PROPOSED: Only 2 Amateur Radio License Classes -- A Response to the FCC and an Invitation to Discuss

The 200 watt power limit allows Novices to do dangerous things. The near field radiation can exceed safe levels and the likelihood of dangerous voltages on an antenna is greater. 50 watts at 50 ohms is 1 amp at 50 volts, and just coincidentally 56 volts or so is the limit of "low voltage" for wiring safety purposes (e.g., Power over Ethernet). That is essentially the historic Novice limit, from 75 watts input, while 200 watts brings antenna voltage closer to US mains levels. That really should necessitate an additional question pool area, but again I'm looking for a good entry level.

Heck, until recently 400W was the limit for the Full class in the UK, not to mention Oz. Novices should get only 3 dB less?

IIRC Novice Enhancement took place at a time when Morse testing was still required. The "no need to change" argument didn't apply to that, thankfully, and shouldn't apply here. Yes, there will be people who violate the rule. But a 25 or 50 watt rule is not hard to obey -- it is the Foundation norm in the UK, for instance, and Japan for years had a 10-watt class -- so the presence of scofflaws shouldn't dictate the limit any more than the existence California kilowatts should dictate General/Extra power levels. (I'm not a QRO guy, you can tell.)

 

Yeah, no. The 200 (or 250) watt rule has been in effect for a very long time, and as far as I know, no harm has happened because of it. There is no need to add additional restrictions where they aren't needed.

 

Lets stop at the first sentence and ask a question, what harm has been seen with the power limits as they are?

It may be dangerous but unless there's something I'm missing people have been treating this danger with the respect it deserves and little to no harm has been done so far.

 

How do you know? RF exposure harm is subtle. 200 watts on antenna wire will cause an RF burn but is probably not going to kill you. Actually, it is good practice nowadays to do things to prevent harm, rather than wait until it becomes common. Did the RF safety standards for hams even exist in 1987? (I don't remember when that was imposed, as I figured it was more of a problem for the amped-up crowd.)

 

Keep it at three classes of licenses. An expansion (slightly) of HF privileges/frequencies for the Tech class (phone privileges on 40?...7.080-7.125? Small slice on 15? a 50 khz chunk above 21.350 ?) Just a bit more than what's available now for an increase in activity.

 

No

What you are in search of you will not receive from me, you have your opinion, I have mine, we are all on here typing in our opinions.
Despite what you may think, I do not owe you any explanation, you are nobody to me, just as I am to you.

If you are looking for an argument, all I can tell ya is
5 n 9 59, good luck in the contest.

73

 

Hummm... My response was not directed to you, it was in response to @AC0GT in post number 355, where he stated that contest operators invented the FT modes. Maybe I'm reading too much into your reply or maybe you did the same to my response to Mr. Camo bear.

I, too, have a mediocre middle of the road station. But you have something that a lot of us here on the west coast don't have; and that's a near coastal location where there's quite a bit more DX to be had than there is here on the west coast.

So, no, I was not dissing anyone, at least not that time!

 

Hasn't it been mentioned several times in this thread that few Amateurs transmit above 100 watts? If there's a lack of evidence then it is likely because so few use, or abuse, those privileges anyway. If the desire is to bring the power limit to 50 watts then I would suspect it was because of harm and injuries seen at 100 watts.

We don't have to wait to see if a 200 watt limit would be a problem, there should be plenty of data already from at least 50 years of reports from hospitals, police and fire departments, FCC investigations, and so on to work from to show if the current FCC rule is a problem. I'm picking 50 years somewhat at random, I don't know when the 200 watt rule was put in place but some time in the 1970s somehow sounds about right.

I'm not seeing a need to lower the limit, unless you can provide some evidence of a problem I suspect the FCC would leave the current rule in place. I feel like I need to reign people in to the "art of the possible" because I'm seeing some wild ideas that I have doubts the FCC would agree to. Any proposed change to rules submitted to the FCC will need a reason behind it. That reason will have to be more than you really really want it. The proposed change will need specificity, because if too much is left to interpretation then expect rejection since the FCC isn't in the business of reading minds or making guesses. There's other rules I've mentioned before but those two apply here. You need a good reason for this, with some specificity, not just you have a feeling this could be bad sometime in the future.

 

If analog telephone lines were still universally available, we could try our hand at retro BBS's. I don't think there are any NEW analog phone lines available in my town. When I bought my house 5 years ago, the wires had already been removed.

 

Here's my input on the subject:

Ham radio could survive without the General Class license. To simplify licensing amateur radio for the FCC the Technician and the General Class license should become one class. The Technician would include the current General Class privileges with one exception, below 30 MHz the new Tech will be limited to 200 Watts output power all modes. I propose NO changes to the Extra Class license.
Note: The expanded Technician Class license would require a 50-question test to cover the additional privileges added below 30 MHz.

Just my 1/2 Cent

Russ

 

Very close to what the OP said in his video except digital only for the 30mHz down portion and a little more questions in the vein of the old Advanced test, many say that was the hardest test, for the New Extra. So definitely not a dumbing down as some who did not watch the video are saying.

 

If you are serious about this then write up a rough draft on what this licensing looks like. You will need to lay out the privileges, the testing, and how people currently licensed would transition to the new license structure. Find a few people to help so you have some extra eyeballs for finding gaps and errors, and to bounce ideas off of to help with making sure everything is logical. If you can manage find a lawyer friend that is willing to help with formatting, wording, and eventually getting this to the FCC. Once you believe you have something of a working outline then post it online, share copies at club meetings, just generally get more eyeballs and feedback. Kind of repeat that process of debate, review, edits, some time with the lawyer friend, until you have something you believe is complete enough for the FCC to have a look.

I expect the FCC to reject it right off because they made it clear 25 years ago that they see no need or have any desire for a five-tier license structure. Maybe if you did your job on laying out why we should have five tiers of licenses the FCC would agree but that will be a steep climb.

That's such a wild idea that I wonder if you are serious. If you are serious then add some detail to this. The FCC will need something specific in a proposal or they will reject it. A common means to reach the specificity the FCC is looking for is to give them the edits to Part 97 that you want to see. That would be a lot of work, and that's why I suggest finding like minded people to help you out.

 

If Technician is limited to 200 watts on HF, and General is combined with Technician, then that means those with General that had 1500 watts on HF would also have this 200 watt limit. That's probably not an impossible thing to ask, but it might be difficult.

If Technician has a 50 question test then is it a 70 question test from Technician to Extra? I assume anyone with Technician at the time of this transition they'd have the 35 question test they took be recognized as equivalent to the new 50 question test through some kind of waiver.

It's not bad. It's a place to start. I'm curious on if there's a new 50 question test, some pretty big changes to the privileges, and General is rolled into this license, then why not grandfather Technician and modify General to this new set of privileges and testing? Giving such broad added privileges to Technician without added testing would raise issues with the FCC and the public. Grandfathering Technician isn't likely to hurt many feelings, but lost privileges to General likely will.

 

Because amateur radio is a technical activity. And there's a lot to know - more so than in the past.

Yes, I do. Always have, too.

Which is not right. If people want to live in a technological world, they should have at least a basic understanding of the technologies they use actually work. Otherwise the result will be disaster.

This doesn't mean everyone has to know all the details about everything they use. But it does mean people have to understand the basics. And all the amateur radio tests have ever required is a knowledge of the basics.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

You "recall" a past that never was, and a reason that never existed.

I was there, I watched it happen. Incentive licensing wasn't about that at all.

I think you misunderstand. Here's why:

Since 1978 - 47 years ago - it has been possible for a newcomer to start off with an Extra license, and have full privileges from Day One. And even when "incentive licensing" was the most restrictive (1968 to 1978), newcomers could start off with an Advanced license if they could pass the tests.

The reason for subbands-by-license-class isn't to "segregate newcomers". The reasons for it are two:

1) To provide an incentive to upgrade.

2) It is easy and practical to enforce frequency limits.

Simple as that.

Also - take a good look at the privileges added with each license class upgrade. Going from Technician to General gives a LOT more HF/MF, while going from General to Extra gives only a small amount of more spectrum.


73 de Jim, N2EY