Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What do you think of the new proposal, re: credit for higher past licenses  (Read 89720 times)
W3HF
Member

Posts: 853


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #30 on: July 15, 2014, 07:05:25 AM »

Looking back, this new proposal was inevitable. Here's why:

I'm not sure exactly when the FCC made the ruling, but for some time now it has been possible to get a no-test upgrade from Tech to General if one could prove that one passed the Tech written before March 21, 1987, and could meet the code requirements (back when they existed). This was valid even if the old license had long expired.

I think this ruling came down in 2000, as part of the other changes of that year.

Yes, precisely. It was part of the "Licensing Restructuring" that took effect on 15 April that year. 

What drove the ruling was the fact that the "old" Technician (pre-March 1987) used the same written as the General.

That part of the rule existed all the way back to March 87. Once the "old" element 3 was split into 3A (Tech) and 3B (General), FCC still required the 13 wpm code test for "old Techs" to upgrade, so it wasn't a "no-test upgrade." Post-March-87 Techs needed both 13 wpm and element 3B. But the pre-2000 rules said your Tech license had to be current, and may even have required continuous licensing since the March 87 rule change.

License Restructuring made it messy. FCC had to preserve the pre-March-87 distinction for Techs, but they also wanted to eliminate the higher-speed code tests. And they also added a lifetime credit for the 5 wpm code test. I personally believe they did not intend to make the Tech grandfather rule cover expired licenses, as that purpose was not included in the R&O. But they clearly did want to make the 5 wpm code test cover expired licenses, and I believe they inadvertently used the same language for both clauses. I wrote up these speculations on my old GeoCities web site--there's still a mirror of that page here--and although I have no proof, I have received "confirmations" of my speculations from a few people who were involved in the process back in 2000.

Good or bad, what this did 14 years ago was to set a new precedent - the acceptance of long-expired licenses as credit for current license upgrades. All the new rule does is expand that (except that Conditionals are not mentioned).

And don't forget the simultaneous precedent of the 5 wpm code credit, and the short-lived "lifetime credit for any code test" that existed from December 2006 until the code test was eliminated in February 2007.

So yes, all the new rule does is extend those precedents to cover a few more license classes and one more test element. That's a very good way to look at it.

Historical note: There was a precedent even before the Tech-to-General upgrade.

For many years, there was a provision by which a General or Advanced could get a no-test upgrade to Extra. The provision was that the amateur had to currently hold either a General or Advanced, and had to provide proof that they had been (US) licensed before May, 1917 - which is when the USA entered World War 1. This provision lasted until at least the early 1970s - not sure when it disappeared from the rules.

AFAIK it was very rarely used - there were only a few thousand licensed amateurs in the USA before WW1, and many of them did not come back from the war. Still, the precedent existed for at least a couple of decades.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Some day maybe I'll skim through my license manuals and look for the deletion of the rule.
Logged
W4FID
Member

Posts: 180




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: August 28, 2014, 03:23:28 AM »

I would like credit for a higher class license I used to have. I passed a General and had full privileges for a while. I was top of the line. I would like to still be top of the line since I earned it and passed it at an FCC office at the time. Then they reduced it. Now I frequently answer questions and teach "book" Extras stuff we all knew to start with.
Logged
KG6AF
Member

Posts: 478




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: August 28, 2014, 07:42:55 AM »

I would like credit for a higher class license I used to have. I passed a General and had full privileges for a while. I was top of the line. I would like to still be top of the line since I earned it and passed it at an FCC office at the time. Then they reduced it. Now I frequently answer questions and teach "book" Extras stuff we all knew to start with.

That reduction of privileges took place almost fifty years ago.  Take the Extra exam and move on.

I can't believe that incentive licensing is still an issue in 2014.
Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 4939




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: August 30, 2014, 05:38:25 AM »

I can't believe that incentive licensing is still an issue in 2014.

