"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KL7CC & Co. have already done so. Have you read their paper?

No, is it on a web site?.

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/

Second item down - "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century"

You can skim through the code test stuff - we've agreed to disagree on
that.
What is really interesting is the *other* ideas, such as what should
happen to
the entry-level license class, free upgrades, written testing....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, et al;

Some interesting and thought provoking suggestions/proposals.

I agree we'll just have to disagree on the code testing, but IF folks are
looking for a tp down revamp of licensing for US hams, Jim (KL7CC)
has certainly stirred the pot.

Maybe a good place to start would be the proposed "Communicator"
entry/beginners exam. Personally I think the applicant needs
some command of Part 97 rules...not all, but at least those that
would lay out the rules for Communicator license. I have always felt
memorizing
band edges makes little sense on a test because they do and have changed
over time. I'd like to know the applicant could at least read a frequency
chart and be able to answer questions regarding the privileges for
his/her license. That could be "open book" where the frequency chart is
provided. Other basic questions probably should require some
recallable knowledge (e.g. music is forbidden, etc.)

If you haven't read the KL7CC white paper, here's where you
can find it:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

One interesting proposal sure to either enrage or please is the
free upgrades for Tech and Advanced. Personally, and I have no stake
in this as I'm already Extra, the idea of free upgrades doesn't bother me at
all
if it ultimately results in a set of license classes that make sense with
regard
to privileges vs requirements. The other two alternatives a
(1) certain existing licenses would lose privileges (not a good track
record on that as we saw in 1968) or
(2) we keep the existing licneses plus the newly defined ones and
wait for the old licenses to go SK. Probably not what the FCC wants
for enforcement and rules simplification.

Further commentary ad discussion welcome.

And a curse to the first person who introduces any of the lexicon
of name calling rather than attempt credible dialog or debate.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK