N2EY wrote:
In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Bill
Sohl"
writes:
[snip]
If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have
access
to
those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level.
So
giving
them
a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras.
Jim,
I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others.
Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the
required tests. Particularly the *written* tests.
Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing.
You're the one willing to share with "a few"....
You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt
to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know
[expletive deleted]
well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ...
I'm not squirming or stretching, Carl. Just pointing out some facts. And I
don't
know what you intended to mean - I just know what you actually wrote.
Frankly,
I was very surprised that you support free upgrades without *written*
testing
for over 400,000 US hams
And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction
in the **WRITTEN** test requirements.
I'm not ...
Let's get this clear right now.
ARRL proposes that all current Techs and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to
General with no additional testing.
They also propose that all current Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra
with no additional testing.
Do you support those free upgrades or not?
I (K2UNK) do...on this "one time" basis.
I (N2EY) don't support it.
Why is it OK because it's a one-time thing?
'tisn't, Jim.
If you support them, then by definition you are supoorting a reduction in
the written test requirements for those licenses.
Incomplete statement. Supporting a one-time upgrade doesn't
mean anyone supports "permanent" reductions of the written
requirements.
That's a good point. The reduction affects only those who have certain licenses
on a certain date.
On the contrary, I believe that they DO support permanent reductions of
the written requirements.
But it's still a reduction for a very large number of hams.
THAT is the critical difference.
And it raises a critical question: Why is it OK as a one-time thing but not as
a permanent change?
Now you might argue that it's only a temporary or one-time reduction, but
it's still a reduction.
It is a ONE time reduction.
Agreed - but it's still a reduction. And Carl said he would not support any
reductions in written testing. Now, all of a sudden it's OK because it's a one
time thing.
ahem....
You and I can disagree about the reason's
to do it, but my support or anyone else's support of the one
time upgrade does NOT mean I or anyone else supports
permanent reductions in requirements.
True.
But why is a one-time reduction OK, and not a permanent one?
And since it affects over 400,000 hams, it's not a small matter.
If it goes through it will be forgotten in a couple of years.
That's what they said 40 years about incentive licensing.
Why, because no one losses any privileges.
Maybe. Or maybe not.
Yet now I see that same person
supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written*
tests...
As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written
tests is not that large
Whhhoooaaaahhhh!
And there my friend is the first shot in the next volley that will
attempt to permanently reduce the written requirements!
"The difference betweent the Tech and General written tests is not that
large". How about that?
Lessee.... 1. we don't support reductions in the test requirements
2. we support a one shot upgrade
3. the difference between the Tech and General written
tests is not that large
snip
a
way
where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are
already
authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any
knowledge
of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF.
Then why should *anyone* have to take the General test? If the Tech
written is
adequate for General HF privs for some, why not for all? Why not simply
dump
the General question pools into the Extra, and use the current Tech pool
for General?
If that's what YOU want, then file comments supporting that yourself.
No, it's not what I want.
But how do we argue against those who want it?
Bottom line, 2 years from now no one will care.
How do you know?
In the past 12 months, FCC issued over 20,000 new ham licenses. Most of those
were Techs. Why is it OK for them to get General privileges based on having
passed the 35 question Tech test, and having less than 1 year experience, but
not OK for future hams?
Kinda makes you wonder, eh? I cannot come ot any logical conclusion
that does not include a permanent reduction in the qualifications.
The rest snipped, I gotta go do some housework............
- Mike KB3EIA -
|