Incentive Licensing Retrospective

From my post at 14:09:

Unless you know something the rest of us don't, this is really nothing more than hyperbole.

I quote from the ARRL web site:

"A belief that we could--and should--recapture some of the magic of the Novice license led the ARRL Board in early 2004 to propose a new entry-level license in a petition to the FCC, RM-10867. As reported on this page in September 2005, the FCC declined to include this in its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in WT Docket No. 05-235."

Note carefully - the FCC had a chance to address the very issue you are saying is so important.

Yet ---- as recently as Sept, 2005 ----- the FCC declined to do the very thing you are now saying is imminent.

The ARRL proposal also included HF access for this "Basic" license class. Again, the FCC did not see fit to implement this proposal.

If you know something the rest of us don't, spit it out. Otherwise all we can do is go with the evidence that we can find on our own. That evidence, from the accomodations available to prevent discrimination to the rejection of the very license type you discuss, leads to a conclusion exactly opposite from what your conclusion is.

tim ab0wr

 

OK.... here goes....

I believe there's an excellent the reason the FCC has denied the ARRL's petition for a "beginner" license, but it takes setting emotions aside and taking a FAR longer view of what appears to be already happening and what may ultimately happen down the road.

Adding a beginner license to the current license structure would create yet another FCC license class, putting the number of FCC classes back up to four.  Remember, a few years ago, they cut that number from five down to three. Why on Earth would the FCC now want to reverse a trend toward license simplification that they, themselves, started?  This becomes particularly true when, as I believe, they will eventually be able to establish a far more comprehensive beginner license in a far less discriminatory way on down the road.  

If you go back and read the post to which you refer on the subject, I think you'll also find I did not include a timeline with any of it.  That was intentional because the changes I'm talking about here will be extremely long term.

However, based on the FCC's actions (as well as their "inactions") in recent years, I strongly believe the FCC is ultimately headed toward a simplified, two class license system for the Amateur Service in the United States, very similar to what is already in place in Canada and throughout the rest of the world.

That is, there will be a "Basic" license of some sort that offers full (that is...no sub-bands) HF and above privileges without a Morse test.  The primary limitations will be similar to those already in place in Canada.  That is, there will be limitations on transmitting power, no operation of "home brew" transmitters, no repeater or club station trusteeships, and no giving of license exams, etc.  

And, there will also be an Advanced (or Extra Class if you will) license which will allow all the privileges of the Basic license plus those kinds of things outlined above that folks holding a Basic license cannot do.  

And that, my friends, will be it.  Two license classes. No Morse test and full HF privileges with no sub-bands for both license classes.  Period.

Now, I well realize that GETTING to that point will entail undoing an awful lot of leftover discriminatory baggage from the incentive-licensing debacle.  And, the yelps of  “pain” from the “badge of honor” and “rite of passage” curmudgeons are going to be horrendous!

However, if you take the time to seriously look beyond your collective noses, I think you'll find that, one by one, the FCC has already gotten rid of (or are in the process of getting rid of) a number of discriminatory holdovers from incentive licensing.

They HAVE dropped the number of license classes from five to three (and, for now, they are sticking with that number).  They ARE about to "deep six" Morse testing.  They ARE poised to implement "regulation by bandwidth" in some form (not necessarily the ARRL's way, but I believe regulating by bandwidth in some form is already a foregone conclusion).

And once regulation by bandwidth concept is in place and working and the Morse test is gone, the next "shoe to drop" will be doing away with all license-class-based HF sub-bands entirely.  If my hunch is correct, that action will probably be done in concert with combining the Technician and General Class licenses into a single "Basic", codeless license of some kind...a license that gives full HF and above operating privileges (at reduced power) and is aimed primarily at beginners.

So, Tim, in that sense, the FCC hasn't denied the ARRL's petition for a beginner license.  They simply aren't ready to implement it yet because they have a lot of work left to do in simplifying and streamlining the rest of the gobbledygook in Part 97 (including all the achievement-based test pools) left over from incentive licensing.  

And, to my way of thinking, their denial of the ARRL's petition is simply more proof of where the FCC is ultimately headed.... a simplified, two class, totally codeless, and operationally based licensing system.

Now, is all this just wild speculation?  Possibly.  I don't work for the FCC and neither do you.  So, none of us will really know what the FCC is ultimately up to long term until it actually happens.

And, certainly, none of these changes are imminent.  There are far too many entrenched commercial interests involved (the least of which are the ARRL's test preparation and publishing operation as well as the whole VEC testing "business") that would scream bloody murder if these changes were to happen overnight.  

But, I think the long term indicators are all there if one cares to seriously look at these issues with an open and inquiring mind.  And, as I have also said, it will certainly be interesting to come back here in 10 or 15 years time and see what has actually happened.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

There's a heck of a lot of conjecture being bantered around here, starting with our Canadian friend to the North.

BTW, don't many of the frequent and long-winded posters here have jobs and lives away from the computer and the Internet?

Geesh!

 

NL7W,
you said it! Thank you!

If I have not finished High School, I cannot go to college! Is that discrimination?
If I dropped out of college, I cannot get a B.A.!
Is that discrimination?
If my eardrums are severed and I cannot dive and pass a diving test requirement, is that discrimination?
If so, I want to know where to complain.....I have the IQ to pass all written tests and I need accomodation for the underwater-test to be a scuba-diver.
H...., I need someone to protect me from myself to scuba-dive without being able to do so..

Ladies and Gents, wanting to do something does not mean that we are capable of doing it.

And not being capable of doing something under applicable rules does not give us any right to fight these rules, just because they apply to the majority, but sadly not to us.

I'd love to be a sky-diver, I can never do it, though.
I am afraid of height, I get dizzy looking down a mountain/bridge/top of a house. Am I getting a sky-diver certificate because I was accomodated to not have to jump/look down?

I do not have a problem with equal rights for everyone......., but I do have a problem with people trying to change regulations that are securing the safety of the majority, for the purpose of accomodating a minority.
We cannot just have accomodation for everything and everybody
It is not viable....
73 de hans, k6faf

 

Before those of you read my post, I would just like to say, it's been alot of fun discussing this topic with all of you.  Few of us seem to agree on everything but it has been entertaining and educational to view your thoughts on this issue.  So for this, thank you...

I fail to understand how I am at a greater risk of hurting myself or the public because I am not able to learn Morse code as the federal government currently requires for HF privileges.  

Am I not ultimately the person put at risk and aren’t the consequences of my actions or inactions on me?  

I also question why I must learn that specific mode of operation above all others.

Before anyone try’s the inevitable “you could burn down the house next to yours,” statement, lets just agree that; I could do the same with any number of products regardless of my qualifications to operate such equipment.  

Furthermore, does having education, training, testing, licensing and so forth, exclude me from liability, error or the consequences I would suffer from improper operation, resulting is say “fire”, “flood, “chaos” “mayhem”?    

As For the statements about “not being able to accommodate everybody” I agree, it would be fruitless to accept that we could accommodate everyone.  Does that mean we should stop trying?  

I just don’t understand why alternatives to code are not made.  The only way to the top is in a single line through the same door.  That’s ridicules.

I disagree with what we have now, and although an improvement, still disagree with some of the changes being considered. What I think would be generally an improvement is a strategy that works with the Federal Aviation Administration.

If I want to be an instrument rated pilot, I have to learn, train, test and get endorsed in the proper execution of those skills for the privilege of the endorsement. If I want a multi-engine rating, I have to follow a similar testing system.  If I want to teach others I have still yet, more requirements that I would need to meet.

Why not apply this to Amateur Radio?  I promise on everything holy, I will not, under any circumstances use a mode I don’t know how to use, in a place I don't know how to use it, I promise!

I know this is over simplified, and I’m sure many are foaming at the mouth to tear me apart with all the “what if’s” that could happen but honestly, I would be in favor of using an endorsement system.  

If a HAM wanted bragging rights, he could say he is endorsed to use every accepted mode on the amateur band.  And if I’m unable to learn, something, like CW, then I am excluded from doing it.  If a particular area of the spectrum is reserved for CW and I don’t have a CW endorsement, then I am not allowed to actively participate.  

The entry level license would allow, like the private pilots license, some privileges, but would be a far cry from an ATP Rated Multi-Engine Commercial Pilots license.

I would also support recurrent training to “stay current” with endorsements that specifically have a lower threshold for error, and should an error likely be detrimental to the continuation of life.

If any of the amateur modes actually do this, although I think that our technology is that volatile to be honest, this is just a wild shot in the dark but let’s say that in the microwave bands, recurrent training geared towards safety might be warranted.

“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”  
John F. Kennedy - inaugural address, January 20, 1961

 

Please ---  no one has suggested that not knowing Morse Code makes you safer or unsafer.

You are using the "poor me" argument along with a strawman as an emotional appeal instead of making a rational argument.

The point being made was that a certain level of technical knowledge and operational capability is needed in order to operate safely. You simply cannot dumb the test down to a level of "Will you operate safely" as the single test question ---  all in the name of not being "discriminatory".

The other products you mention are probably NOT licensed by the federal government, therefore the federal government has no responsibility in assuring you can safely operate that equipment.

