N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article k.net,

"Dwight

Stewart" writes:

snippage

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.

Just because an idea was old, doesn't mean it wasn't bad! 8^)


Watta concept!

Thought you would like that.....

I would
have to suspect that the old Novice non-renewable was probably to allow
the prospective "permanent" ham to hone his or her Morse CW skills
rather than learn the writtens of the time.


You suspect wrong!

The old Novice was meant as a learner's permit for both the code and written -
in fact, more for the written than the code. A Novice could upgrade to Tech
with no more written skills (both licenses always required just 5 wpm code).
But upgrading to *any* permanent/renewable license required the
General/Tech/Conditional written test, which was much more involved than the
old Novice written.

The old Novice privileges included 2 meters (145-147 MHz) code and AM voice
(until 1967). The idea was that some Novices would go on to General and others
to Tech, depending on whether they were primarily interested in HF or VHF.

Perhaps I am looking at it from a different view, because of my
difficulties with Morse, but from what I've seen, the new tests aren't
that hard - and well, what I've been able to glean is that the old tests
were'nt that har either. So I may be a prejudiced observer. But how many
people needed all that time to prepare for the writtens? And wasn't the
General 12 wpm?


So the big question is what
is going to be different about this new class gap that ten years is an
appropriate time lag.


The idea is that the jump will be all the way to Extra-level written testing.
The ten-year term is meant to be a generous allotment of time, plus the current
license term is ten years.

For a hobby, ten years is just too long a time. If there are going to be
limits, they should be reasonable ones.


Why is 10 years unreasonable? I recall Hans saying that if someone can't or
won't reach the level required for a full-privs license in 10 years, they
probably aren't that interested. (Correct me if I'm mistaken on that, Hans).

Because they will probably be disinterested a lot sooner than ten years.
Why not three? Why not one? Why not make the sorry you're out date the
same time as the time in grade?



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 how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses.


Hans' proposal would not affect any existing hams' privileges. Those with
existing licenses other than Extra could keep them, renew them and modify them
as long as they retain interest. Existing Techs could stay Tech forever - no
problem.

It is most *certainly* a problem with new hams who have the same goals
as those who are happy being technicians now.

So we get rid of Morse code because of the poor souls who are kept out
of it because it is there, and then we force them to upgrade because of
why? We kick them out because of why?

And there it is. WHY?

If a ham is perfectly capable of operating on HF at 10 years licensing,
whay is he/she not qualified at 10 years and one day?

WHY? It's arbitrary, and unfair. and in the end, a touch absurd.

A
forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person that only does
public events, and uses the local repeater once in a while is not going
to be very popular with them. And "they" are a pretty large percentage.
Yes of course that is among people already licensed, but my point is
that this proposal is very HF-centric.


They wouldn't have to change anything.

But it only applies to existing hams. Newbies might get ticked off that the
same options weren't open to them.

Uh-huh! The old Techs get to keep their licenses forever, (do they have
to reregister after ten years, or are they techs forever with no renewal
if they want to be) but the new class B's are this long-term one-shot deal.


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

And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.


What stops me from running 5 kW? or more than the allowed power on 30 meters or
the Novice bands?

Go ahead and fire up that 5kW station! I bet you can be found fairly
quickly.

But seriously, the really big difference is that for you to run 5 kW,
you have to do something above and beyond the ordinary, like put
together or purchase an amplifier, tuner, and the like.

Class B person simply has to turn that little RF power knob up past 50
watts. Perhaps the manufacturers will be forced to limit the output
power to 50 watts?

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


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.


Why would it be any more complex than what we have now?

And in the old days, there was no big deal about enforcing Novices' use of no
more than 75 watts input and crystal control.

I think the old days were a bit different than today.

I don't think that people drove thier cars 30-35 miles per hour over
the speed limit as a routine thing. We just opend a new double laned
road in the area. Has a 40 mph speed limit. The first day, there were
something like ten people pulled over for going 75 mph and up on it. The
local bypass is 55. I am regularly passed by cars going 100 mph. At
least twice every trip. I'm going 70 and I'm a target. Going the speed
limit is tantamount to suicide.

My point is that if the radio can do 100 watts, that's where they are
going to put it. And that being the case, forgo the useless regulation.


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.


Maybe not! Look how many Tech Pluses are still on the books today, even though
for the past 42 months they've been able to upgrade with just a single written
- or in many cases, no test at all. And the number of Tech Pluses has also been
dropping by renewals as Techs.....

And this hurts what?

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.


The same was true in the old days if a ham simply wanted to operate in the
Novice bands with xtal control and 75 watts...

Perhaps, but it doesn't make it any less absurd.

When incentive licensing was reinstituted in 1968, a lot of hams had to upgrade
just to do what they'd been doing for years.

Is this like 3 lefts make a right? 8^)


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


Me too, but it's an uphill climb to get it back.

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.


The big problem is that the license won't expire even if its holder does. The
database will contain more and more entries of long-dead or lost-interest hams.

True enough, kind of like JA

Perhaps that's part of Hans' plan - the number of hams with that class of
license will grow and grow and grow...

FCC will cancel a license if proper paperwork is done. Usually this takes the
form of a family member sending in a death certificate so that the SK's call
can be reassigned to a friend, club or relative.

Given the 10 year license term and such things as online renewal, I don't see
renewal costs as a big line item in the FCC budget.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses.

And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license.

A forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person
that only does public events, and uses the local repeater once
in a while is not going to be very popular with them.

I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free to
renew their current license.



And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.

There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we
enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF
frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice
sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we
enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current
200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on 219-220MHz?
How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce
the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do
we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard
all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!! (I
quit using the word 'stupid'.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

you feel all should
be forced to improve on that

Nope, not at all. Under my proposal you'd be free to keep renewing
your Technician (what a misnomer!) license until you assume room
temperature.

