wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
.. .
Michael Coslo wrote in
:

[snip]

It's not particurly difficult, but I can see no need to continue
the
closed
classes. All those who would get a 'free upgrade' have held their
licences
for some time, so I foresee no impact whatsoever from eliminating
those
licences and upgrading them.

Alun N3KIP

Why not simply cancel their licenses unless they take the upgrade
exam by a
certain date?

Like the old Novice..

It gets rid of the closed classes yet gives no one a freebie.
Those who are active or care about their license but are inactive due
to
circumstances in their lives currently will upgrade.

I still remember the screaming from 1968 when "incentive licensing"
went back into effect. What you propose would be worse.

They wouldn't be screaming any louder than those opposed to automatic
upgrades would be. Any change from the current will cause major screaming
other something like closing the classes to new licenses as was done in
2000. Personally I happen to think leaving the classes alone is the best
thing.


Those who don't care
won't be any great loss.

There's also the group who don't know. It's almost 5 years since
restructuring and I still read/hear questions from hams about what the
license structure and test requirements are, particularly from inactive
or narrow-focused hams.


Well the FCC expects hams to keep up with the rules or they send them
greeting cards if the violate the new ones. This wouldn't be any worse. It
could be handled by specifying that they must upgrade by their next renewal.
If they forget to renew, they loose their license anyway. Those who do
attempt to renew could get a form stating that they must upgrade instead.
Afterall, they will have the remainder of their term plus the grace period
(which I would keep) to use their existing license for the appropriate
elements.

Let's shake the dead wood out of the tree and find
out how many hams we really do have.

What good would that really do, Dee? If nothing else, it would give
folks like the BPL companies ammunition against us.

73 de Jim, N2EY


It makes no less and no more sense than "auto upgrades." I don't
particularly put it forth as a serious suggestion. Too many people are
simply yakking on about the "burden" and "confusion" engendered by
retaining these close classes so chose to describe an alternative. I just
threw in the "deadwood" part since some people are so worried about the
number of hams and the accuracy of the numbers.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE