Dee Flint wrote:
All the licensing
requirements are arbitrary. Every single one of them.

I would use the phrase "only based on FCC's judgement and experience"
rather than "arbitrary", but that's a minor point. Otherwise agree
100%. Not only that, but many if not most of the
rules are only based on FCC's judgement and experience too.

For example, the maximum power an amateur station may use in
the USA is 1500 W peak output. Why 1500 W - why not 1000 W,
or 2000 W, or something else? Why not any power level that an
amateur can put on the air and still meet RF exposure and spurious
emission rules?


Tthere are several radio services for
which no testing is required. So if some services do not need testing, then it is arbitrary for those that do. However the
goals and purposes of
amateur radio make it desireable to test candidates for these
licenses.

And those goals and purposes are based on FCC's judgement and
experience as well. FCC could, if they wanted, simply define
amateur radio as "hobby radio", but they haven't done so.

If you wish to discontinue healthy, legitimate discourse with respect
to amateur policy, I understand. It is not for the faint of heart.

Best of Luck, Brian

The problem with the Morse discussion is that every possible
conceivable
argument on either side has been aired dozens, if not hundreds, of times.
It is not healthy to continue discussing this policy issue. No new data
comes to light. No new rational has come up. There's no point in rehashing the same issues.

I disagree!

There's always the possibility that some new idea, argument, or
information will result from a discussion. Even the passage of time
gives new insights.

For example, the 2000 restructuring that reduced both code and
written testing did not result in sustained growth of the number
of US hams. We saw a small rise for a few years, but since April 2003
or so the numbers have been in a slow decline. This data clearly
indicates that the license test requirements aren't the
limiting factor to longterm growth.

Sooner or later the FCC will rule and we'll all have to
live with the consequences good or bad.

Yep. But until they do, we can refine and develop our
arguments on both sides.

As for it being unhealthy to discuss, I'd say that as long as
the discussion remains at a civil level, without misquotes and
personal attacks, it's healthy.

If the result is as the NCTA state that it will be, i.e. a big wave of new
hams plus a big wave of hams upgrading and getting on HF, just watch the DX
stations, especially the rare ones, hide down on CW even more
than they are now.

That's one big reason we have subbands-by-mode.

If you exclude Japan, the US has more amateur radio operators
than the
rest of the world combined. If the bands get as busy as the
NCTAs imply
they will from this rush of new and upgrading hams, a lot of us will be drifting even more to CW just to find some room.

Or the data modes.

On the other hand, if the PCTAs are correct, i.e. the impact
will be
insignificant just as other changes of the recent past have
been, then there
is NO reason to change the requirements. Changes that have
little to no
noticeable impact aren't worth the bother of implementing.

That's true. But there are other factors:

- Reducing the license requirements still further may have negative
effects.

- If there's no real effect, the solution obviously lies elsewhere. But
some may not want to accept that fact.

- Once the requirements are reduced, it may be near-impossible
to get them raised back up.

73 de Jim, N2EY