Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 30th 05, 06:49 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
Frank Gilliland
 
Posts: n/a
Default License -- how about this?

I've noticed that different hams tend to congregate in different parts
of the spectrum, maybe because different parts of the spectrum have
different characteristics requiring different skills. So why not just
have one license with three "endorsements" based on spectrum use:

-- MF & HF;
-- VHF;
-- UHF & up.

.......or something along those lines?????








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 31st 05, 12:03 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
 
Posts: n/a
Default License -- how about this?

From: Frank Gilliland on Dec 30, 9:49 am

I've noticed that different hams tend to congregate in different parts
of the spectrum, maybe because different parts of the spectrum have
different characteristics requiring different skills. So why not just
have one license with three "endorsements" based on spectrum use:

-- MF & HF;
-- VHF;
-- UHF & up.

......or something along those lines?????


It's a logical thought concept...at first. Thinking more
about it will just "redistrict" the present ham population
along slightly different lines from what exists now.

There's been a half-century (almost) of such subdivision and
compartmenting U.S. radio amateurs up until the Restructuring
of 2000. It had gotten to be too complex for what it was
worth, both to the Commission and to most of the "amateur
community" (as well as pushing off newcomers).

Essentially ONE "class" of license is quite sufficient.

Those that "specialize" in working specific bands with
specific modes can go right on doing what they did before.
Those just won't get any especial perquisites in rank-
status-title for doing so. [TS for them] Let the ham
publications glorify them (in excelsior). There's no
point in having the license class subdivide, stratify,
and make them "different."

Those that have a yen to experiment, innovate, try out new
things in a one-class system would be free to do so, no
real restrictions other than their own abilities.

Yes, there is a "danger" to having the private spectral
playground of some occupied by what those specialists call
"interlopers." However, NOBODY "owns" spectral property
other than what the FCC stakes out in regulations. The
specialists only THINK they "own" certain spectrum...it was
never really "theirs" and their is no "ownership" by some
kind of eminent domain of private turf.



  #3   Report Post  
Old December 31st 05, 08:17 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
Dee Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default License -- how about this?


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
I've noticed that different hams tend to congregate in different parts
of the spectrum, maybe because different parts of the spectrum have
different characteristics requiring different skills. So why not just
have one license with three "endorsements" based on spectrum use:

-- MF & HF;
-- VHF;
-- UHF & up.

......or something along those lines?????


One license with "endorsement" is the same as having different licenses.
It's just a change in terminology.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



  #4   Report Post  
Old December 31st 05, 06:46 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
Frank Gilliland
 
Posts: n/a
Default License -- how about this?

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:17:52 -0500, "Dee Flint"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
I've noticed that different hams tend to congregate in different parts
of the spectrum, maybe because different parts of the spectrum have
different characteristics requiring different skills. So why not just
have one license with three "endorsements" based on spectrum use:

-- MF & HF;
-- VHF;
-- UHF & up.

......or something along those lines?????


One license with "endorsement" is the same as having different licenses.
It's just a change in terminology.



Which is different than the current system...... how?








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #5   Report Post  
Old December 31st 05, 07:15 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
Dee Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default License -- how about this?


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:17:52 -0500, "Dee Flint"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
. ..
I've noticed that different hams tend to congregate in different parts
of the spectrum, maybe because different parts of the spectrum have
different characteristics requiring different skills. So why not just
have one license with three "endorsements" based on spectrum use:

-- MF & HF;
-- VHF;
-- UHF & up.

......or something along those lines?????


One license with "endorsement" is the same as having different licenses.
It's just a change in terminology.



Which is different than the current system...... how?



That was my point. It's not really significantly different than the current
system. It's just renaming and a slight reshuffling.

VHF+UHF&up endorsement = current no-code Tech license
VHF+UHF&up+HF&MF = current Extra license (I'm assuming that you mean full
band privileges so that would eliminate the Generals).

There's no sense in splitting VHF/UHF into separate endorsements as most of
the people that I know in this area operate both 2m (i.e. VHF) and 440mHz
(i.e. UHF).

Calling them "endorsements" has no benefits over calling them different
licenses.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Response to "21st Century" Part Two (Communicator License) N2EY Policy 0 November 30th 03 02:28 PM
Low reenlistment rate charlesb Policy 54 September 18th 03 01:57 PM
There is no International Code Requirement and techs can operate HF according to FCC Rules JJ General 159 August 12th 03 12:25 AM
Hey CBers Help Get rid of Morse Code Test and Requirement Scott Unit 69 Policy 9 August 1st 03 02:08 AM
Hey CBers Help Get rid of Morse Code Test and Requirement ROLDAIGNAULT CB 22 July 31st 03 12:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017