wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
John Kasupski wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:06 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:

Comments to 05-235 attached.

--
73, de Hans, K0HB

Very good, Hans.

We're in agreement on the first part, anyway.

But I doubt it will make any difference. Many of the 18 petitions
included
various changes to entry-level license privileges, including the very
obvious one of giving Novice/Tech Plus HF privileges to all Techs. Yet
FCC
repeatedly denied all of them.

In the NPRM, FCC makes it clear that their vision of the future looks
like this:

wrong again

How is it wrong, Mark?

All the FCC proposes to do in the NPRM is to drop Element 1 from the
requirements.
Nothing else - in fact, other changes have been specifically denied.

If that is done, the following will be the inevitable result:

Technician: Entry-level license. All VHF/UHF, no HF

With no Element 1, the only way for new hams or existing noncodetested
Techs
to get any HF will be to go for General.

General: Mid-level license. All VHF/UHF, most HF/MF

As it is today, without Element 1

Extra: Top license, all privileges.

As it is today, without Element 1

Novice, Tech Plus, Advanced: Old license classes that will disappear
with attrition.

Which has been going on for the past 5-1/2 years.

No free or automatic upgrades.

Specifically denied by FCC. Nobody loses privileges and nobody gains
privileges.

No HF for Technicians who haven't passed
a code test.

That's what Hans is trying to fix.

Unfortunately FCC doesn't seem to see that as a problem.
__________________________________________________ _______________________


I don't see it as a problem either. Afterall it will only require that they
take the General written test to get on HF. The General test is no harder
than the Tech. It just covers some different material as well as repeating
some material from the Tech. The new material is no harder just different.

The result of the FCC's approach is that everyone on HF will have taken two
or more tests of some kind whether they be written or written and code.
This is not unreasonable.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE