"Brian Kelly" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:

However, the buck doesn't stop here. Ham Radio
belongs to the American public.

Wrong. The whole planet owns the RF spectrum and
the FCC is charged with doling out spectrum space
to U.S. users of the that space in the public
interest as it sees fit. Getting user access to
the spectrum is not some wifty inherent "right
of the people", it's a privilege. And to gain
that privilege come certain requirements and
responsibilites.


Yes, reasonable requirements and responsibilities. The FCC is not going to
change those requirements just because you and perhaps a few others want to
exclude what you call "dumbed downed" people. Instead, you'll have to make a
factual, not just rhetorical, link between those people and specific
problems. You'll also have to establish that your remedy (stiffer license
exams) will resolve those specific problems. Until then, all you're doing is
blowing around a lot of hot air and slandering fellow hams.


If the "American public" is not up for meeting
the requirements and responsibilties which come
with a ham license they can still go to 27
Mhz, FRS and MURS. Which is why those services
were created.


Man, you're talking about the American people as if they were some kind of
minor regard in this country. I sincerely hope the FCC never shares that
attitude.


And when it's all said and done we're back to
the Cheerios syndrome. When was the last time
you know of when a wannabe ham said "geez,
don't dumb down the tests any more, they'll
TOO easy for me . . "


A wannabe ham is a person who, by definition, has never taken the license
exams. How can anyone who hasn't taken the exams possibly comment on their
content?


Right. I support keeping the bar at it's current
level. I oppose lowering the bar to a lower level
as you suggest. That's the way it is.


Excuse me? Would you please show me where I have EVER even suggested the
possibility of "lowering the bar" when it comes to the written tests? With
the exception of the code tests, I have repeated said throughout this
thread, and elsewhere, that I fully support the current license
requirements. Instead, I have simply said I don't support raising that bar
solely to exclude others. Now, if you can show me how raising that bar is
necessary for Ham Radio (not just to exclude others), we'll talk.


You can put that in bank right now. There is
nothing evil about evenly-applied discrimination.
It's everywhere around us, in zoning plans, in
the bases for your compensation and perks on the
job, in the privileges accorded holders of the
various classes of ham licensees, endless list.
Don't look now Dwight but discrimination is the
underlying engine which drives capitalist
democracies.


Zoning laws, job policies, and ham licenses, all serve a legitimate
purpose. Policies or rules designed solely to exclude don't.


Just when and where did I state any such BS please?


A question has a question mark on the end, Brian. That question mark was
on the end of my sentence.


Here's your opportunity to parade out your list of
high-end techo nocodes with skills like those I've
picked as examples have.


I don't judge or sort out people based on their code ability, Brian.
Therefore, I'll pass on your invitation.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/