View Single Post
  #45   Report Post  
Old November 21st 03, 01:50 PM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Bert Craig wrote:
Alun wrote in message . ..



some snippage


Technically, that's true, but there's no longer any ITU requirement for a
code test for any band. I think at one time there were a lot of people who
wanted HF who would have been waiting for the code test to go. This is
probably no longer true, as the hobby has lost a lot of it's popularity
since the Internet, and as the test speed is now only 5wpm.

However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not
appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties.



I heartily disagree. While ARO's may not be the only "interested"
parties, they are the party that currently defines the hobby/service
from a cultural standpoint. Thus, licensed ARO's are the constituenct
that must lean on those who define the hobby/service from a regulatory
standpoint, the FCC.

Wow, is a 35 multiple-choice question written, for which the Q&A pool
is published, really too much to ask for the Carefully chosen words
follow, don't miss 'em. *right* to vote concerning the *requirements*
to *earn* *privileges?!*

Perhaps the path is clearer than we thought.



There will always be some for whom any amount of testing is too much.
Right now, we're sort of catering to that group.

After all almost everyone uses a two-way radio now, and we don't have to
be very smart to use a cell phone, (proven every day) do we? So why are
all those stuck-up Hams making like they are so hot and smart? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -