Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 7 Jul 2003 14:21:15 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

We'll just have to think of something else to talk about. Besides, it's
not over yet. The FCC will likely have multiple petitions to look at. For
example, what happens to Techs? Should they all get Tech+ privileges?

Seems completely obvious to me that they should.

In the short term, that's what I personally expect we will see. In the
long term, however, I think we will eventually have only two license
classes instead of the current three (one for VHF/UHF only privileges,
and one for full HF privileges in addition to that).

I disagree!

The only reason to separate HF and VHF/UHF is/was because of the code
test. HF licenses had to have code tests because of the old treaty.
Once the new one is ratified, that reason goes away.

Seems to me that in a nocodetest future it would make much more sense
to let all hams have access to at least partial privileges on most ham
bands, rather than continuing the artificial HF vs. VHF-UHF
separation.

How about this: Three classes of license - call them Third, Second and
First for discussion's sake.

Thirds have a simple written test and get to use a few modes (CW,
SSB/FM phone, some data) on parts of all bands. Power limit is below
that requiring RF survey. Callsigns are six characters, and Thirds
can't be repeater control ops or VEs.

Seconds have more modes, more space on the bands, and more power.
Callsigns are five or six characters. Seconds can be repeater control
ops and VEs. One year experience as a Third required.

Firsts have all privs, callsigns with four, five or six characters,
etc. One year experience as a Second required.

You get the general idea.

1. FCC remains under a congressional mandate to simplify regulations.
The easiest system for FCC to administer would be exactly what I have
outlined - either you have HF privileges or you don't.

But is that what's best for the ARS? I don't think so.

2. Reading between the lines on the FCC's R&O WRT the last
restructuring of amateur license classes leads me to believe that the
commission would have preferred to do this in the first place but its
hands were tied by the international requirement that WRC just
removed. Absent that requirement now, FCC will be free to do what I
think it would have preferred to do four years ago.

I think what FCC wanted several years back was pretty close to what
they actually did - 3 classes of license, minimal or zero code
testing. No medical waivers. Less written testing, too.

73 de Jim, N2EY