"Old School" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:44:07 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:
There's no reason that they should get them. They can get
off their behinds and take the test. The focus is on the Techs not
because
of the code but because there are so many more of them than Advanced
licensees and because the Techs generally have a lot less experience
overall.
You started out with no experience just like everyone else. You arent
born with it, so you explanation is flaud!
No my explanation is not flawed. I started with no experience but STUDIED
and worked for each level that was required. I gained experience as I went
just as today's Technicians should be required to do.
By the way, turn on your spell checker.
The FCC did not solicit petitions or initiate an NPRM of their own. At
this
time the FCC doesn't really care one way or the other about the code
issue.
There were 14 petitions thrown into the hopper before the ARRLs, several
of
which proposed no-code licensing.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
If the FCC does'nt care about the code, then why would they throw out
this proposal which includes what the FCC has been wanting
(Streamlining)?
kf6foz
The ARRL proposal will require a major rewrite of most of Part 97. This
will involve a lot of work for the FCC. The so-called streamlining will not
justify this major overhaul since maintaining a database requires the same
work whether the license class field has 3 possible entries or 5 possible
entries. Note that there has been no indication that the FCC has been
pushing for any additional streamlining of the system since the last
overhaul in 2000. For these reasons, the ARRL proposal (and several others
that amount to major overhauls) are the least likely ones to go through.
The least amount of effort for the FCC will be to do nothing.
The second least amount of effort for the FCC will be to simply drop the
code test for one or more license classes but otherwise leave them alone.
The only change in the rules would be deleting references to Element 1.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
|