| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bert Craig wrote: Alun wrote in message . .. some snippage Technically, that's true, but there's no longer any ITU requirement for a code test for any band. I think at one time there were a lot of people who wanted HF who would have been waiting for the code test to go. This is probably no longer true, as the hobby has lost a lot of it's popularity since the Internet, and as the test speed is now only 5wpm. However, my point is just that polling only licenced hams is just not appropriate, as hams are not the only interested parties. I heartily disagree. While ARO's may not be the only "interested" parties, they are the party that currently defines the hobby/service from a cultural standpoint. Thus, licensed ARO's are the constituenct that must lean on those who define the hobby/service from a regulatory standpoint, the FCC. Wow, is a 35 multiple-choice question written, for which the Q&A pool is published, really too much to ask for the Carefully chosen words follow, don't miss 'em. *right* to vote concerning the *requirements* to *earn* *privileges?!* Perhaps the path is clearer than we thought. There will always be some for whom any amount of testing is too much. Right now, we're sort of catering to that group. After all almost everyone uses a two-way radio now, and we don't have to be very smart to use a cell phone, (proven every day) do we? So why are all those stuck-up Hams making like they are so hot and smart? 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
| Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx | |||