that higher bar, out
they go - their non-renewable license is gone.

Exactly.

But they would have 10 years to do it.

In the bad old days, a new ham had to pass the old General written (which was
split into the Tech and General writtens in 1987) to get a permanent/renewable
license of any class. The old Novice was meant as a learning tool, not a
permanent license.

And if this isn't all about assigning newcomers to a subordinate class,
why don't you change the names of those new licenses you propose - Class A
for the entry license class and Class B for the other license class? As it
is, it's clear only someone who has taken an Extra class-like test can be a
"Class A" Amateur Radio Operator.

Yup!

It's clear to me that you haven't even taken
the time to read the proposal I've made to
the FCC. (snip)

I've read the proposal and what you've said about the proposal in this
newsgroup. I stand by what I've said here and in the previous message.

I think you missed the major contradiction/paradox of Hans' proposal, Dwight.

He proposes a simplified test for the LP license, yet all LPs would be allowed
all frequencies and modes.

So the simplified test has to be adequate for the LPs to use all freqs and
modes - just not full power.

How can a simplifed test do that?

And if the simplified test *is* adequate, why should the higher-class test
require more than the additional stuff needed to run high power?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"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

None of the other modes requires any skill at all beyond connecting the
pieces per the diagrams and typing on the keyboard or pushing a mike
button.
Although typing is a skill, it is not radio specific and the hunt & peck
typist gets by. Virtually anyone can put set up & run in an afternoon
once
they have acquired the equipment.

One can also use morse code with a "decoding" sheet to send and
recieve at very slow speeds,

The skill requirement to operate other
modes is insignificant.

The same can be said for morse...unless you want to operate at
other than a basic level. For some reason, this discussion always
seems to presume one must be code literate at speeds well above
even 5 wpm for code to be useful to anyone. If one can "hunt & peck"
via a keyboard, the same can be done for morse using a "cheat sheet"
to send and receive morse at slow speeds.

I've operated both RTTY and packet and other
digital modes and found them totally boring but I have had experience with
them and there simply is no specific skill required.

Even "hunt & peck" requires an ability to use the keyboard
at a very minimal level. You may not think that it is any
skill level at all, but it is.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

KØHB wrote:


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.

How are you going to enforce that?

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:

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

It really isn't too bad a plan, although there are a few weaknesses
that are a bit bothersome.

That 50 watt limit for the class B license is simply unenforcable, save
some sort of training wheel governor device that they would have to put
on their transmitters.

If you want to put a time limit on upgrading, it really should be a lot
shorter, like 3 years. Ten years is simply way too long. The prospective
class A Ham almost certainly will upgrade in a year or two.

But I still don't like the idea of a forced retirement. It brings up an
absurdity like a person that operates exclusivly QRP having to upgrade
so that he/she is now allowed to use 1.5 kW. That's all they get. So
they are forced to upgrade and spend money for something that means
nothing to them - save keeping their license.

I really do like the idea of "time in grade". It is one of the best
ideas ever abandoned by the FCC.

A lifetime grant license? Well, I'm not too sure. I guess it is a
pretty good thing. If you don't have to renew it, there aren't
processing costs.

- Mike KB3EIA -