In article , Alun
writes:

I have a proposal of my own. Here it is.

All General and above become Class As, everyone else becomes a Class B.

IOW, free upgrades for everyone except Novices and Techs. History repeating
itself - almost exactly the same thing was announced 51 years ago this month.

Class As get all privileges. Class Bs get 80, 40, 15, 10 and everything
above that, i.e. everything any one of the equivalent licence classes had
before but whole bands, not just subbands. Only Class As could be VEs, and
I would limit Class Bs to 200W, i.e. Novice power level. No other limits,
restrictions, etc. of any kind.

Well, it sure would be interesting!

The only losers would be Techs who could no longer run 1500W. I suspect
that few do, and that those who do would have no difficulty passing a
Class A test.

Could also do a "keep your old license docs and you can run full power" thing,
as "Techs-with-HF" do now.

I think that this has the virtue of being more politically acceptable than
Hans' version.

Probably!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.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.

But that was 35+ years ago and times have changed. I'd bet the
FCC won't do that again and has, to a certain degree already
shown its mindset with the lack of differentiation
between tech and tech+...even though there is a difference
in operating bands permmitted.

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.

Other than my beliefs at how FCC would likly treat existing
licenses...I generally agree with your proposal.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

What do you mean "we," white man?

Your point for introducing a racial suggestion, Your Putziness?

Of course. A "learner's permit." As if the ONLY radio emitters in
the world came from amateur radio stations.

The point here is training for Radio Amateurs...Not
"professional", Military, PLMRS, MURS, Special Emergency, etc etc
etc...

Geez...for a work manager supposedly with a degree you sure don't
know much about equipment that can go wrong, be misadjusted, and
lots of other little nasties lurking inside electronics boxes. Tsk, tsk.

And you'd know WHAT of current Amateur gear, Lennie?

Your CURRENT practical experience in AMATEUR Radio...?!?!

Show YOUR work.

Steve, K4YZ

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Such exposure doesn't give anyone
sufficient information to make an
informed decision.


Of course, that's just an opinion, isn't it? You're not an expert on the
human decision making process and there are no studies to show whether it
is
or isn't sufficient, right? If not, your opinion is no more valid than
mine.


Again you are NOT reading my words.
I've repeatedly stated that one can make
judgments based on risks, dangers, and
harm even if they have not experienced it.
Murder does serious harm and therefore
does not need to be experienced.
However where such detrimental effects
don't come into play, it is not possible to
say one does or does not like something
unless they have experienced it. (snip)


Again, we make decisions each day without personal experience to
necessarily back it up. This includes who we associate with, who we date,
what we eat for lunch, what books we buy, what shows we watch on
television,
whether we marry, and the list goes on virtually forever. And, again, your
demand for more here shows a serious lack of respect for people's ability
to
make their own choices.


I refrain from forming opinions on things
I've never tried. There will be things that
I will never form an opinion on. (snip)


I find that very difficult to believe, Dee. Did you try actual marrage
before actually getting married? Did you try driving on the highway before
deciding to get a license? Did you try your job before actually taking it?
Again, there are many things we choose to do or not do without actually
trying them first.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Again you are not reading what I wrote. I stated that I avoided forming
opinions about whether I would like something without experiencing it. I
did not say that I avoided making decisions.

For example, I got a driver's license not because I wanted to drive but
because in the area that I lived it was necessary. Mass transit was not an
option. I continue to drive because of the convenience of it even though I
now live in an area that does have mass transit.. However I absolutely HATE
driving. The benefits of driving exceed my dislike of driving.

Since I am not independently wealthy, I have to work and therefore must
select a job regardless of whether I can "try it" or not. One weighs the
interview results, the benefits, the location, etc and make a selection and
then makes a selection on the available data. Sometimes you get one you end
up liking and other times you get one that keeps you inspired to make sure
your resume is up to date and in circulation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Again you are not reading what I wrote.
I stated that I avoided forming opinions
about whether I would like something
without experiencing it. I did not say
that I avoided making decisions.


Actually, I did read what you wrote, Dee. And, since we all try to look
into a subject before forming opinions, and then make decisions based on
those opinions, the only difference between our two views is the matter of
degree. Unlike you, I don't believe one has to personally experience
everything before forming an opinion about it. In fact, I don't think it is
even possible.