And no one or no thing can absolve you from operating anything you own in a reasonble and safe manner. That does NOT mean, however, that other parties don't also have a joint responsibility to insure that you *have* the knowledge and ability to operate in a responsible and safe manner. Whether you actually use the knowledge and ability you have is totally up to you.

You are now proposing a MORE restrictive licensing scheme than we have today. I wonder what Keith will think of that?

I also notice you did not answer any of the questions I proposed concerning your learning method in attempting to learn Morse Code.


Can I assume that was a purposeful snub?

tim ab0wr

 

This was not a purposeful snub.  I hope you didn’t take it that way; it wasn’t a derogatory slam towards you.  The methods I tried to learn CW with, was the methods you mentioned.  To be honest, I have not met an Elmer.  I went to a couple of Amateur club meetings locally, but pretty much I found it to be very “clicky” for a lack of a better word.  Many of the older hams sat in there group and didn’t talk to the others, also it seemed like people where only interested in talking to people they already knew.  Not a single handshake extension was made.  

I think this might be a local phenomenon, because I have heard of other clubs that people say where almost opposite in the way they treated newcomers.

Either way, I am not playing a sympathy card; don’t want a handout and ALSO DON’T WANT TO DUMB DOWN OUR SERVICE.  I am generally against anything that is unreasonably restrictive to people who are disabled, furthermore I am diametrically opposed to anyone who thinks of the disabled with such loathly disregard

 

I am coming in at the end of this particular discussion so If I make comments that have already been made please excuse me.

First of all I have had no major experience with a disability. My goal in life  during High School was to become a USAF pilot and after two years at college I actively pursued it. Physically and academically I was OK with the exception of my eyesite. This was the deal breaker. I did train for and acquired a private pilot's license because the vision requirements were not as stiff and vision correction was allowed as long as the eyesight could be corrected to at least 20/40 (I think... it was a long time ago). My eyesite was the only physical disability I ever had and in the scheme of things it was minor, but enough that it kept me from even attempting to go through the USAF flight training program.  After high school I enrolled in an EE program at Temple University. I really thought I was a hot math guy but learned very quickly that I was not nearly as good as I thought I was and quickly switched to the school of business.

As far as becoming a licensed ham I did it at age 13. It was difficult for me to learn the code and it took some time. I finaly was able to get to 5WPM by quickly translating the dot and dash sounds to letters. This is NOT the way to learn code but it did get me past the code hurldle. The problem was that because I learned it this way there was  finite limit to how fast I could go. As a result, I had considerable trouble getting to 13 WPM, just as I had trouble with math at the EE curriculum level.

The FCC has always tried to accomodate those who are disabled when it came to testing. On the other hand there are no waivers (correct me if I am wrong here) at the 5WPM level. Just as I had alternative choices when it came to flying and a college education, the FCC has the no code license alternative for those who can not for physical or mental reasons do code (or do not want to learn code).

Perhaps there should be waivers but the FCC in its wisdom decided against it because they just did not want to deal with waivers any more. In any event it looks like the code will be dropped as a testing requirement and you will be able to upgrade by passing the required written test.

In one respect I agree with your privilege equalization thoughts. I think that any ham who held a General Class (or class B/C) license up to the time IL took effect should have all the privileges that they lost restored.

73
George
K3UD

 

Well, Hans, I'm sorry to be the one to have to inform you of this, but not only is "accommodation for everybody viable", it ALSO now happens to be the law of the land in the United States.

I suggest you and others who display such similarly narrow views on the human condition might now want to start getting used to that fact.

And, as I said, the screams of protest from the "rite of passage" crowd on these long overdue changes to Part 97 are going to be horrendous!


73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

Keith,

I think debate is fine, but your constant personal attacks, as:

"I suggest you and others who display such similarly narrow views on the human condition might now want to start getting used to that fact."

Lables you have put on people that I have read previously, are not what I consider part of the debate, unless your argument is so weak, that you have to belittle those that don't agree.

I also find it amusing that you are such an expert on the law, what the FCC staffers think, and almost every other issue, and what the future is "GOING TO BE".

I never read IMHO, it is always, "this is the way it is going to be, and you narrow minded better get used to it."

Sorry to say it, but I already know what your posts will contain before I even read them. And I don't expect any change to your views, as you convinced that you are right on every issue, and that any other opinion is completely invalid.

Now tell me, who has the narrow mind?

73 - Bob

 

Keith,

Unfortunately universal accomodation does have its limits. How can one become a pilot if they are blind (Ray Charles always said that he wanted to be the first blind pilot) or a lifeguard if you have a disability that causes you not to be able to swim?

I was certainly not accomodated by the USAF because my eyesite was below par for the requirements of flight training and I was not accomodated in college because I was deficient in math and could not hack the EE program.

