KØHB wrote:
wrote

But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that
the requirementsare "too high"....

Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me.

It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others.

First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code
waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute-
solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and
look at the writtens:

1) there's the official publication of the written exams.

2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time.

3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements
so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written.

4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover
more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions
from the 1976 exams?

5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over as long
as time and the wallet hold out.

In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and
the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes.

And yet NCVEC says we need another license class because the
current Tech is "too hard".

I have proposed to the FCC that the "standard" full privilege license technical
requirements should be about on a par with the current Extra requirements.

That's good.

And that there should be one other level, a "learners permit" with a generous
term of ten years to study and gain experience to qualfity for a "full
privilege" license.

Except FCC turned you down.

Sorry to spoil your (il)logic.

I didn't say *you* were for lowering the requirements, Hans. But if
you haven't seen anyone saying the license requirements are/were
"too high" in the past 20 years, you haven't been paying attention.

PS: Looking for EPA in ARRL 160 tonight. They were scarce last night.

Sorry, I'm not set up for 160 here. Sold my Viking 2s and Valiant.
(sigh).

73 de Jim, N2EY