I understand why the ARRL proposes free upgrades from Technician to
General. The assumptions:
1. The restructuring has to limit the number of license classes to 3.
Thus, the Advanced license and either the Novice license or
Technician license must be eliminated.
2. The restructuring must produce no downgrades.
3. The closing of the Novice class in the restructuring of 2000 was a
major loss. So the Technician license should be eliminated but the
Novice license should be reopened.
4. The only way to eliminate the Technician class without downgrading
the existing Technicians is to automatically upgrade all Technicians
to General.

I still disagree with the ARRL's proposal, though I can now see the
reasoning behind it. I think the flawed assumption is #3. If the
closing of the Novice class was such a major loss, then why was the
No-Code Technician license so much more popular than the Novice
license during the years when both entry-level licenses were
available? The FCC closed the Novice license for the same reason
General Motors closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers.

I'd prefer to see all Novices and Technicians merged into a new
Technician class and be granted Tech Plus privileges. This would be
compatible with a 3-license system. Nobody would lose privileges, but
all automatic upgrades would be modest.

As many have suggested, I think the ARRL proposal may have been a PR
move. Although changing the rules is the FCC's job and not the
ARRL's, anything that the ARRL could have proposed would have
generated a firestorm of controversy. The ARRL had to propose the
retention of the Morse Code exam requirement for the Amateur Extra
license to appeal to the proponents of Morse Code testing. To appeal
to the No Code Technicians feeling intimidated by the Morse Code exam
requirement, the ARRL proposed upgrading them to General.

Jason Hsu, AG4DG
usenet A T jasonhsu.com
http://www.jasonhsu.com/ee.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eeham/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/resume...tion_fighters/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gmu-ece-control/

(Jason Hsu) wrote in
om:

I understand why the ARRL proposes free upgrades from Technician to
General. The assumptions:
1. The restructuring has to limit the number of license classes to 3.
Thus, the Advanced license and either the Novice license or
Technician license must be eliminated.
2. The restructuring must produce no downgrades.
3. The closing of the Novice class in the restructuring of 2000 was a
major loss. So the Technician license should be eliminated but the
Novice license should be reopened.
4. The only way to eliminate the Technician class without downgrading
the existing Technicians is to automatically upgrade all Technicians
to General.

I still disagree with the ARRL's proposal, though I can now see the
reasoning behind it. I think the flawed assumption is #3. If the
closing of the Novice class was such a major loss, then why was the
No-Code Technician license so much more popular than the Novice
license during the years when both entry-level licenses were
available? The FCC closed the Novice license for the same reason
General Motors closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers.

I'd prefer to see all Novices and Technicians merged into a new
Technician class and be granted Tech Plus privileges. This would be
compatible with a 3-license system. Nobody would lose privileges, but
all automatic upgrades would be modest.

As many have suggested, I think the ARRL proposal may have been a PR
move. Although changing the rules is the FCC's job and not the
ARRL's, anything that the ARRL could have proposed would have
generated a firestorm of controversy. The ARRL had to propose the
retention of the Morse Code exam requirement for the Amateur Extra
license to appeal to the proponents of Morse Code testing. To appeal
to the No Code Technicians feeling intimidated by the Morse Code exam
requirement, the ARRL proposed upgrading them to General.

Jason Hsu, AG4DG
usenet A T jasonhsu.com
http://www.jasonhsu.com/ee.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eeham/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/resume...tion_fighters/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gmu-ece-control/


I agree. Beleive it or not, there are quite a few peope who don't want HF,
although they are less numerous than they were. The re-vamped Novice sounds
more like a Tech Plus Lite!

In article ,
(Jason Hsu) writes:

I understand why the ARRL proposes free upgrades from Technician to
General. The assumptions

Assumptions by ARRL, you mean...
:
1. The restructuring has to limit the number of license classes to 3.
Thus, the Advanced license and either the Novice license or
Technician license must be eliminated.
2. The restructuring must produce no downgrades.
3. The closing of the Novice class in the restructuring of 2000 was a
major loss. So the Technician license should be eliminated but the
Novice license should be reopened.
4. The only way to eliminate the Technician class without downgrading
the existing Technicians is to automatically upgrade all Technicians
to General.

I still disagree with the ARRL's proposal, though I can now see the
reasoning behind it.

I think your analysis is very accurate, Jason, except for 3)

I think the flawed assumption is #3.

Consider replacing your 3) with this one:

"3) The entry-level license class should be more balanced between HF and
VHF/UHF than the Tech is toady. The Tech gives all VHF-UHF, but no HF/MF, and
even if the code test is passed, all that you get is tiny slices of HF and two
modes. The ARS would be better off with an entry level license class that has a
better sampling of HF-VHF-UHF privileges, yet doesn't require a more stringent
written test"

If the closing of the Novice class was such a major loss, then why was the
No-Code Technician license so much more popular than the Novice
license during the years when both entry-level licenses were
available?

See above. It's not that the old Novice was a great loss - it's that the Tech
isn;t the best we can do for an entry-level license. At least, that's the ARRL
BoD thinking.

The FCC closed the Novice license for the same reason
General Motors closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers.

Exactly!

In reality, what is being proposed is more of a whole new entry level class
than a reopening of the old Novice. They would do better to give it a different
name - I suggest "Basic". Then you'd have Basic, General, Extra.

I'd prefer to see all Novices and Technicians merged into a new
Technician class and be granted Tech Plus privileges. This would be
compatible with a 3-license system. Nobody would lose privileges, but
all automatic upgrades would be modest.

Problem is, the license class would still be VHF/UHF heavy and HF light.

As many have suggested, I think the ARRL proposal may have been a PR
move. Although changing the rules is the FCC's job and not the
ARRL's, anything that the ARRL could have proposed would have
generated a firestorm of controversy.

Bingo!

But somebody has to propose things, and if ARRL proposed nothing they'd be
criticized for that too.

The ARRL had to propose the
retention of the Morse Code exam requirement for the Amateur Extra
license to appeal to the proponents of Morse Code testing.

Yep, a compromise.

To appeal
to the No Code Technicians feeling intimidated by the Morse Code exam
requirement, the ARRL proposed upgrading them to General.

Not really. The ARRL proposal would drop the code test for General, so all that
any Tech or Plus would have to do to get a General is to pass the 35 question
General test.

The main reason for the free upgrade is to eliminate license classes that
newcomers will not be able to get anymore. The BoD thinks that is a very high
priority, even though there don't seem to be any problems with having almost
120,000 hams in closed-off license classes (Novice and Advanced) for the past 4
years.

There may also be hope that the free upgrades will spur activity among inactive
or rarely active Techs and Tech Pluses. Whether this will happen is
questionable, given the ease with which those hams can upgrade to General.

73 de Jim N2EY

Alun wrote:

I agree. Beleive it or not, there are quite a few peope who don't want HF,
although they are less numerous than they were. The re-vamped Novice sounds
more like a Tech Plus Lite!

Hehhe I like it!

- Mike KB3EIA

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Jason Hsu wrote:
I understand why the ARRL proposes free upgrades from Technician to
General. The assumptions:
1. The restructuring has to limit the number of license classes to 3.
Thus, the Advanced license and either the Novice license or
Technician license must be eliminated.
2. The restructuring must produce no downgrades.
3. The closing of the Novice class in the restructuring of 2000 was a
major loss. So the Technician license should be eliminated but the
Novice license should be reopened.
4. The only way to eliminate the Technician class without downgrading
the existing Technicians is to automatically upgrade all Technicians
to General.

