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