In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

Not the same since there are distinct privileges with those licenses
which differentiate them from the others. IF the FCC had made Advanced
privileges exactly the same as Extra, then I fully believe they would have
just changed all Advanced to Extra when they were individually
renewed.

From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional,
General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same.

No, that's not exactly correct.

The period described started in February of 1953, not 1951.

Before then, hams needed an Extra or Advanced to use 'phone on the HF bands
between 3 and 25 MHz. This is one reason 10 meter 'phone was so popular.

More important, however, is the fact that the basic concept of "incentives"
wasn't a new '60s idea, but a rehash of a much older practice from at least the
1930s. Except that the 1930s version had only two levels (Class B/Class A) and
was by mode, not subband.

We all used the
same frequencies with the same authorized power, and from our call sign you
couldn't tell one from the other.

You could, however, usually tell the oldtimers from the newbies by the license
class, but that was about all. Except that there was a very limited program
where hams could get specific callsigns.

Life was good.

So they tell me!

Then some dump huck social-engineering gummint dudes, cheered on by a radio
club in West Hartford, CT., decided to set up a bunch of arbitrary
exclusive
band segments as 'rewards' for advancing amongst the various classes, and
then later drove wider wedges between the classes with the 'reward' of
distinctive call signs for the higher licenses. Whatever good came of this
is long since lost in the damage caused by 'class wars' which still rage.

All of which was only done after over 5 years of debate and discussion. I think
the whole thing was a case of "Sputnik fever" by those guvmint dudes, who had
seen one too many hamshacks owned by QCAO charter members.

My proposal is based first on the notion that there should be two classes of
license --- "Learners Permit" and "Fully Qualified", and second on the
notion that those learners should operate in the mainstream with experienced
hams, not segregated off into little ghettos populated with mostly other
learners.

Exactly!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Hans' answer is not in his proposal.

OK, fine.

In fact, a lot of what Hans has said
in this newsgroup is not in the proposal.

It will be, if FCC acts on it in any way.

Instead, he just seems to be making
up answers as he goes along.

Is that bad? His answers are all in agreement
with the stated goals and philosophy of his
proposal. I haven't found a single case where
Hans has contradicted himself in this proposal
thing.


You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.

Hans has only submitted his proposal as a comment to others' petitions.

He can take the discussion here, and the answers he's given, revise the
proposal into a petition and submit it to FCC for an RM number.

Even though I disagree with some parts of it, and would oppose those parts, I
think his proposal has been much improved and clarified by the discussion here.


The end result could be something that FCC and much of the amateur commnunity
would support.

--

Do GROLs have to be renewed?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit
though.


Why? It's my understanding that the 10-year idea is based partly on the
current
license term and partly on the idea that we don't want to force anyone out
because of "life happens" events like education and family.

Its just too long.

Is it really too long, particularly considering the two-year experience
requirement?

One of the problems with the old 1 and 2 year Novices was that if a new ham ran
into "life happens" situations, their upgrade schedule would be seriously
disprupted.

Example: A few weeks after a teenager gets the Novice license his folks inform
him that the family is moving across the country. New house isn't quite ready
so they'll be living in temporary quarters for a while. Meanwhile most of their
stuff is in storage. "A while" becomes "a few months"..

Finally they get into the new house and there's a flurry of activity to get set
up - and the parents say ham radio isn't a top priority. By the time Our Hero
is back on the air, there's not much time left on his one-year license.

Look how long it's taken some *adults* (alleged adults, anyway) in this NG to
upgrade, or even get licenses.

The license renewal period would just be another
number by that time, since the new A license would be forever. I'm busy
as all gitout, and it took me something over a week of hard study to get
ready for the Extra.

Very true!

Plus I can't figure out what can make a person qualified to operate on
day 3652 of their licensing period and unqualified on day 3653.

The same principle that makes a General or Advanced class ham qualfied to
operate on 3526 kHz but not on 3524 kHz.

The same principle that makes a Tech Plus ham qualified to operate a
transmitter of 1500 W output using any authorized mode on 6 meters but not 10
meters.

It takes
a lot less time than that to understand RF safety - the only real reason
I can think of for the second class license, so if we're going to do
this, it should make some timing sense.