Regardless, when it comes to code, I suspect most newcomers to ham radio
today are a lot like me when I first started - listened to code on the
radio, tried a few code training programs, maybe played around with code
translation software, and so on, before even beginning to study for that
first license exam. While that alone is certainly not enough to make them an
expert on code, it is enough to allow them to start forming opinions about
it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

On 15 Dec 2003 09:58:07 -0800, N2EY wrote:

But while the Novice was an instant hit, the Tech didn't get a lot of
takers until first 6 and then 2 meters were added.

A lot of us (including me) used the Tech as an incremental
stepping-stone to the General after our Novices ran out - the
closest thing to a CSCE before the VE system got approval to use the
latter. I kept mine for 10 years before I got my General (but
several things like undergrad and graduate school and finding a
steady job needed my attention more than practicing Morse).

Techs on 2 were very active in NY and LA in the very early 60s.
Southern California even had 2-m repeaters by then (AM, of course).

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.

Point is, FCC spent years developing the new structure, announced it on 1951,
but then just when the tough part of the new rules (requiring an Extra for
amateur HF phone on 80 thru 15), they dumped those rules and gave everybody
except Novices and Techs everything.

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.

Except for Novices, whose distinctive callsigns were unmistakeable.

Except for Techs.who had no HF at all and originally no 6 or 2 meters either.

And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a newbie.
W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT. K3NYT was
an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway.

If everything was so nice, why was FCC so unhappy with the way things were
going? As early as 1958, FCC wanted to know why there were so few Extras. They
asked again in 1963 and made it clear they wanted to bigtime changes.

Personally, I think it was "Sputnik fever". They, like many others in the USA,
were spooked by the early Soviet achievements in space (first artificial
satellite, first animal in space, first pictures of the far side of the moon,
first man in space, first woman in space.....the list goes on and on) and
perceived the USA to need "incentive" in all things technological.

73 de Jim, N2EY

KØHB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote


And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a

newbie.

W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT.

K3NYT was

an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway.



Not necessarily. Since we all got a new call sign everytime we moved, we
might trade an 'old' call in Minnesota (W0ABC) for a 'new' call in Virginia
(WA4ABC). Not only couldn't you tell how long we'd been licensed, but you
couldn't tell our license class (except for Novices with KN, WN, or WV
prefixes). My mentor, W0VDI, was licensed at a Tech in 1952 and went SK 50
years later with the same call and the same Tech license.

My call was a re-issue, I received a K prefix call while my friends who
received calls about the same time got WA and WB prefix calls. One had
received his WA call sometime before I got the K call.

"N2EY" wrote


And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a
newbie.
W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT.
K3NYT was
an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway.


Not necessarily. Since we all got a new call sign everytime we moved, we
might trade an 'old' call in Minnesota (W0ABC) for a 'new' call in Virginia
(WA4ABC). Not only couldn't you tell how long we'd been licensed, but you
couldn't tell our license class (except for Novices with KN, WN, or WV
prefixes). My mentor, W0VDI, was licensed at a Tech in 1952 and went SK 50
years later with the same call and the same Tech license.

If everything was so nice, why was FCC so unhappy with the way things were
going?

It wasn't the FCC who was unhappy. The unhappy folks were a few resentful
and vocal OT's who felt disenfranchised because a nubby new guy could
operate phone on 20M, not having first passed the old class A exam like he
had to. The march to disincentive licensing moved to the beat of drum being
banged up in West Hartford, CT. I know it's hard for you to accept that,
given that history is written by the victors.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds
himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people
who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-- Bokonon

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

"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.

Point is, FCC spent years developing the new structure, announced it on
1951,
but then just when the tough part of the new rules (requiring an Extra for
amateur HF phone on 80 thru 15), they dumped those rules and gave
everybody
except Novices and Techs everything.

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.

Except for Novices, whose distinctive callsigns were unmistakeable.

Except for Techs.who had no HF at all and originally no 6 or 2 meters
either.

And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a
newbie.
W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT.
K3NYT was
an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway.

If everything was so nice, why was FCC so unhappy with the way things were
going? As early as 1958, FCC wanted to know why there were so few Extras.
They
asked again in 1963 and made it clear they wanted to bigtime changes.

Personally, I think it was "Sputnik fever". They, like many others in the
USA,
were spooked by the early Soviet achievements in space (first artificial
satellite, first animal in space, first pictures of the far side of the
moon,
first man in space, first woman in space.....the list goes on and on) and
perceived the USA to need "incentive" in all things technological.

I agree with Jim on the "Sputnick fever" reaction. My Earth Science
teached just about went off his rocker when Sputnick went up.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK