"KØHB" wrote:

I expect it would be a longer test than
todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band
segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level),
and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken
in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those who are
intimidated by lengthy exams or have
weak bladders.


In the end, I've described several, what I consider, serious faults in
your proposal, and that's without even getting into what I think the FCC's
perspective might be. I don't even think you're being realistic at this
point. Because of that, I don't think your proposal has a chance in Hades of
getting any further than a passing discussion in this newsgroup. As such,
I'll pass on any further discussion about it until something more
substantial is added to the discussion.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

I'll pass on any further discussion about it until something more
substantial is added to the discussion.

Thank you. I was kind of hoping you might have something to add but so far
you've only been a detractor, so it's probably just as well that you have
decided to withdraw from the discussion.

Have a great holiday season.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
news
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

You made a statement that most people
had such exposure and while I naturally
knew that was only your opinion, you
stated it as if it were a fact. Therefore I
was justified in asking you to provide the
data to support that statement.


That doesn't change my response. Again, show me where such statistical
data is collected and I'll cite it for you. Of course, you know it isn't
collected, and therefore my comment could not have been based on that, so
your question was clearly disingenuous.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


No I was illustrating that your statement was clearly disingenuous. Hiding
an opinion by making a statement that was couched in terms to make it appear
as if it were a fact. Therefore as a debater it is not only my right but my
duty to challenge it and ask you for proof. And you can't provide it.
Instead, you attempt to ask me to prove your statement, which is an invalid
debating technique.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

No Kim it is not. He made a statement as
if it were fact rather than his personal opinion
that most people had had exposure to Morse
code. I challenged him to prove it. This is
standard operating procedure in debate.
Since he is the originator of the statement,
then in a debate, he must be prepared to
back it with facts. That the subject here is
Morse code does not negate debate
procedures even if he wishes it did.


This is a newsgroup, not a debating society, Dee. As such, there are no
debate procedures. Instead, simple common sense applies in newsgroup
discussions (as in most discussions). Since you're aware that nobody
collects such data, simple common sense should have prevented you from
even
asking for that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)


Since you are aware that nobody collects such data, simple common sense
should have prevented you from making such an unprovable statement in the
first place.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra,
they may have taken as many as 5 separate
written tests (snip)


Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking about
the present (the three written tests).


"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in
the Class B. (snip)


I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of repeated
material. By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited
from building their own equipment also? If not, how would one really make
the test simplier?


And with the simplified structure, some of the
questions like subbands-by-license-class
would go away. (snip)


So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also? This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.


Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras
get Class A licenses automatically, or would they
have to retest?


Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new license
structure, Jim. Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra,
they may have taken as many as 5 separate
written tests (snip)

Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking about
the present (the three written tests).

We *are* talking about the present. Present-day Extras took a wide variety of
written tests. For example, Hans took a single 100 question written test to go
from General to Extra. I took two 50 question writtens to make the same
transition. An April-16-2000 Extra took a single 50 question written. But all
of us prenetly hold the same license with the same privileges.

"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in
the Class B. (snip)

I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of repeated
material.

Sure - but the emphasis would be different.

By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited
from building their own equipment also?

Just the opposite, I think! But it's Hans' proposal - ask him.

If not, how would one really make
the test simplier?

Take the current Tech test. Remove some of the RF exposure stuff (because Class
Bs can't use more than 50 W). Add in some HF and Class B rules stuff. Done.

Since Techs are authorized to design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur
gear using any mode and any technology, the Tech written test must be adequate
for homebrewing, right?

How different is homebrewing for HF from homebrewing for 6 meters? (If
anything, homebrewing for 6 meters is more critical because of the higher
frequency).

Remember that Novices and Tech Pluses are already authorized to
design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur gear using any CW and SSB on
10 meters, and CW on 80. 40, 1nd 15 meters, using any technology.

And with the simplified structure, some of the
questions like subbands-by-license-class
would go away. (snip)

So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also?

Nope.Haven't you read Hans' proposal?

Both Class B and Class A hams would have access to all amateur frequencies. For
example, on 40 meters/Region 2 they would have:

7000-7150 CW/data
7150-7300.CW/phone/image

Compare this to the current mess of subbands on 40 for Extras, Advanceds,
Generals, Tech Pluses and Novices.