There's a lot more to it than RF safety.

I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read
teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A.

BTDT.

Not sure about BTDT.

Been There, Done That

Another
thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control
op at field day (or operate lower power)


Why would that be strange? It's the rule *today*.

I keep drawing parallels between the second class license and Generals.
We try to get people out to operate on field day, and you can get some
pretty strange setups. First a Ham with less than 2 years time in grade
would have to have a control op.

Why?

As long as the power level is less than 50 W, that Class B ham could operate
any freq, any mode, as the control op.

We have hams what operate now at field
day that would suddenly have to have a control op (therefore taking
myself or another Extra away from a station)

Not at all! Existing hams would retain their existing privs under Hans'
proposal.

Of course the second class
ham could operate a 50 watt or less station, but that would mean that
either we change our setup - all stations except GOTA are full output -
or set up a special station just for the second class hams, a sort of
low power ghetto.

You mean you folks operate 1500 W on FD? (that's "full output")

Heck, the GOTA station can run more power. Maybe this
is no problem for you, but for others it isn't so good

Try QRP some time ;-)

The fact is that if a non-Extra wants to operate FD, there has to be a control
op present whenever the non-Extra exceeds his-her subband restrictions. That's
a lot more onerous than turning down the power to 50 W.

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels:
QRP, 50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC.

Could be. But if we went back to that, the clubs could be forced to
make a decision to either run what they would like to run, take control
ops away from available stations for those who don't have time in grade.
(or the proper upgrade) or make that little ghetto for the second class
Hams. I really don't think that is a good way to welcome new people. YMMV.

There's another option: Change the rules so that different power levels could
be used for different stations in the same multi setup. (It used to be this
way!)

In fact, these changes should be done anyway. Right now there are three power
levels on FD:

"QRP/battery", which requires 5 W or less output *and* non-generator power,
(multiplier 5)

"Low power" which allows up to 150 W and requires a power source independent of
mains (multiplier 2)

"High Power" (multiplier 1)

Multi transmitter setups are categorized at the power level of the *highest
power* transmitter.

I'd do it this way:

"QRP", would require 10 W or less output (multiplier 5) and a power source
independent of mains

"Low Power" would would allow up to 50 W and requires a power source
independent of mains (multiplier 3.5)

"Medium power" would allow up to 200 W and requires a power source independent
of mains (multiplier 2)

"High Power" (multiplier 1)

"Battery" multiplier (instead of a weenie 100 point bonus) for non-fossil-fuel
energy sources

Multi transmitter setups would be categorized at the power level of the
*highest power* transmitter but scored by the transmitters actually used on
each band/mode. So 40 CW might run Low while 40 phone ran High, etc.

It used to be that way - and it was a good thing!

(Yes, I've suggested this to ARRL)

It seems that a major objection to the 50 watt rule is based on the fact that
there aren't a lot of 50 watt rigs for sale today. That's a pretty sad
commentary on the technical state of things, I think.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Bill Sohl" wrote

Not the same since there are distinct privileges with those licenses
which differentiate them from the others. IF the FCC had made Advanced
privileges exactly the same as Extra, then I fully believe they would have
just changed all Advanced to Extra when they were individually
renewed.

From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional,
General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same. We all used the
same frequencies with the same authorized power, and from our call sign you
couldn't tell one from the other. Life was good.

Then some dump huck social-engineering gummint dudes, cheered on by a radio
club in West Hartford, CT., decided to set up a bunch of arbitrary exclusive
band segments as 'rewards' for advancing amongst the various classes, and
then later drove wider wedges between the classes with the 'reward' of
distinctive call signs for the higher licenses. Whatever good came of this
is long since lost in the damage caused by 'class wars' which still rage.

My proposal is based first on the notion that there should be two classes of
license --- "Learners Permit" and "Fully Qualified", and second on the
notion that those learners should operate in the mainstream with experienced
hams, not segregated off into little ghettos populated with mostly other
learners.

73, de Hans, K0HB


Hans, I'm in full agreement with your 3rd paragraph.

But what radio club in West Hartford are you referring to?

"N2EY" wrote

From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional,
General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same.

