Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license restructuring
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 3/19/2004 6:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,
ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some
sense.

Mike,

There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry level
license:

1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you can't

run

more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't need to

be

tested on it)

Sure, but I'm not even close to convinced that any tests need or should


be simplified. I wonder if anyone can provide evidence that the those
giving the tests are being overburdened?


What I am wondering is why everyone wants to set these power levels low to
avoid testing on questions about SAFETY!

Here is an answer that seems to fit the equation, Steve:

I have noted that many people that are in favor of removing Element 1
from the tests are also in favor of this removal of safety questions, or
whatever gets those tests down to an elementary school level. This is
despite protestations from some that they would NEVER support reductions
like that. My disappointment is immense that I trusted them and that
they were inaccurate in their dealings with me. Whatever, I'm sure that
means nothing to them.

Drawing from that experience, I can safely conclude that they are
willing to chip away at any part of the test that they can, and that no
level of simplicity is too simple for them.

And they have no intention of stopping there.


D'Zat work?

We're talking about requiring some knowledge that might prevent the person
from hurting himself or others. Why are we so anxious to avoid them..?!?!

Knowledge is BAD!

- Mike KB3EIA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

My apologies, most noble of high rank amateurdom.

No need to apologize, Len. Thanks for the clarification.

Tis' grateful we are yer lardship and bid ya a foine day ridin'
off on yer foine horse. 'Ave a good day.

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,
ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some
sense.

Mike,

There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry level
license:

1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you can't
run more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't need
to
be tested on it)

Sure, but I'm not even close to convinced that any tests need or should

be simplified. I wonder if anyone can provide evidence that the those
giving the tests are being overburdened?

It's not about being overburdened, but about matching the test to the
privileges. Why test for 1500 W safety if only 100 W is allowed?

However, this does not mean that *all* safety questions should be removed -
just those connected with high power. And those high power questions must then
migrate to the next-higher class of license.

So it makes sense that if the entry-level test gets smaller, the next-level
test (General) must, of necessity, get bigger to contain the stuff removed.
Does the NCVEC petiton even mention this?

2) To give an incentive (challenge) to learn more and qualify for a higher
class license. (If the entry-level license conveys all privileges, why
bother to upgrade?)

But my idea, or non-idea does just that, without punitive power
restrictions based on what I consider bogus rationale. For those that
are happy to just ve on VHF and above, the Technician ticket is just the
thing. Want HF access? Take the General test! Without Element one, there
isn't anything to hold ya back.

Here's the problem:

What we have now is a VHF-UHF-centric entry level license. The privileges are
very heavily weighted towards the bands above 30 MHz and away from HF/MF. This
means that most new hams will start off on VHF/UHF.

And that means they will also start off with a local/regional focus, and almost
certainly with manufactured equipment.

The current Tech Q&A pool contains a wide variety of subjects - covered in very
little depth. The wide variety of privileges granted requires all those
questions. You and I may find them trivial, but some beginners may not. After
all, don't you know at least one "professional" who has not even obtained an
entry-level amateur license?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the entry-level license to contain a balanced
mix
of privileges, including significant HF as well as VHF/UHF privileges, coupled
with a test that matches the privileges granted? That way, new hams can sample
more of what ham radio has to offer.

For example, imagine the prospective ham who wants to build kits, restore old
gear or even homebrew from scratch. Which do you think would be a more
realistic first project - a simple HF rig or a simple VHF/UHF one? Which do you
think will result in more QSOs and more "reward" for the builder?

Yes, it's possible to work the world on VHF/UHF, but isn't it easier for a
beginner to do so on HF? Particularly with limited antennas?

That's the basic thinking behind many of the proposals. What they're really
trying to do is to reinvent the old Novice license. The Novice concept was to
have a very limited license to get people started, so they could
learn-by-doing, see what was what and then upgrade if they liked ham radio.

From what I see, simply removing Element 1 and letting the dust settle
is a better plan than either the NCVEC or ARRL plans.

