Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article t, "Bill

Sohl"

writes:


[snip]


If all 83,000 Advanceds get a free upgrade to Extra, they'll have

access

to

those choice slices and they'll probably increase the QRM level. So

giving

them

a free upgrade *does* take something away from existing Extras.

Jim,

I'm willing to share the Extra sub-bands with a few others.

Only a few? I'm willing to share them with as many as can pass the
required tests. Particularly the *written* tests.

Be careful ... your "not in my sandbox" motives are showing.

You're the one willing to share with "a few"....


You're squirming pretty hard and stretching pretty far with your attempt
to twist my use of the words "a few others" into something you know
damned well I didn't mean the way you're trying to spin it ...


And I do recall someone saying they'd **NEVER** support a reduction
in the **WRITTEN** test requirements.


I'm not ... I'm supporting the establishment of a reasonable, viable
entry level class with appropriate testing and restrictions.

Speaking of spin!



Yet now I see that same person
supporting free upgrades that involve not even having to take *written*
tests...


As Ed pointed out, the difference between the Tech and General written
tests is not that large - it's a one-shot deal to "make things right" in a
way where nobody loses privs, and as Bill pointed out, those Techs are already
authorized 1500W at frequencies that the FCC and anyone with any knowledge
of RF safety knows are more "risky" than HF.

More spin.

Mistake number one is that this doesn't "make things right".

Mistake number two is assuming that this will be a one shot deal.

What is the rationale for the return to more stringent requirements
after the mass upgrade? That will be looked at as a clear disincentive
to adding new hams after the "upgrade" process.



Like all those Advanced are on the air now. Give me a break.

If they're not on the air, there's no reason to give them upgrades,
is there?

They'll get upgrades, even if they're SKs whose family hasn't
sent in their license for cancellation - so what?

Why not upgrade all existing hams except Novices to Extra, then?


Because that doesn't comport with either the FCC's or the ARRL's
(or my) desire to have some reason for folks to learn more to upgrade.

How are you going to counter the argument that the requirements are
suddenly increased after "making things right"?

If a person that that takes the Technician test today is qualified to
be on HF, then they are equally as qualified the day after things are
"made right".

The only way that this can even remotely be "fair" would be to make the
post restructuring test requirements for the entry level license much
easier.

But you'll never support that will you?



After careful consideration of Ed Hare's (personal, not ARRL)
comments on the subject on eHam.net

I'll ask again for a link to those comments.


Go to eham.net (or use Google) ... I don't have the URL direct
to Ed's comments handy ...

I've used both, and haven't found the comments.



I (personally, not as NCI)
think it makes the best sense as a one-shot deal as a way forward
to a license/priv structure that makes sense for the future.


Even though it means a one-shot reduction in written test requirements
for over 400,000 hams. That's almost 60% of those licensed today.


Again, the differences are not that great (in content - I know you have
a BIG hangup about the number of questions on the test ...)


Here's another thought: Rules changes like that don't happen overnight -
there's always a time delay between when a rules change is announced and

the

new rules take effect. So if FCC simply accepted ARRL's proposal tomorrow,
they'd probably make it effective a few months hence.


They could make a rules change effective 30 days from publication in the
Federal Register ...


So someone without a license could just take the Tech before the changes

take

place, and then ride the free upgrade bus to General.


Give me a break ... your arguments are just plain lame and your "someone
might get privs without taking a test with the same number of questions as
I took" is REALLY showing.


Sorry, Carl! The arguments aren't lame.


I'd really like to see a link to Ed's arguments...


Go find them - you know how to google.

Give us a break here Carl! Both of us have tried, and they seem to be
hidden in there. Perhaps they were removed?


- Mike KB3EIA -