A certain amount of accomodation is the rule of the land but for now the FCC has seen fit not to accomodate those who can not do 5WPM code and will not issue waivers for it. On the other hand a no code license choice already exists for those who can not do code at 5WPM for any reason.

73
George
K3UD

 

KB1SF,
I suggest you read my post again...
In addition:
1. I have nothing against accomodation for the persons capable of reaching the goal.
2. I even suggest accomodation for persons as a means to live with their incapability, even when it is not obvious that they will actually be able to get over the hurdle. See Helen Keller.
3. But I also strongly deny accomodation to the scubadiver wannabe, who has no eardrums. Allowing him to dive would harm his life and that of others.

Therefore, accomodation is not always viable...
And therefore, non-accomodation for the incapable is not "discrimination".
And therefore, accomodation is NOT always the law of the land, especially in cases where it cannot be applied.

I have a problem with this kind of equalization, government-strung. I was born in East Germany where and when everybody was equal. Just so that you know: some were more equal than others (but they were in charge).
Maybe that is a reason why I cannot understand your approach in these posts. You seem to know more than we do. Are you more equal?



73 de Hans
"If your opinion does not coincide with a 2 party system, found a third one! But it is you who has to find the members." k6faf, 2006

 

Keith,

Unfortunately universal accomodation does have its limits. How can one become a pilot if they are blind (Ray Charles always said that he wanted to be the first blind pilot) or a lifeguard if you have a disability that causes you not to be able to swim?

I was certainly not accomodated by the USAF because my eyesite was below par for the requirements of flight training and I was not accomodated in college because I was deficient in math and could not hack the EE program.

A certain amount of accomodation is the rule of the land but for now the FCC has seen fit not to accomodate those who can not do 5WPM code and will not issue waivers for it. On the other hand a no code license choice already exists for those who can not do code at 5WPM for any reason.

73
George
K3UD[/QUOTE]
True.

But that "no code" option does not (yet) also grant full and equal access to HF operating privileges for disabled persons.

And, certainly, as with any such human-based issue, one can ultimately carry the notion of "equal access" to the absurd.

On the other hand, many people now apparently share my view that the FCC's so-called "incentive" barriers STILL in place in Part 97 are arbitrary, capricious and have long since ceased to serve any useful operational purpose.

Furthermore, the FCC's current licensing system continues to create, underwrite and perpetuate an elitist, "caste-like" operational and licensing environment, which, for persons with disabilities, routinely and arbitrarily bars their full and equal access to the publicly owned Amateur Radio bands.

Any way you cut it, George, that's discrimination.

And, not only is such activity now illegal in the United States, it's just plain WRONG!


73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

Hello Hans!

Well, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post.  Please accept my apologies.

It appears you and George are on the same wavelength.  And, I certainly agree with both of you that accommodation, as in all human endeavors, can certainly be carried to the absurd.

However, you, more than any of us here, should know what it is like to be on the receiving end of arbitrary and capricious government rules and how totally demoralizing and oppressive they can be.  

It's the "arbitrariness" and "capriciousness" of those rules that sometimes turns an otherwise needed system of government rules and regulation into a discriminatory one.  I just happen to strongly believe that the FCC's incentive licensing system, a system that's STILL in place in their Part 97 regulations, long ago crossed that line.

So, rather than being "more equal than others" I like to think of myself merely as a "voice crying from the wilderness" on these issues.

However, it now appears my voice is not the only one now being heard on such matters.

And, that's good.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

Keith,

It is not that I disagree with you in principle.

On the other hand we have to live within the rules that govern us and this includes the FCC's rules and regs. I have no idea what the thought process was when the FCC decided that there would be no waivers for the 5WPM code test. I do know that waivers for 13 and 20WPM reportedly caused administrative problems for the FCC. If the FCC is violating some federal guidlines as it affects the handicapped in the areas of ham radio testing, why have we not seen any legal action taken by the various organizations that provide for the disabled?

Perhaps we should consider a one license system which grants all privileges with just a comprehensive written exam to be passed. However I get the feeling that if we did we would be hearing from those who have learning disabilities and request waivers because of it, or who could not do the math required to figure out some of the answers etc. There would literally be no end to it.

While I don't think that you are advocating free and open access to all ham bands without having to get a license, it kind of sounds like a way that would need to be explored in order to accomodate everyone who wanted to be a ham. Regardless of how difficult or easy we make the testing there will always be some who will have a difficulty learning the material for whatever reason and they will be campaigning for waivers or a lowering of the standards. The only way to completely solve it is to have no standards and a free for all system. The FCC is very familiar with this kind of approach as this is what they did with CB,


73
George
K3UD