I think way too much is made of Element 1 and way too little of other factors.

But consider this: Suppose FCC did just that (dropped Element 1 and let
everything else alone). And suppose we did *not* see a big sustained rise in
the number of new hams and the number of upgrades. That would prove, once and
for all, that Element 1 was *not* the problem at all! Some folks would be very
upset.....

Plus if that were done, it would be years before FCC got around to another NPRM
cycle. Remember all that "biennial review" stuff? Well, it's been just about 4
years since the 2000 restructuring took effect...


The term "caste" isn't really accurate, though. "Caste" is something a
person is born into and cannot escape, regardless of personal
accomplishment. "Class"
would be more accurate, because upward mobility is possible.

The term caste is used mainly for the class aspect, not based on the
religion aspect. Evil Extra's being reincarnated as CB'ers comes to
mind! ;^)

Very bad karma!

Point is, however, that "caste" implies something that a person cannot change.
That's simply not true of the situation we're describing.

The limitations on homebrewing and final voltage proposed by NCVEC are
unenforceable, pointless and would cut off Communicators from an important
part of amateur radio for no justifiable reason.

Agreed 100 percent!

This is a prime difference between the ARRL and NCVEC proposals. And it must be
opposed. No good can come of such requirements.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

I have noted that many people that are in favor of removing Element 1
from the tests are also in favor of this removal of safety questions, or
whatever gets those tests down to an elementary school level.

They're already at that level, aren't they? I got my ham license while in
elementary school...

This is
despite protestations from some that they would NEVER support reductions
like that.

The real kicker isn't the easier entry-level exam. That can be justified. It's
the free upgrades.

My disappointment is immense that I trusted them and that
they were inaccurate in their dealings with me. Whatever, I'm sure that
means nothing to them.

Yet when it was pointed out that the same arguments used against the code test
could be used against the written test.....

Drawing from that experience, I can safely conclude that they are
willing to chip away at any part of the test that they can, and that no
level of simplicity is too simple for them.

And they have no intention of stopping there.

D'Zat work?

That sums it up quite nicely, Mike.

And consider this: If FCC accepts the signed statement of a newcomer about Part
97, why test for it at all at any class of license?

We're talking about requiring some knowledge that might prevent the
person
from hurting himself or others. Why are we so anxious to avoid them..?!?!

Knowledge is BAD!

Here's another possibility:

Portraying something as difficult can have a dramatic effect on how difficult
it is perceived to be. For example, a major part of marathon training is
learning to believe that you can, indeed, do the distance. That sort of thing
does not replace training runs, but it is a part of the training. You have to
believe you can do it.

In the same fashion, portraying the exam tests (written or code!) as
"difficult" can have a similar effect.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article , Mike Coslo writes:



Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,
ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some
sense.


Mike,

There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry level
license:

1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you can't
run more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't need

to

be tested on it)

Sure, but I'm not even close to convinced that any tests need or should


be simplified. I wonder if anyone can provide evidence that the those
giving the tests are being overburdened?

It's not about being overburdened, but about matching the test to the
privileges. Why test for 1500 W safety if only 100 W is allowed?

Well then, why not just limit ALL classes to those low powers an
eliminate (mostly) the so called safety problem altogether. Make all
appliance equipment mandatory and pot the innards. Make new foolproof
connectors, and require all antennas to be installed by properly
licensed contractors.

I know answering a question with a question is bad form, but frankly,
it isn't much of a leap of imagination to rationalize our cherished
privileges right out from under our feet.

I assume that you have been in group meetings, where the original idea
is mutated beyond recognition? I see it happen all the time. This is
only one more reason why I don't like these proposals *at all*. They
seem a bit of a Pandora's box IMO.

Give me a good argument why Hams should need to run power over 100
Watts, 50 Watts, 5 Watts?


However, this does not mean that *all* safety questions should be removed -
just those connected with high power. And those high power questions must then
migrate to the next-higher class of license.