I still disagree with the ARRL's proposal, though I can now see the
reasoning behind it. I think the flawed assumption is #3. If the
closing of the Novice class was such a major loss, then why was the
No-Code Technician license so much more popular than the Novice
license during the years when both entry-level licenses were
available? The FCC closed the Novice license for the same reason
General Motors closed Oldsmobile - not enough takers.

I agree that #3 is flawed. However, what the ARRL fails to realize is that
since 1990 for the most part, the [no-code] technician license IS the entry
level license even though it was not intended to be.

We HAVE a three license class structure now: Technician, General, and Extra.
With regard to that, NOTHING need be done. Nothing new needs to be created.
Nothing old needs to be eliminated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If one wants to "restructure" and still have three classes, there is an
alternative that the ARRL is too stuck-up to even suggest:

1) Class "A" - 30 MHz and up. (VHF, UHF, and microwave through light ....)
2) Class "B" - 30 Mhz and below. (HF, MF, to VLF or DC) Code not required.

One can hold BOTH an "A" and "B" license. Perhaps a power limit less than
1500w.

3) Class "C" - More than just a combination of "A" and "B" - intended to be
held by those who want to do the "most advanced" aspects: Put up satellites or
be volunteer examiners. Code (5WPM) probably required, at least for a while.
Maximum power limit.

This way, those who want to do only HF don't have to worry about the VHF and
above crap. Those who want to do only VHF/UHF don't have to worry about HF.

Conversion:
Novice - B
Technician - A
Technician w/HF - A+B
General - A+B
Advanced - A+B (if this should grant "C" instead, I leave open)
Extra - C

All those becomming "B" (including "A+B") would have credit for code towards any
class "C" requirement for code. Class C would have code credit too (but that's
not really needed in the upgrade schedule unless expired licenses give credit).

For the HF bands, there would be no need for any license class based subband
restrictions; all would be equal. = Simplified HF bandplans.

I'd prefer to see all Novices and Technicians merged into a new
Technician class and be granted Tech Plus privileges. This would be
compatible with a 3-license system. Nobody would lose privileges, but
all automatic upgrades would be modest.

I disagree. That gives novices privileges in places they really weren't tested
for.

As many have suggested, I think the ARRL proposal may have been a PR
move. Although changing the rules is the FCC's job and not the
ARRL's, anything that the ARRL could have proposed would have
generated a firestorm of controversy. The ARRL had to propose the
retention of the Morse Code exam requirement for the Amateur Extra
license to appeal to the proponents of Morse Code testing. To appeal
to the No Code Technicians feeling intimidated by the Morse Code exam
requirement, the ARRL proposed upgrading them to General.

That gives technicians privileges in places they weren't tested for.

I agree. Beleive it or not, there are quite a few peope who don't want HF,
although they are less numerous than they were.

Well, they don't have to *use* the HF privledges if they don't want to.
But when I got
my "extra lite" back on Restructuring Day, I found HF to be fun to
operate. I used to
have an old fashioned tech plus from 1976 (5wpm, general written). It's
not like having
HF priviledges costs any more for the license...

If the FCC ever should consider creating a "Super-Extra" license, they
should allocate
new ham spectrum for them, leaving the existing extras access to all of
the old ham
spectrum. That's what they should have done back in the 60's when they
did incentive
licensing. And it doesn't have to be new HF spectrum, maybe new
microwave freqs,
LF or whatever. But as I understand it, HF isn't so much in demand as
VHF, UHF and
microwave is for commercial users today vs 40 years ago. So new HF is
more likely...
Though odds are very long even on that.

One can hold BOTH an "A" and "B" license. Perhaps a power limit less than
1500w.



There actually was a time when you could not have a novice *and* a tech
license
at the same time. Tech required 5wpm then, and general written. And
presumidly
novice written. So Tech would have been a superset of novice, but if
you upgraded
from novice to tech then, you gave up your old HF privs to get on above
50MHz.
This was more likely a brearucratic screw up than actual desired policy.
Like today's
lifetime credit for passing a 5 wpm test but none for 13 or 20.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...