This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.

Why "absurd"? Hans is proposing to dramatically simplify things for new hams.
Lots of privileges for new hams. No more big divide at 30 MHz. No more having
to memorize lots of little subbands which then become obsolete as one upgrades.


And existing hams don't have to give up anything they already have. If an
existing ham wants to join the new system, just take a test.

My Extra license is up for renewing soon. I'd take the Class A just to avoide
that little chore....

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras
get Class A licenses automatically, or would they
have to retest?

Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new license
structure, Jim.

Not according to Hans' answer to the above question.

Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).

Do you really think such a test would be a problem for most of us Extras? I say
"Bring it on!! - I got yer Class A right here!"

I don't agree with Hans' proposal in some areas, but I'd hardly call it
"absurd".

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there are
only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000 hams. Was that
an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the other 6 to
new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code test is
a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article et,
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra, they may have taken as
many as 5 separate written tests (snip)

Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking
about the present (the three written tests).

We *are* talking about the present. Present-day Extras took a wide
variety of written tests. For example, Hans took a single 100 question
written test to go from General to Extra. I took two 50 question
writtens to make the same transition. An April-16-2000 Extra took a
single 50 question written. But all of us prenetly hold the same
license with the same privileges.

"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in the Class B.
(snip)

I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of repeated
material.

Sure - but the emphasis would be different.

By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited from
building their own equipment also?

Just the opposite, I think! But it's Hans' proposal - ask him.

If not, how would one really make the test simplier?

Take the current Tech test. Remove some of the RF exposure stuff
(because Class Bs can't use more than 50 W). Add in some HF and Class B
rules stuff. Done.

Since Techs are authorized to design/build/modify/repair/align/operate
amateur gear using any mode and any technology, the Tech written test
must be adequate for homebrewing, right?

How different is homebrewing for HF from homebrewing for 6 meters? (If
anything, homebrewing for 6 meters is more critical because of the
higher frequency).

Remember that Novices and Tech Pluses are already authorized to
design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur gear using any CW and
SSB on 10 meters, and CW on 80. 40, 1nd 15 meters, using any
technology.

And with the simplified structure, some of the
questions like subbands-by-license-class would go away. (snip)

So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also?

Nope.Haven't you read Hans' proposal?

Both Class B and Class A hams would have access to all amateur
frequencies. For example, on 40 meters/Region 2 they would have:

7000-7150 CW/data
7150-7300.CW/phone/image

Compare this to the current mess of subbands on 40 for Extras,
Advanceds, Generals, Tech Pluses and Novices.

This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.

Why "absurd"? Hans is proposing to dramatically simplify things for new
hams. Lots of privileges for new hams. No more big divide at 30 MHz. No
more having to memorize lots of little subbands which then become
obsolete as one upgrades.


And existing hams don't have to give up anything they already have. If
an existing ham wants to join the new system, just take a test.

My Extra license is up for renewing soon. I'd take the Class A just to
avoide that little chore....

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras
get Class A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest?

Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new
license structure, Jim.

Not according to Hans' answer to the above question.

Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).

Do you really think such a test would be a problem for most of us
Extras? I say "Bring it on!! - I got yer Class A right here!"

I don't agree with Hans' proposal in some areas, but I'd hardly call it
"absurd".

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY



It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements. However, I think that
something ultimately will have to be done about the status of Novice and
Advanced licences. It is just too messy to maintain closed licence classes
indefinitely. I would have no problem with automatically upgrading them
all, but I know that many others would not like it. Maybe the way around
this is to have new (or at least re-named) licence classes. Someone who
objects to Advanced licencees getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to
both becoming Class As, for example. A rose by any other name would smell
as sweet?

Alun wrote in
:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article et,
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Depending on when someone gets their Extra, they may have taken as
many as 5 separate written tests (snip)

Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking
about the present (the three written tests).

We *are* talking about the present. Present-day Extras took a wide
variety of written tests. For example, Hans took a single 100 question
written test to go from General to Extra. I took two 50 question
writtens to make the same transition. An April-16-2000 Extra took a
single 50 question written. But all of us prenetly hold the same
license with the same privileges.

"Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material.
Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in the Class B.
(snip)

I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of
repeated material.

Sure - but the emphasis would be different.

By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited from
building their own equipment also?

Just the opposite, I think! But it's Hans' proposal - ask him.

If not, how would one really make the test simplier?

Take the current Tech test. Remove some of the RF exposure stuff
(because Class Bs can't use more than 50 W). Add in some HF and Class
B rules stuff. Done.

Since Techs are authorized to design/build/modify/repair/align/operate
amateur gear using any mode and any technology, the Tech written test
must be adequate for homebrewing, right?

How different is homebrewing for HF from homebrewing for 6 meters? (If
anything, homebrewing for 6 meters is more critical because of the
higher frequency).

Remember that Novices and Tech Pluses are already authorized to
design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur gear using any CW and
SSB on 10 meters, and CW on 80. 40, 1nd 15 meters, using any
technology.

And with the simplified structure, some of the questions like
subbands-by-license-class would go away. (snip)

So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also?

Nope.Haven't you read Hans' proposal?

Both Class B and Class A hams would have access to all amateur
frequencies. For example, on 40 meters/Region 2 they would have:

7000-7150 CW/data
7150-7300.CW/phone/image

Compare this to the current mess of subbands on 40 for Extras,
Advanceds, Generals, Tech Pluses and Novices.

This whole thing is
getting more absurd with each message posted.

Why "absurd"? Hans is proposing to dramatically simplify things for
new hams. Lots of privileges for new hams. No more big divide at 30
MHz. No more having to memorize lots of little subbands which then
become obsolete as one upgrades.


And existing hams don't have to give up anything they already have. If
an existing ham wants to join the new system, just take a test.

My Extra license is up for renewing soon. I'd take the Class A just to
avoide that little chore....

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class A
licenses automatically, or would they have to retest?

Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new
license structure, Jim.

Not according to Hans' answer to the above question.

Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as
is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community).

Do you really think such a test would be a problem for most of us
Extras? I say "Bring it on!! - I got yer Class A right here!"

I don't agree with Hans' proposal in some areas, but I'd hardly call
it "absurd".

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now
there are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost
200,000 hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY



It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished
in theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will
go away when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid
actually taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the
Novice subbands to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be
mentionned anywhere in Part 97, the only other alternative would be to
take them away from those Techs who have them now, which would be very
unpalatable).

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I
oppose all time limits and time in grade requirements. However, I think
that something ultimately will have to be done about the status of
Novice and Advanced licences. It is just too messy to maintain closed
licence classes indefinitely. I would have no problem with
automatically upgrading them all, but I know that many others would not
like it. Maybe the way around this is to have new (or at least
re-named) licence classes. Someone who objects to Advanced licencees
getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to both becoming Class As,
for example. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?


So maybe Class A (Extra/Advanced), B (General) and C (Tech/Novice)?

"Alun" wrote in message
...
[snip] However, I think that
something ultimately will have to be done about the status of Novice and
Advanced licences. It is just too messy to maintain closed licence classes
indefinitely. I would have no problem with automatically upgrading them
all, but I know that many others would not like it. Maybe the way around
this is to have new (or at least re-named) licence classes. Someone who
objects to Advanced licencees getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to
both becoming Class As, for example. A rose by any other name would smell
as sweet?

Why is it "just too messy?" Afterall the databases are computerized.
Renewals will have to be processed regardless of whether the person stays at
the same level or upgrades. There is no problem generated by having the old
classes and no advantage whatsoever to combining them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class
A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest?

My inclination would be for current Extras to remain Extras unless they took
the new test.

Bring it on!

Lots of guys (Larry comes to mind) attach a certain cachet to
their current license, having "done it the old way". I've no problem with
honoring that.

There would be no difference in privileges, right?

What about vanity calls?

And I like your notion of splitting the Class A test into broad subject
areas --- off the top of my head "Electronics/Communications theory",
"Regulations and Safety", and "Operating Practices" would make a nice three
way division with perhaps 35 questions per segment.

Exactly the idea. A person would have to get a passing grade in each subject
area on the same test, so it would still be one test, not three.

I'd even suggest doing the something similar to the Class B test.

73 de Jim, N2EY