Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#34
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... I can take either side in the code debate... but I think it's a mistake to do away with it entirely, because there are certain circumstances where code is the only way to get through. I'm sure code would still be allowed, even if the licensing requirement was dropped. Since there seems to be enough room to expand the SW broadcast bands, maybe the ham bands could be expanded to give the code capable hams more of their own bandwidth. What I DO think, though, is that they need to get rid of the question pools, and make books on those pools illegal. Make people actually STUDY to learn the law and theory, instead of memorizing a bunch of questions. If there were those sorts of books around when I got my license, I sure never saw one (of course, I was too cheap to have bought one even if I knew they existed... since I was a youngster with little to no money... good thing that the testing at the time was free..) As far as I am concerned, studying the question pool is cheating... the same as using a calculator in math class.. what's up with that, anyway?? Well, people are free to ask questions and print the answers to those questions. Unless the FCC exam can be treated like a state secret. But I don't see much of a practical problem. Are there really that many unqualified hams out there? I listen from time to time on SW, and they generally seem do what they do pretty well. I suppose there's problem operators out there, but are they problem operators because they don't know the code or radio technology or just because they have problematical personalities? Does the FCC administer "jerk tests"? Frank Dresser |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
TRADE SX73!!! | Boatanchors | |||
TRADE SX73!!! | Boatanchors | |||
FS or TRADE | Scanner | |||
Trade Modded DX-398 For Scanner | Scanner | |||
4-1000A amps for TRADE, pickup near Denver, CO | Boatanchors |