The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all.


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.

Technicians could continue to renew their current license until they
assume room temperature.

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

My proposal would allow them a transition period to do just that.
Then they could continue to renew their no-code General test until
they assumed room temperature.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Considering the power levels, the number
of frequencies and bands, the overall
safety considerations, (snip)

You're avoiding my question, Dwight.


No, you just don't like the answer given. If anything, I'm ignoring a
fanciful, long-winded, exchange that cannot add anything of real substance
to the discussion about Morse code testing (see below).


Since you keep asking this, do you
have a point to make, Jim?

Yes.

The point is that some folks apply a double
standard when deciding which tests to keep
and which to get rid of.


The only double standard that exists is not having the same testing for
all operating modes. Unless there is a justification to do otherwise, either
have skill testing for all modes or no skill testing for any mode. There is
no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code.
That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements. As such,
the unique Morse code test should be eliminated.

Not willing to accept that, you ignore the obvious double standard and
instead try conjure up an imaginary double standard relating to the written
tests. No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their
contents, serve a valid purpose today. None here, including you, have said
otherwise. The same cannot be said about the Morse code test.

With all that in mind, I have no desire to engage in a fanciful discussion
about the contents of the written tests, especially when that discussion
cannot possibly lead to a valid point - no conflict or double standard
exists concerning the written tests. As such, I've ignored the rest of your
message and have instead addressed the specific point you've acknowledged
trying to make.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"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

There's no cheat sheet for learning Morse code. If and when someone decideds
to do it, they must rise up off their kiester and "learn" it. Herein lies
the burr in the saddle.

No matter how much more difficult the writtens become, as long as the Q&A
pool are published, passing a written element will continue to require no
more than a study guide and a highlighter...and perhaps a day or two of
"study." Notice I didn't say "learn" the material in order to pass.

This is why some folks consider it a filter. It's been said it filters out
lids, CBers, etc...but in reality, it only filters out those who are not
motivated enough to make the effort in the first place.

Decode Morse code with a decoding chart at very slode speeds? Possible...not
realistic, but possible.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Alun" wrote in message
...
What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have
the desire to use the skill.

Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that you're already
aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm Elemnt 1 test does NOT
leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It only gives one a taste so that one
may make an educated choice as to whether or not they wish to persue CW any
further.

The majority of newbies I've worked sent at approx. 8 to 10-wpm. (That's
right, just below the plateau.) We seem to gravitate to one another. Ok, the
Novice/Tech"+" sub-bands help bring us together. My point is that those who
actually get OTA are putting in more effort than needed just to pass Element
1. Those who pass Element 1 and wish to go no further with CW have made a
truly educated dicision because they now have a little "practical"
experience with the mode under their belt on which to base their
decision...and are not just simply talking from their @$$!

Learning the theory of modes you don't want
to use is not too onerous, but having to pass a typing test to use phone
would be just as annoying and stupid as having to pass a code test to use
phone, for example. Besides, having to know about other modes is
reasonable, but actually learning to use them is another matter.

As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the issue...the
having to really learn it is. Do away with the published Q&A pools and watch
the whining escalate.

Also, if
I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty,
but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance.

You may have just touched on a selling point for CW.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) Again keep in mind that I have said
Morse is necessary. While I happen to
believe that testing should be maintained that
is NOT the point I am debating at this time
and you keep trying to drag it back to testing.
I am stating that Morse code itself is necessary.


We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were not for the code testing
debate, Dee. That is why this mode is being discussed as opposed to some
other mode or discussions about the weather. I've acknowledged that Morse
code is enjoyable, entertaining, useful, and perhaps even necessary for you
to make some of the contacts you want to make. But we're not just talking
about you or the contacts you want to make. Your communications are
recreational or avocational in nature, not a necessity. And, as long as your
communications are not necessary, your use of Morse code in those
communications is not necessary.

This brings us back to the code testing debate. If Morse code is not
necessary to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service today,
Morse code testing should be eliminated. The _use_ of Morse code not an
issue here. You will still be able to use that mode when you find it
necessary to make the contacts you want. Others will still be able to learn
code if they want. But the test itself, as a license requirement, should
end.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

"Alun" wrote in message
...
It just so happens that I don't
like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK
too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to
use
it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and
experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and
saying
they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience
to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as
eloquently as you.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) 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. (snip)


Actually, most of them (coax, connectors, antenna tuning, SWR tests,
equipment grounding, lightning protection, and RF exposure level estimates)
were in the Novice/Technician question pool I studied (7/1/97~7/1/01
version). Just glancing through the question pool, here are some of the
related questions I stumbled across...

N4A06 ~ N4A11 - Station & antenna grounding
T4A08 ~ T4A16 - Station & antenna grounding
N4C01 ~ N4C11 - SWR measurements
T9B09 ~ T9B12 - SWR measurements
N4A04 ~ N4A05 - Lightning protection
N9A09 ~ N9A13 - Antenna tuning
N9C01 ~ N9C12 - Feed lines (coax and others)
T9C01 ~ T9C03 - Connectors
N0B01 ~ N0C27 - RF Safety (exposure levels)
T0A01 ~ T0C22 - RF Safety (exposure levels)

The study guide I used (Now You're Talking!) pretty much covered the rest
(waterproofing, ground radials, masts, guy wires, and so on). Of course, I
then had to transfer that written information into real world applications.


I've set up a complete Field Day station in
much less than an afternoon. (snip)


Most of us have set up in remote locations, for various purposes.


Again, almost none of the skills needed were
on the license tests.


If true, you must have taken some really basic tests back when you got
your license years ago. The test I took seems much more comprehensive than
what you describe.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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