If high power RF is dangerous, why should it be allowed at all? For
anyone. If we wanna start that game, that question WILL be asked. Do you
not talk all over the world with qrp power? I myself have talked to
Australia on 10 watts. No record, but just a personal best. They hear
those stories, and suddenly it looks like that might be able to protect
those self destructive hams from themselves. Just like cigarette
smokers. And with the efforts to lower cell phone power going on, plenty
of non-technical regulator types will think this is a good idea, no?

So it makes sense that if the entry-level test gets smaller, the next-level
test (General) must, of necessity, get bigger to contain the stuff removed.
Does the NCVEC petiton even mention this?

Nope.

2) To give an incentive (challenge) to learn more and qualify for a higher
class license. (If the entry-level license conveys all privileges, why
bother to upgrade?)


But my idea, or non-idea does just that, without punitive power
restrictions based on what I consider bogus rationale. For those that
are happy to just ve on VHF and above, the Technician ticket is just the
thing. Want HF access? Take the General test! Without Element one, there
isn't anything to hold ya back.


Here's the problem:

What we have now is a VHF-UHF-centric entry level license. The privileges are
very heavily weighted towards the bands above 30 MHz and away from HF/MF. This
means that most new hams will start off on VHF/UHF.

And that means they will also start off with a local/regional focus, and almost
certainly with manufactured equipment.

The current Tech Q&A pool contains a wide variety of subjects - covered in very
little depth. The wide variety of privileges granted requires all those
questions. You and I may find them trivial, but some beginners may not. After
all, don't you know at least one "professional" who has not even obtained an
entry-level amateur license?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the entry-level license to contain a balanced
mix of privileges, including significant HF as well as VHF/UHF privileges, coupled
with a test that matches the privileges granted? That way, new hams can sample
more of what ham radio has to offer.

Actually, I find the differences between local/regional, (V/UHF) and
worldwide (H/MF) to be one mighty and fine incentive to upgrade. In
addition, given the results of the way the Technician license evolved,
from a experimenter's license to the real entry level license, I would
have to say that many many hams are happy to stay right there. Many of
them only want the type of coverage that the Tech license gives.

I believe that the propagation differences between the VHF and up, and
HF and down make a natural and rational dividing line between
privileges. It also makes for less of a class system. If the Tech has
the power and privileges for their respective bands, and they are happy
there, then it's a great thing.


For example, imagine the prospective ham who wants to build kits, restore old
gear or even homebrew from scratch. Which do you think would be a more
realistic first project - a simple HF rig or a simple VHF/UHF one? Which do you
think will result in more QSOs and more "reward" for the builder?

Well that isn't going to happen under some of the scenario's. I'd
certainly like that myself.

Yes, it's possible to work the world on VHF/UHF, but isn't it easier for a
beginner to do so on HF? Particularly with limited antennas?

That's the basic thinking behind many of the proposals. What they're really
trying to do is to reinvent the old Novice license. The Novice concept was to
have a very limited license to get people started, so they could
learn-by-doing, see what was what and then upgrade if they liked ham radio.

From what I see, simply removing Element 1 and letting the dust settle
is a better plan than either the NCVEC or ARRL plans.


I think way too much is made of Element 1 and way too little of other factors.

But consider this: Suppose FCC did just that (dropped Element 1 and let
everything else alone). And suppose we did *not* see a big sustained rise in
the number of new hams and the number of upgrades. That would prove, once and
for all, that Element 1 was *not* the problem at all! Some folks would be very
upset.....

comments:

We would not, yes it would, and yes they would!

Plus if that were done, it would be years before FCC got around to another NPRM
cycle. Remember all that "biennial review" stuff? Well, it's been just about 4
years since the 2000 restructuring took effect...


The term "caste" isn't really accurate, though. "Caste" is something a
person is born into and cannot escape, regardless of personal
accomplishment. "Class"
would be more accurate, because upward mobility is possible.

The term caste is used mainly for the class aspect, not based on the
religion aspect. Evil Extra's being reincarnated as CB'ers comes to
mind! ;^)


Very bad karma!