There actually was a time when you could not have a novice *and* a tech
license
at the same time. Tech required 5wpm then, and general written. And
presumidly
novice written. So Tech would have been a superset of novice, but if
you upgraded
from novice to tech then, you gave up your old HF privs to get on above
50MHz.
This was more likely a brearucratic screw up than actual desired policy.
Like today's
lifetime credit for passing a 5 wpm test but none for 13 or 20.

This is true. When I had my novice, in 1962, it was a 1 year non-renewable
license. I failed the 13 wpm test twice and it wasn't until 1964 that I
obtained my general. I didn't want the tech as I figured I'd be stuck at 5
along with the tech license for eternity. In 1966 I obtained my extra
(along with commercial telegraph license).

The lifetime credit for a 5 word per minute test makes some sense as anyone
who could never copy more than perhaps 10 words per minute would, over the
years, likely forget it. I was last active on cw in 1969 and let my
licenses expire. I never practiced nor studied until I showed up for a test
in 1993. Yes, I could still pass 20 words per minute (and just checked off
some answers in the theory exam as I didn't want to waste time extracting
square roots by hand as I didn't bring a calculator - you don't need 100% to
pass). Anyone who passed 13 wpm or greater doesn't need a free pass; they
can simply take the 5 word per minute exam and pass. You can bet the folks
that need that free pass would be hard pressed to actually take the test and
pass - or they wouldn't be so preoccupied with finding proof that they had a
license once upon a time.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.590 / Virus Database: 373 - Release Date: 2/16/04

I'd prefer to see all Novices and Technicians merged into a new
Technician class and be granted Tech Plus privileges. This would be
compatible with a 3-license system. Nobody would lose privileges, but
all automatic upgrades would be modest.

Problem is, the license class would still be VHF/UHF heavy and HF light.

So what? I thought the idea of the Tech Plus license is to offer a
taste of HF but still leave a strong incentive to upgrade. Perhaps
the Tech Plus HF privileges should be expanded. Upgrades to Tech Plus
and an expansion of the Tech Plus privileges would be a much more
reasonable alternative to upgrades to General.

I'm not against free upgrades - I just think free upgrades should be
modest and reasonable. For example, upgrading Advanced licensees to
Amateur Extra is reasonable considering that most of the new Amateur
Extra exam questions were old Advanced exam questions.

As I said before, I think the ARRL proposal goes too far in upgrading
Technicians and not far enough in ending the Morse Code testing
requirement. Then again, the directors might have made the proposal
as a PR move and don't seriously expect the FCC to adopt much of it.

The main reason for the free upgrade is to eliminate license classes that
newcomers will not be able to get anymore. The BoD thinks that is a very high
priority, even though there don't seem to be any problems with having almost
120,000 hams in closed-off license classes (Novice and Advanced) for the past 4 years.

Why do the ARRL and FCC consider this a high priority? Anyone? Is it
that much work to maintain these closed-off classes?

As I see it, there are trade-offs. In my opinion, having a 3-class
system that includes a Novice license just isn't a good idea since
that means eliminating the Technician license, and that means
upgrading the Technicians to Generals in order to avoid downgrading
anyone's privileges. Either the Technician class should be kept (and
the Novice class eliminated and upgraded to Tech Plus), or there
should be a 4-class system.

Jason Hsu, AG4DG
http://www.jasonhsu.com/ee.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eeham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/resume...ation_fighters

In article , "D. Stussy"
writes:

That gives novices privileges in places they really weren't tested
for.

That gives technicians privileges in places they weren't tested for.

Well, the same can be said for free upgrades of Advanceds, too.

But consider this:

Back in 1970 when I took the Extra, 30, 17 and 12 meters weren't ham bands.
Neither was 903 MHz. 160 was all chopped up with LORAN. Etc.

Yet when those new bands came along, I didn't have to take a new test to use
'em.

73 de Jim, N2EY