Go back and read the letter column in QST's from a half-century ago. A lot of hams were so sore about incentive licensing back then that they refused to go sit for another exam just out of principle. And here they are today, still stewing over it.
Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 3081


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #34 on: August 30, 2014, 06:05:54 AM »

Quote
Requiring licensees with expired licenses to pass Element 2 in order to be relicensed will address commenters’ concerns about lost proficiency and knowledge because a former licensee will have to demonstrate that he or she has retained knowledge of technical and regulatory matters in order to be relicensed.

I don't get this at all!

If someone who has never been licensed wants an amateur radio license, they have to start off with Element 2. Since they have never been licensed, there is no proficiency or knowledge that has been lost or not retained.

.......

Actually, someone who has never been licensed before can start with Element 4, then pass Element 3 but, will not obtain any license until they pass Element 2.
Logged
N0IU
Member

Posts: 2005


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2014, 06:10:28 AM »

I would like credit for a higher class license I used to have. I passed a General and had full privileges for a while. I was top of the line.

Shortly after I got my drivers license back in the early 70s, Missouri had the regular operator's license (which most people have) and a "chauffeur's" license that was required if you drove a vehicle for pay. All you needed to do was pass a different written test and pay $10 (as opposed to the $2 for an operator's license).

Now we have all manner of CDL licenses with endorsements for hazmat, tankers and so on. Guess what? I was "top of the line" then but rules have changed and if I want to drive for pay today, I have to follow a new set of rules.

Get over it!
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6252




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2014, 06:26:21 AM »

I can't believe that incentive licensing is still an issue in 2014.

Go back and read the letter column in QST's from a half-century ago. A lot of hams were so sore about incentive licensing back then that they refused to go sit for another exam just out of principle. And here they are today, still stewing over it.

Exactly how my elmer felt, and to the day he died he stayed an advanced licensee although he could have easily passed the test for extra.  Another point is how many enemies the ARRL made by the incentive licensing debacle, and how many hams dropped their membership and never picked it up again following it.  The explanation is simple, the hams who were licensed in the early sixties are the OM of today--and they NEVER forget.  You can tell that by listening to them on the bands.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2014, 06:28:26 AM by K1CJS » Logged
AA4HA
Member

Posts: 2384




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2014, 08:58:00 AM »

I can't believe that incentive licensing is still an issue in 2014.

Go back and read the letter column in QST's from a half-century ago. A lot of hams were so sore about incentive licensing back then that they refused to go sit for another exam just out of principle. And here they are today, still stewing over it.

Exactly how my elmer felt, and to the day he died he stayed an advanced licensee although he could have easily passed the test for extra.  Another point is how many enemies the ARRL made by the incentive licensing debacle, and how many hams dropped their membership and never picked it up again following it.  The explanation is simple, the hams who were licensed in the early sixties are the OM of today--and they NEVER forget.  You can tell that by listening to them on the bands.

And when I QSO with someone who is such a bitter old fart the conversation does not last long. Things change, things happen, adapt and move forward or continue to ossify and become increasingly irrelevant.

I am not going to let some twit rain on my parade who is unhappy with me earning my extra under the current scheme. If they only want to talk to "old school" extras and advanced or do a morse code litmus test then they can listen to static.

-but back to the original post-

Undoubtedly the technical aspects of the earlier tests covered "most" of what is in the current licensing pool but if you were able to stare and compare the old questions to the new questions there are a whole bunch of things on a current general or extra exam that were not even imagined back in 1965.

I suggest that taking only the technician level exam is not adequate to test for the all of the licensing and regulatory, safety and best practices questions that are required for the current technician-general-extra exams. I would not be surprised if a great many generals, advanced and extras who hold licenses today could even pass the current exams without opening up the book. I challenge those of you who are poo-pooing the current exam system and question pool to take a few practice tests today and see just how high you score. You may find that you have not kept current on technology or you have forgotten much of what you once knew.
Logged

Ms. Tisha Hayes, AA4HA
Lookout Mountain, Alabama
Free space loss (dB) = 32.4 + 20 × log10d + 20 × log10 f
KG6AF
Member

Posts: 478




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2014, 09:51:42 AM »

I can't believe that incentive licensing is still an issue in 2014.

