In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Not according to Hans' answer to the
above question.

Hans' answer is not in his proposal.

OK, fine.

In fact, a lot of what Hans has said
in this newsgroup is not in the proposal.

It will be, if FCC acts on it in any way.

Instead, he just seems to be
making up answers as he goes along.

Is that bad? His answers are all in agreement with the stated goals and
philosophy of his proposal. I haven't found a single case where Hans has
contradicted himself in this proposal thing.

Hans has suggested his idea to FCC at least twice - but always in the form of
comments to others' proposals. Seems to me it would make sense for him to
submit it to FCC and get an RM number, just like the other 14 petitions.

He could just take the various answers he's given here and work them into the
proposal (to answer the same questions which are bound to be asked by FCC and
commenters) and ship the expanded proposal to FCC.

Even though I disagree with some parts of his proposal, it seems to me that
such a formal submission is the next step if Hans is serious about it. And I
think he is.

Plus it's good to see a proposal that at least tries to address the situation
as a whole, rather than simply trying to slap another patch on the 1951 system.

btw, some of the concepts in Hans' proposal are also part of the KL7CC "21st
Century" proposal - like the very-easy-to-get entry license with a low power
limit. But Hans had those ideas first!

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article et,
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Not according to Hans' answer to the above question.

Hans' answer is not in his proposal.

OK, fine.

In fact, a lot of what Hans has said in this newsgroup is not in the
proposal.

It will be, if FCC acts on it in any way.

Instead, he just seems to be making up answers as he goes along.

Is that bad? His answers are all in agreement with the stated goals and
philosophy of his proposal. I haven't found a single case where Hans
has contradicted himself in this proposal thing.

Hans has suggested his idea to FCC at least twice - but always in the
form of comments to others' proposals. Seems to me it would make sense
for him to submit it to FCC and get an RM number, just like the other
14 petitions.

He could just take the various answers he's given here and work them
into the proposal (to answer the same questions which are bound to be
asked by FCC and commenters) and ship the expanded proposal to FCC.

Even though I disagree with some parts of his proposal, it seems to me
that such a formal submission is the next step if Hans is serious about
it. And I think he is.

Plus it's good to see a proposal that at least tries to address the
situation as a whole, rather than simply trying to slap another patch
on the 1951 system.

btw, some of the concepts in Hans' proposal are also part of the KL7CC
"21st Century" proposal - like the very-easy-to-get entry license with
a low power limit. But Hans had those ideas first!

73 de Jim, N2EY




To answer your question from another part of this thread, anything that
leaves closed licence classes intact feels to me like just another patch.
I find it confusing to explain to prospective hams "oh yeah, there are two
other classes of licence, but you can't get those anymore". They look at
me as if I were mad! We do need a new system, and we need to fit all
existing hams into it, albeit I don't think it will happen this time
around.

I think the Canadians have an interesting system. Ignoring code
endorsements (doubtless soon to become irrelevant), they are split into
Basic and Advanced. The Basics get 200W and can go anywhere except 40 and
the WARC bands, and can't use homebrew rigs or be a repeater control op.
I'm not sure which bands a US Basic ought to get - it might be more useful
to keep them off 20 than 40 (besides, Novices and Tech Plusses have part
of 40, and we don't want to take privileges away). Also, nobody would want
to call the higher grade 'Advanced', for obvious reasons, how about
'Expert'?

Maybe someone in VE would like to comment on whether they like the system
they have?

73 de Alun, N3KIP

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Hans' answer is not in his proposal.

OK, fine.

In fact, a lot of what Hans has said
in this newsgroup is not in the proposal.

It will be, if FCC acts on it in any way.

Instead, he just seems to be making
up answers as he goes along.

Is that bad? His answers are all in agreement
with the stated goals and philosophy of his
proposal. I haven't found a single case where
Hans has contradicted himself in this proposal
thing.


You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't
give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.

I've tried to give straightforward and responsive answers to every question
asked about my proposal. Since it is so far only a proposal (work in
process) and not yet a petition, it would be fair to say that some detail is
missing and I've done my best to supply that detail, often in a
contemporaneous manner. If that isn't definitive enough for you, I suggest
you QSY up 5.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't
give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the
discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.

I've tried to give straightforward and responsive answers to every
question
asked about my proposal. Since it is so far only a proposal (work in
process) and not yet a petition, it would be fair to say that some detail
is
missing and I've done my best to supply that detail, often in a
contemporaneous manner. If that isn't definitive enough for you, I
suggest
you QSY up 5.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


Working on answers to such questions is actually beneficial in that it
allows you to see where your proposal may need refinement before becoming a
petition. Although I don't agree with what you are proposing, I do agree
with refining your proposal so it doesn't have the gaps that have been
spotted.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Hans' answer is not in his proposal.

OK, fine.

In fact, a lot of what Hans has said
in this newsgroup is not in the proposal.

It will be, if FCC acts on it in any way.

Instead, he just seems to be making
up answers as he goes along.

Is that bad? His answers are all in agreement
with the stated goals and philosophy of his
proposal. I haven't found a single case where
Hans has contradicted himself in this proposal
thing.


You're missing the point, Jim. If it isn't in the proposal, he can't give
definitive answers to those questions. Making up answers as the discussion
goes along in this newsgroup isn't going to change that.

Hans has only submitted his proposal as a comment to others' petitions.

He can take the discussion here, and the answers he's given, revise the
proposal into a petition and submit it to FCC for an RM number.

Even though I disagree with some parts of it, and would oppose those parts, I
think his proposal has been much improved and clarified by the discussion here.


The end result could be something that FCC and much of the amateur commnunity
would support.

--

Do GROLs have to be renewed?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) The end result could be something that
FCC and much of the amateur commnunity
would support.


I disagree. For the reasons already stated, most specifically that the
proposal doesn't serve a need not already addressed in the current licensing
system, I don't think the FCC would have any interest at all in his
proposal. When you consider the amount of changes needed to implement the
proposal (rule changes, licensing procedures, and so on), I suspect the FCC
would be dead set against it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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