Point is, however, that "caste" implies something that a person cannot change.
That's simply not true of the situation we're describing.

The limitations on homebrewing and final voltage proposed by NCVEC are
unenforceable, pointless and would cut off Communicators from an important
part of amateur radio for no justifiable reason.

Agreed 100 percent!


This is a prime difference between the ARRL and NCVEC proposals. And it must be
opposed. No good can come of such requirements.

And How!

BTW Jim, in one of my previous posts I used the letter combination LIB.
Especially in this age of internet acronyms, that would be tricky. It's
a sound thing. Along the lines of MR Ducks. Simply say the letters and
you'll have the comment. L I B (well I'll Be) All you have to do is
remember the context in which I wrote it.

- Mike KB3EIA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,
ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some
sense.

Mike,

There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry level
license:

1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you can't
run more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't need
to be tested on it)

Sure, but I'm not even close to convinced that any tests need or should

be simplified. I wonder if anyone can provide evidence that the those
giving the tests are being overburdened?

It's not about being overburdened, but about matching the test to the
privileges. Why test for 1500 W safety if only 100 W is allowed?

Well then, why not just limit ALL classes to those low powers an
eliminate (mostly) the so called safety problem altogether. Make all
appliance equipment mandatory and pot the innards. Make new foolproof
connectors, and require all antennas to be installed by properly
licensed contractors.

I know answering a question with a question is bad form, but frankly,
it isn't much of a leap of imagination to rationalize our cherished
privileges right out from under our feet.

Paranoic rationalization is fun?

I assume that you have been in group meetings, where the original idea
is mutated beyond recognition? I see it happen all the time. This is
only one more reason why I don't like these proposals *at all*. They
seem a bit of a Pandora's box IMO.

New concepts are "strange," unfamiliar. Familiar things are warm,
comfortable, fuzzy things you can understand...

Give me a good argument why Hams should need to run power over 100
Watts, 50 Watts, 5 Watts?

Winning top points in "radio sport?" "Pioneering" HF?

However, this does not mean that *all* safety questions should be removed -
just those connected with high power. And those high power questions must
then
migrate to the next-higher class of license.

If high power RF is dangerous, why should it be allowed at all? For
anyone. If we wanna start that game, that question WILL be asked. Do you
not talk all over the world with qrp power? I myself have talked to
Australia on 10 watts. No record, but just a personal best. They hear
those stories, and suddenly it looks like that might be able to protect
those self destructive hams from themselves. Just like cigarette
smokers. And with the efforts to lower cell phone power going on, plenty
of non-technical regulator types will think this is a good idea, no?

"Radiation" is a talisman word for paranoic control-freaks...and some
politicians wanting attention.

A half century ago I was part of a group of radio transmitter operators
running KiloWatt output HF transmitters. We got rather simple verbal
instruction (no classrooms, no written tests) of "don't touch this (or
that), it will KILL you." No problem. In three years of transmitting, no
one at ADA was killed by HV or RF.

Arguing with radiation paranoics about things they don't understand
is quite another thing. That's why we've all got those EMI regulations
now.

So it makes sense that if the entry-level test gets smaller, the next-level
test (General) must, of necessity, get bigger to contain the stuff removed.
Does the NCVEC petiton even mention this?

Nope.

RM-10787 doesn't. :-)

2) To give an incentive (challenge) to learn more and qualify for a higher
class license. (If the entry-level license conveys all privileges, why
bother to upgrade?)

But my idea, or non-idea does just that, without punitive power
restrictions based on what I consider bogus rationale. For those that
are happy to just ve on VHF and above, the Technician ticket is just the
thing. Want HF access? Take the General test! Without Element one, there
isn't anything to hold ya back.

Here's the problem:

What we have now is a VHF-UHF-centric entry level license. The privileges
are
very heavily weighted towards the bands above 30 MHz and away from HF/MF.
This means that most new hams will start off on VHF/UHF.

And that means they will also start off with a local/regional focus, and
almost
certainly with manufactured equipment.

The current Tech Q&A pool contains a wide variety of subjects - covered in
very
little depth. The wide variety of privileges granted requires all those
questions. You and I may find them trivial, but some beginners may not.
After all, don't you know at least one "professional" who has not even
obtained
an entry-level amateur license?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the entry-level license to contain a
balanced
mix of privileges, including significant HF as well as VHF/UHF privileges,
coupled
with a test that matches the privileges granted? That way, new hams can
sample
more of what ham radio has to offer.

Actually, I find the differences between local/regional, (V/UHF) and
worldwide (H/MF) to be one mighty and fine incentive to upgrade. In
addition, given the results of the way the Technician license evolved,
from a experimenter's license to the real entry level license, I would
have to say that many many hams are happy to stay right there. Many of
them only want the type of coverage that the Tech license gives.

I believe that the propagation differences between the VHF and up, and
HF and down make a natural and rational dividing line between
privileges. It also makes for less of a class system.

Of course. Call it something else and "it is not a class distinction."

:-)

"Let them eat cake?" [attributed to one Marie Antoinette long ago...]

If the Tech has
the power and privileges for their respective bands, and they are happy
there, then it's a great thing.

All are happy in the back of the bus, playing banjos and munching
watermelon? :-)

For example, imagine the prospective ham who wants to build kits, restore
old
gear or even homebrew from scratch. Which do you think would be a more
realistic first project - a simple HF rig or a simple VHF/UHF one? Which do
you
think will result in more QSOs and more "reward" for the builder?

Well that isn't going to happen under some of the scenario's. I'd
certainly like that myself.

You didn't answer his question.

Yes, it's possible to work the world on VHF/UHF, but isn't it easier for a
beginner to do so on HF? Particularly with limited antennas?

That's the basic thinking behind many of the proposals. What they're really
trying to do is to reinvent the old Novice license. The Novice concept was
to
have a very limited license to get people started, so they could
learn-by-doing, see what was what and then upgrade if they liked ham radio.

From what I see, simply removing Element 1 and letting the dust settle
is a better plan than either the NCVEC or ARRL plans.

I think way too much is made of Element 1 and way too little of other
factors.

But consider this: Suppose FCC did just that (dropped Element 1 and let
everything else alone). And suppose we did *not* see a big sustained rise in
the number of new hams and the number of upgrades. That would prove, once
and
for all, that Element 1 was *not* the problem at all! Some folks would be
very
upset.....

comments:

We would not, yes it would, and yes they would!

Riiiiiiight....

Plus if that were done, it would be years before FCC got around to another
NPRM
cycle. Remember all that "biennial review" stuff? Well, it's been just about
4
years since the 2000 restructuring took effect...

The term "caste" isn't really accurate, though. "Caste" is something a
person is born into and cannot escape, regardless of personal
accomplishment. "Class"
would be more accurate, because upward mobility is possible.

The term caste is used mainly for the class aspect, not based on the
religion aspect. Evil Extra's being reincarnated as CB'ers comes to
mind! ;^)

Very bad karma!

Point is, however, that "caste" implies something that a person cannot
change.
That's simply not true of the situation we're describing.

The limitations on homebrewing and final voltage proposed by NCVEC are
unenforceable, pointless and would cut off Communicators from an important
part of amateur radio for no justifiable reason.

Agreed 100 percent!

This is a prime difference between the ARRL and NCVEC proposals. And it must
be
opposed. No good can come of such requirements.

And How!

To the barricades! Defend to the death your version of bigotry!

Raise the drawbridge! Drag out the thrownet!

BTW Jim, in one of my previous posts I used the letter combination LIB.

Especially in this age of internet acronyms, that would be tricky. It's
a sound thing. Along the lines of MR Ducks. Simply say the letters and
you'll have the comment. L I B (well I'll Be) All you have to do is
remember the context in which I wrote it.

Shame! You're bring in cell phone shorthand in here!

This is a ham radio policy newsgroup where the PCTA meet to fight.

None of the cell phone pheng shooey here!

LHA / WMD

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license restructuring
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 3/19/2004 1:34 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license restructuring
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 3/19/2004 6:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

What I am wondering is why everyone wants to set these power levels
low to
avoid testing on questions about SAFETY!

Here is an answer that seems to fit the equation, Steve:

I have noted that many people that are in favor of removing Element 1
from the tests are also in favor of this removal of safety questions, or
whatever gets those tests down to an elementary school level. This is
despite protestations from some that they would NEVER support reductions
like that. My disappointment is immense that I trusted them and that
they were inaccurate in their dealings with me. Whatever, I'm sure that
means nothing to them.

Drawing from that experience, I can safely conclude that they are
willing to chip away at any part of the test that they can, and that no
level of simplicity is too simple for them.

And they have no intention of stopping there.


D'Zat work?

Uhhhh....Yep!

We're talking about requiring some knowledge that might prevent the
person
from hurting himself or others. Why are we so anxious to avoid them..?!?!

Knowledge is BAD!

BAD knowledge! BAD!

73

Steve, K4YZ

=)

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,
ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make some
sense.

Mike,

There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry level
license:

1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you can't
run more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't
need

to

be tested on it)

Sure, but I'm not even close to convinced that any tests need or should


be simplified. I wonder if anyone can provide evidence that the those
giving the tests are being overburdened?

It's not about being overburdened, but about matching the test to the
privileges. Why test for 1500 W safety if only 100 W is allowed?

Well then, why not just limit ALL classes to those low powers an
eliminate (mostly) the so called safety problem altogether. Make all
appliance equipment mandatory and pot the innards. Make new foolproof
connectors, and require all antennas to be installed by properly
licensed contractors.

There are some folks who would like to do just that!

I know answering a question with a question is bad form, but frankly,
it isn't much of a leap of imagination to rationalize our cherished
privileges right out from under our feet.

Which is what those "it's just a hobby" folks are doing, whether they realize
it or not.



I assume that you have been in group meetings, where the original idea
is mutated beyond recognition? I see it happen all the time. This is
only one more reason why I don't like these proposals *at all*. They
seem a bit of a Pandora's box IMO.

I know exactly what you mean. However, note that for over half a century we've
had license classes with reduced power privileges and it hasn't led us down the
slippery slope.

Give me a good argument why Hams should need to run power over 100
Watts, 50 Watts, 5 Watts?

Because under certain circumstances those levels of power are inadequate.

However, this does not mean that *all* safety questions should be removed -
just those connected with high power. And those high power questions must
then migrate to the next-higher class of license.

If high power RF is dangerous, why should it be allowed at all?

It's not dangerous if proper precautions are taken.

For
anyone. If we wanna start that game, that question WILL be asked. Do you
not talk all over the world with qrp power? I myself have talked to
Australia on 10 watts. No record, but just a personal best. They hear
those stories, and suddenly it looks like that might be able to protect
those self destructive hams from themselves.

The point of license testing is not to protect someone from their own
ignorance, but to protect others from it.

Just like cigarette smokers.

Cigarette smoking is much more hazardous than RF.

And with the efforts to lower cell phone power going on, plenty
of non-technical regulator types will think this is a good idea, no?

Now *that's* a valid point, as verified by the Alpine tower folks...

So it makes sense that if the entry-level test gets smaller, the next-level
test (General) must, of necessity, get bigger to contain the stuff removed.
Does the NCVEC petiton even mention this?

Nope.

That tells ya something.

2) To give an incentive (challenge) to learn more and qualify for a higher
class license. (If the entry-level license conveys all privileges, why
bother to upgrade?)

But my idea, or non-idea does just that, without punitive power
restrictions based on what I consider bogus rationale. For those that
are happy to just ve on VHF and above, the Technician ticket is just the
thing. Want HF access? Take the General test! Without Element one, there
isn't anything to hold ya back.

