"Bill Sohl" wrote


Only on a one-time basis.


If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if the
"fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would
increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra Class"
would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or tomorrows rules.




Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can
reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive
than the current General discriminates against new applicants.

They can plead all they want...doesn't make it so. The FCC could
certainly counter argue the upgrades were a one-time need to
simplify the overall license structure.

Their counter argument would utterly fail, because they'd first need to
prove that the "one-time need" over-rides the harm of a massive influx of
underqualified (by their own rules) individuals into the top class of
amateur operators. Judges rule on logic, not administrative convenience.


The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix."


Trivializing this as a one-time "fix" shows how little you've examined the
issue. Instead of a one-time "fix", it would be a one-time "hammer blow".
The answer still is exactly as stated in my previous message.

Cheerios and bran flakes to you to,

K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
news

"Bill Sohl" wrote
Only on a one-time basis.

If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if the
"fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would
increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra
Class"
would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or tomorrows
rules.

Doesn't bother me. It may just be something we live through to
get to a new, more rational licensing scheme.

Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can
reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive
than the current General discriminates against new applicants.

They can plead all they want...doesn't make it so. The FCC could
certainly counter argue the upgrades were a one-time need to
simplify the overall license structure.

Their counter argument would utterly fail, because they'd first need to
prove that the "one-time need" over-rides the harm of a massive influx of
underqualified (by their own rules) individuals into the top class of
amateur operators. Judges rule on logic, not administrative convenience.

The FCC doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof would
be on those that oppose what was done. Government regulations have a
presumption of legality to start with.

The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix."

Trivializing this as a one-time "fix" shows how little you've examined the
issue. Instead of a one-time "fix", it would be a one-time "hammer blow".
The answer still is exactly as stated in my previous message.

Cheerios and bran flakes to you to,

Happy new year too.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I wrote:

If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if
the
"fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would
increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra
Class" would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or
tomorrows rules.

Bill Sohl blew it off with ......


Doesn't bother me.


Bill, when are the next NCI elections for Director? I look forward to
voting for whoever runs in opposition to you. You are irresponsible and
dangerous.

K0HB

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

Bill, when are the next NCI elections for Director? I look forward to
voting for whoever runs in opposition to you. You are irresponsible and
dangerous.

What next, reporting Bill to Homeland Security?!? :-)

LHA

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

Bill, when are the next NCI elections for Director? I look forward to
voting for whoever runs in opposition to you. You are irresponsible and
dangerous.

What next, reporting Bill to Homeland Security?!? :-)

LHA

Maybe they'll put him on the Hollywood Blacklist. He'll never act again.

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I wrote:

If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if
the
"fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees
would
increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra
Class" would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or
tomorrows rules.

Bill Sohl blew it off with ......


Doesn't bother me.


Bill, when are the next NCI elections for Director? I look forward to
voting for whoever runs in opposition to you. You are irresponsible and
dangerous.

I can't drive within the speed limit either :-)

Isn't it amazing no great harm was encountered when all those hams in
the 50s/60s only had to be General for full priviliges?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net...
"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I wrote:

If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if
the
"fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees
would
increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra
Class" would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or
tomorrows rules.

Bill Sohl blew it off with ......


Doesn't bother me.


Bill, when are the next NCI elections for Director? I look forward to
voting for whoever runs in opposition to you. You are irresponsible and
dangerous.

I can't drive within the speed limit either :-)

Isn't it amazing no great harm was encountered when all those hams in
the 50s/60s only had to be General for full priviliges?

It must have been just awful, all those undeserving Generals just
helping themselves to those frequencies and modes.

There shoulda been a law!

If only Sen McCarthy had been aware...

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
news



The FCC doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof would
be on those that oppose what was done. Government regulations have a
presumption of legality to start with.

The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix."

Trivializing this as a one-time "fix" shows how little you've examined the
issue. Instead of a one-time "fix", it would be a one-time "hammer blow".
The answer still is exactly as stated in my previous message.

Cheerios and bran flakes to you to,

Careful, Bill, Hans might report you to somebody...or, at least,
vote against you in the next election... :-)

LHA

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

Only on a one-time basis.


If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if the
"fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would
increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra Class"
would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or tomorrows rules.

Flawless accuracy, bonded and certified by independent
authorities, even comes with a gilt-edged certificate of compliance
(suitable for framing).


Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can
reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive
than the current General discriminates against new applicants.

They can plead all they want...doesn't make it so. The FCC could
certainly counter argue the upgrades were a one-time need to
simplify the overall license structure.

Their counter argument would utterly fail, because they'd first need to
prove that the "one-time need" over-rides the harm of a massive influx of
underqualified (by their own rules) individuals into the top class of
amateur operators. Judges rule on logic, not administrative convenience.

Flawless logic..."everyone knows" that morse code is an absolute
requirement to operate on HF...that's why all the other users of
HF require all HF operators to know, use, and love morse code.

Don't they?

The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix."

Trivializing this as a one-time "fix" shows how little you've examined the
issue. Instead of a one-time "fix", it would be a one-time "hammer blow".
The answer still is exactly as stated in my previous message.

Yes, we are all aware that YOUR PLAN is logical without peer.

Anything said against YOUR PLAN is worthless, illogical,
inconsequential, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc., etc., etc.

That is a given.

LHA

"Len Over 21" wrote


Anything said against YOUR PLAN is worthless, illogical,
inconsequential, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc., etc., etc.


I knew you'd agree with me.

73, de Hans, K0HB