wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
cut
ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already
provided a waiver process.

Did code waivers come first, or ADA?

I I think the ADA may predate waivers...
but that isn't of any importance anyway.

I think it is. IMHO anyway.

The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately
do anything. Most or much of the ADA
impact has been with new accomodations.
Application of ADA in existing situations
has usually been the reult of a complaint by
an individual or a group of individuals.

Exactly - and *nobody complained*.

wrong agian nobody listened to the complaints of americans on the
subject

I know at least one fellow that did complain

It took
backdoor diplomacy by a foreign King to
get waivers, not advocacy by any US
group.

disgusting that it took going to Jordan to ask for freedom in the USA ,
and an absolute disgrace to the USA
cut
Which is why further discussion on this is
a waste of my time. I'll wait to see what
the FCC does before continuing this
hypothetical.

I think it's worthwhile to consider where a
path may lead before going that way.

when there is not real chance it will go that way
cut

On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that
are for Extras only.

Which clearly is additional operating privileges.

But not *different* operating privileges!

(I should have said it that way from the beginning!)

IOW, what's the difference between operating on, say, 14,030 kHz
vs. 14,020 kHz using the same mode and power level? What additional
knowledge or skills are needed for the lower frequency that aren't
needed
for the higher one?

It could be claimed that since the Extra written isn't required to use
14,030, why is it an absolute requirement to use 14,020? Particularly
for folks who have a really tough time memorizing/understanding all the
stuff in the written tests?

By allowing waivers *in principle*, the whole quagmire opens up to
question all test requirements.

no it does not

However I will grant you in makes it hardert to sustain each level
beyond the first test. the first test is justified legaly by the term
of the ITY treaty.

each test after that one becomes harder and harder to justify on a
legal basis

but the waivers were allowed already in principle so that horse has
left the barn years ago


The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in
the
Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly
related
to the privileges gained.

I doubt it, but for now see no need to discuss or debate
the point UNLESS someone actually goes there.

Just the opposite - because if they go there, and cite the
precedent, what possible argument could be used against
them?

that the US has had a series of license tied to freq prevlegges
granting more prevledge to more learned ops

OTOH I agree with you to point the arguement is weak

But I support an Ideal of ONE class of license for all and in practice
would support (as opposed to merely accepting what is likely to result
in the R&O) 2 class at most ( a "Novice" and full prevledges)

BTW that is MY position not NCI's and just becuase I am No Coders
doesn't mean other nocoders fell eetc.....
cut