Here's the problem:

What we have now is a VHF-UHF-centric entry level license. The privileges
are
very heavily weighted towards the bands above 30 MHz and away from
HF/MF.This
means that most new hams will start off on VHF/UHF.

And that means they will also start off with a local/regional focus, and
almost certainly with manufactured equipment.

The current Tech Q&A pool contains a wide variety of subjects - covered in
very
little depth. The wide variety of privileges granted requires all those
questions. You and I may find them trivial, but some beginners may not.
After
all, don't you know at least one "professional" who has not even obtained
an entry-level amateur license?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the entry-level license to contain a
balanced
mix of privileges, including significant HF as well as VHF/UHF privileges,
coupled
with a test that matches the privileges granted? That way, new hams can
sample more of what ham radio has to offer.

Actually, I find the differences between local/regional, (V/UHF) and
worldwide (H/MF) to be one mighty and fine incentive to upgrade.

That's you.

In
addition, given the results of the way the Technician license evolved,
from a experimenter's license to the real entry level license, I would
have to say that many many hams are happy to stay right there. Many of
them only want the type of coverage that the Tech license gives.

Maybe. But if that's so, why aren't the repeaters busy 24/7?

I believe that the propagation differences between the VHF and up, and
HF and down make a natural and rational dividing line between
privileges.

Well, I have to disagree. I say it's an artificial division foisted upon us by
a few people who clamored for a nocodetest license as the savior of amateur
radio. Hasn't happened.

It also makes for less of a class system.

Go down that road far enough, and you'll have a one class system.

If the Tech has
the power and privileges for their respective bands, and they are happy
there, then it's a great thing.

Seems to me that it would make more sense to offer a wider sampling.

For example, imagine the prospective ham who wants to build kits, restore
old
gear or even homebrew from scratch. Which do you think would be a more
realistic first project - a simple HF rig or a simple VHF/UHF one? Which do
you
think will result in more QSOs and more "reward" for the builder?

Well that isn't going to happen under some of the scenario's.

Which is why those scenarios are not good ideas.

I'd certainly like that myself.

Then let's go for it.

Yes, it's possible to work the world on VHF/UHF, but isn't it easier for a
beginner to do so on HF? Particularly with limited antennas?

That's the basic thinking behind many of the proposals. What they're really
trying to do is to reinvent the old Novice license. The Novice concept was
to
have a very limited license to get people started, so they could
learn-by-doing, see what was what and then upgrade if they liked ham radio.

From what I see, simply removing Element 1 and letting the dust settle
is a better plan than either the NCVEC or ARRL plans.

I think way too much is made of Element 1 and way too little of other
factors.

But consider this: Suppose FCC did just that (dropped Element 1 and let
everything else alone). And suppose we did *not* see a big sustained rise
in
the number of new hams and the number of upgrades. That would prove, once
and
for all, that Element 1 was *not* the problem at all! Some folks would be
very upset.....

comments:

We would not, yes it would, and yes they would!

Of course.

Plus if that were done, it would be years before FCC got around to another
NPRM
cycle. Remember all that "biennial review" stuff? Well, it's been just
about 4
years since the 2000 restructuring took effect...

The term "caste" isn't really accurate, though. "Caste" is something a
person is born into and cannot escape, regardless of personal
accomplishment. "Class"
would be more accurate, because upward mobility is possible.

The term caste is used mainly for the class aspect, not based on the
religion aspect. Evil Extra's being reincarnated as CB'ers comes to
mind! ;^)

Very bad karma!

Point is, however, that "caste" implies something that a person cannot
change.
That's simply not true of the situation we're describing.

The limitations on homebrewing and final voltage proposed by NCVEC are
unenforceable, pointless and would cut off Communicators from an important
part of amateur radio for no justifiable reason.

Agreed 100 percent!

This is a prime difference between the ARRL and NCVEC proposals. And it
must be
opposed. No good can come of such requirements.

And How!

They're open for comments now.

73 de Jim, N2EY