Go back and read the letter column in QST's from a half-century ago. A lot of hams were so sore about incentive licensing back then that they refused to go sit for another exam just out of principle. And here they are today, still stewing over it.

Oh, I know; I read those letters the first time around.  I got my General in 1966, then lost some privileges due to incentive licensing shortly thereafter.  Did I ever fault the ARRL for the loss?  Nope.  Studying for and taking the Advanced and Extra exams took less energy than nursing a grudge, and was more educational.
Logged
N9KX
Member

Posts: 2063




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2014, 10:31:09 AM »

I can't believe that incentive licensing is still an issue in 2014.

Go back and read the letter column in QST's from a half-century ago. A lot of hams were so sore about incentive licensing back then that they refused to go sit for another exam just out of principle. And here they are today, still stewing over it.

Oh, I know; I read those letters the first time around.  I got my General in 1966, then lost some privileges due to incentive licensing shortly thereafter.  Did I ever fault the ARRL for the loss?  Nope.  Studying for and taking the Advanced and Extra exams took less energy than nursing a grudge, and was more educational.

you had only been licensed for 2 years and were young and maybe within a few hours drive to an FCC office... imagine if you had been a Class A who had been licensed in the 1920's, 30's, 40's 50's and 60's and and now have too much arthritis to send 20wpm despite having been a world class CW op back in the day.  i can see why this would stick in their craw.

i have been licensed now for 38 years but I am only 52.  i heard two guys older than me talking in a grocery store parking lot and one said to the other at the end of their conversation: "getting old is not for the faint of heart".  QSL that.  the FCC and ARRL -- unintentionally no doubt -- slighted the amateur radio elders & pioneers when they created the Extra but did not grandfather pre-1950 Advanced licensees.  It was a bureaucratic oversight. 

we can say they are bitter, but it was a bitter pill they were handed.  putting down new hams is uncalled for regardless, but we should hear some resonance in the complaints of those elders who do NOT take out the bitterness on newbies.

73
Logged
KG6AF
Member

Posts: 478




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2014, 11:14:30 AM »

I can't believe that incentive licensing is still an issue in 2014.

Go back and read the letter column in QST's from a half-century ago. A lot of hams were so sore about incentive licensing back then that they refused to go sit for another exam just out of principle. And here they are today, still stewing over it.

Oh, I know; I read those letters the first time around.  I got my General in 1966, then lost some privileges due to incentive licensing shortly thereafter.  Did I ever fault the ARRL for the loss?  Nope.  Studying for and taking the Advanced and Extra exams took less energy than nursing a grudge, and was more educational.

you had only been licensed for 2 years and were young and maybe within a few hours drive to an FCC office... imagine if you had been a Class A who had been licensed in the 1920's, 30's, 40's 50's and 60's and and now have too much arthritis to send 20wpm despite having been a world class CW op back in the day.  i can see why this would stick in their craw.

i have been licensed now for 38 years but I am only 52.  i heard two guys older than me talking in a grocery store parking lot and one said to the other at the end of their conversation: "getting old is not for the faint of heart".  QSL that.  the FCC and ARRL -- unintentionally no doubt -- slighted the amateur radio elders & pioneers when they created the Extra but did not grandfather pre-1950 Advanced licensees.  It was a bureaucratic oversight. 

we can say they are bitter, but it was a bitter pill they were handed.  putting down new hams is uncalled for regardless, but we should hear some resonance in the complaints of those elders who do NOT take out the bitterness on newbies.

73

Agreed, there might have been valid reasons for people, especially older hams, to complain back then.  But those still complaining today couldn't have been that old when incentive licensing was implemented.  If they're, say, 95 now, they were no more than 50 then, hardly an age where infirmity would be likely to present problems with taking more tests.  To put it another way, anyone who lost privileges but is still complaining about that loss today has had almost 50 years to upgrade.  For those who have upgraded, why nurse the grudge?  And for those who haven't, why not take those tests you keep telling us are absurdly easy compared to the ones you took in the good old days? 

(Aside: for what it's worth, it was extremely difficult for me to get to an FCC office in those days; I had to wait for 5 years after taking the General to take the Advanced.  That wasn't worth whining about, either.  There were plenty of frequencies available to me as a General, even after incentive licensing.)
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6252




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2014, 04:13:22 PM »

Exactly how my elmer felt, and to the day he died he stayed an advanced licensee although he could have easily passed the test for extra.  Another point is how many enemies the ARRL made by the incentive licensing debacle, and how many hams dropped their membership and never picked it up again following it.  The explanation is simple, the hams who were licensed in the early sixties are the OM of today--and they NEVER forget.  You can tell that by listening to them on the bands.

And when I QSO with someone who is such a bitter old fart the conversation does not last long. Things change, things happen, adapt and move forward or continue to ossify and become increasingly irrelevant.

I am not going to let some twit rain on my parade who is unhappy with me earning my extra under the current scheme. If they only want to talk to "old school" extras and advanced or do a morse code litmus test then they can listen to static.

-but back to the original post-

Undoubtedly the technical aspects of the earlier tests covered "most" of what is in the current licensing pool but if you were able to stare and compare the old questions to the new questions there are a whole bunch of things on a current general or extra exam that were not even imagined back in 1965.

I suggest that taking only the technician level exam is not adequate to test for the all of the licensing and regulatory, safety and best practices questions that are required for the current technician-general-extra exams. I would not be surprised if a great many generals, advanced and extras who hold licenses today could even pass the current exams without opening up the book. I challenge those of you who are poo-pooing the current exam system and question pool to take a few practice tests today and see just how high you score. You may find that you have not kept current on technology or you have forgotten much of what you once knew.

The point of the matter is that most of the older hams I've spoken to are not bitter or angry--unless one or all of the subjects of the ARRL, incentive licensing, or upgrading are brought up.  Other than that, they're about as nice as can be.  Considering that there are also others who get bitter or angry when the subject of morse code or of the modern way the tests are administered versus the old way and are otherwise OK, if we start not talking to one or the other, pretty soon we'd have very few people to talk to!
Logged
N9KX
Member

Posts: 2063




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2014, 04:38:35 PM »


Agreed, there might have been valid reasons for people, especially older hams, to complain back then.  But those still complaining today couldn't have been that old when incentive licensing was implemented.  If they're, say, 95 now, they were no more than 50 then, hardly an age where infirmity would be likely to present problems with taking more tests.  To put it another way, anyone who lost privileges but is still complaining about that loss today has had almost 50 years to upgrade.  For those who have upgraded, why nurse the grudge?  And for those who haven't, why not take those tests you keep telling us are absurdly easy compared to the ones you took in the good old days? 

(Aside: for what it's worth, it was extremely difficult for me to get to an FCC office in those days; I had to wait for 5 years after taking the General to take the Advanced.  That wasn't worth whining about, either.  There were plenty of frequencies available to me as a General, even after incentive licensing.)

QSL, you are 59.  i think one of the rubs was that top class used to be the only one with full HF phone privileges till the FCC decided to give all license classes all privileges.  then 1968 rolls around and suddenly they get HF phone frequencies taken away (small amount or not is beside the point).  Doing that was tone deaf on the part of the bureaucrats who implemented it. former Advanceds (since those who were once Original extra's or Class A's all got folded into Advanced at a later date) should have either been grandfathered or still allowed full phone privileges. 

like you said -- anyone around now would to have been fairly young in 1968 and could either have upgraded or remained Advanceds as a matter of principle or stubborness, depending on how you look at it.     Wink
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!