No, that's not exactly correct.

The period described started in February of 1953, not 1951.


Whatever.

You could, however, usually tell the oldtimers from the newbies by the
license
class, but that was about all.

Unless someone told you their license class, there was no way of knowing.
There was no 'QRZ.COM' to go check, the CallBook didn't show license class,
and all you could tell by their call sign was where their station was
located. We all played together in the ether as equals.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , Alun
writes:

snip
Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving, forward
to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States
sits back and watches.

What's the count now?

I think they include at least the UK, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Australia (not until
Jan 1st). New Zealand may actually do it before Australia, as they have
said it would be before the end of the year, but have given no date. I am
pretty sure I have missed a couple out, too.


Oddly enough, Japan hasn't changed a thing, even though Japan has been the
poster country for no-code-test HF licenses.

The number of Japanese hams is dropping like a stone, judged by the number of
station licenses.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Then, what special knowledge is imparted by being able to pass the General
and
Extra class written tests that is a minimum qualification for the
privileges
granted by those licenses *and* is not tested adequately by the Technician
test?

What difference was there between a 1953 Technician written test, and a 1953
General written test? Nothing, of course. They were exactly the same
examination.

But the 1953 General could beep 8WPM faster than the Tech. This 8WPM
qualified them to operate on 2-meters where the Tech had no privileges in
1953. Novices of that era also beeped at 8WPM less than a General, but they
*could* operate on 2-meters, and on 3 HF bands closed to Tech's. Didn't
make any sense then --- still doesn't.

My point? All these arbitrary differences in operating privileges are just
that --- arbitrary, based mostly on a misguided agenda of 'social
engineering' by the regulators.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip) Fact is, though, you did open yourself
up with the statement, "Few people today
(especially boys and men) have not learned
code, or at least played around with it, at
some point in their lives." (snip)


Is that sentence what this is all about, Kim (and Dee)? If so, lets forget
about debate rules and discuss how to write instead. I wrote a paragraph
which contained a lead, supposition or hypothesis, and a conclusion. The
"fact" mentioned in the lead of that paragraph is in the conclusion of that
paragraph, not in any single sentence leading up to that conclusion. The
sentence quoted above is supposition leading to the conclusion. The
conclusion of that paragraph, and the "fact" mentioned in the lead of that
paragraph, is, "...most adults today are familiar enough with code to know
whether they have any real interest in it." Based on what I wrote in that
paragraph, and in subsequent messages, I do believe that conclusion to be
fact.

And the conclusion of this message is, if that sentence is indeed the root
Dee's objection, we've spent several days arguing over two entirely
different things - that sentence in Dee's case and the overall conclusion in
my case.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:
I based that on the fact that Morse code has
been widely featured in movies... (snip)

Well, I simply disagree. Most people in the USA
don't really know what Morse code is.


How can you say that, Jim? As I said, Morse code has been shown in some
form or another in perhaps several hundred movies, television shows, and
news broadcasts, over the last forty or fifty years. One would almost have
to live in a cave without electric power to have not heard code at least
several times and not know it is sent with a key (telegraph or other).
Because of that, I think it is absurd to suggest that most don't know what
Morse code is. They may not know the details, but they most certainly do
know what it is.


If they do't even know what it's called, they can
hardly make an informed judgement about it.


Why do they have to know what something is called to make an informed
judgement about it? I may not know what a certain crane is called (or how it
works), but can still make an informed judgement not to stand under any load
that crane may be moving.


That is especially true for anyone interested in radio
(shortwave listeners, potential new hams, and so
on).

Not from what I've seen whenever I've demonstrated
Morse code.


What are you basing that conclusion on? I don't doubt that those people
didn't know how to send code, but you'll never convince me that they didn't
even know what Morse code was.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) The end result could be something that
FCC and much of the amateur commnunity
would support.


I disagree. For the reasons already stated, most specifically that the
proposal doesn't serve a need not already addressed in the current licensing
system, I don't think the FCC would have any interest at all in his
proposal. When you consider the amount of changes needed to implement the
proposal (rule changes, licensing procedures, and so on), I suspect the FCC
would be dead set against it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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