Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

You're right. I think that all should be issued
Amateur radio licenses at birth. The testing
requirements should be changed to "Utilization
Encounters" that no longer have test questions,
but rather non-competitive non-graded sessions
designed to enhance the self esteem of the
Amateur Radio operator. The different grading
of the tickets would no longer be based on
knowledge, but on how good the licensee feels
about themselves.



Well, responding in an equally sarcastic manner, you're perfectly free to
think that if you wish, Mike. However, I think we should have reasonable
requirements that are neither too simplistic nor too difficult. Those
requirements should address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur Radio
without attempts to use them to unfairly exclude others. In my opinion, the
current written tests address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur
Radio, while the code test does not.

What are those "realistic needs and goals", Dwight?


We've already proven that no test at all is needed to get on HF and run
some fair amount of power. Lot's of CB'ers do it all the time. It
doesn't matter that it is illegal to do, that isn't the point. The point
is that it didn't take any kind of formalized education or testing
process for them to get on the air without doing damage to themselves.

But is that what we want? Some people do want just that. Interestingly
enough, they applaud the likely elimination of the Morse code test, and
will probably agitate for more. (or less depending on how you look at it)

That is why it is so critical for the NCTA's to buckle down and get
things under control.



Dwight, it all depends on what you mean by
unnecessary.



Necessary and reasonable, both words used throughout my comments, are
pretty much self-explanatory. If that doesn't satisfy you, read the
paragraph I wrote above.

Your definition of necessary and reasonable. You should be trumpeting
that from the rafters at every chance. Because some others have a quite
different definition.


This is why it is so critical for the NCTA's to take up their
leadership role NOW. My definition of necessary and reasonable include a
test for Morse code. So all the other PCTA's and myself are immediately
marginalized and irrelevant.



CB'ers are on the air on HF. Many run power, illegal
or not. And no one has taken a test to do that.

This proves that * you don't need any test at all* to
successfully run a station at HF frequencies.



But can one do so safely and in compliance with the rules and regulations?
Of course not. And that is why the actions of that CB'er is illegal. And it
is also why that example is not applicable to ham radio.



And reasonable requirements can be anything from a
difficult test to no test at all. just depends on
who is doing the reasoning.



The FCC is doing the reasoning. We're simply agreeing or disagreeing with
that reasoning.



The ARS can be what we make of it. All is arbitrary,
and we have to start with an idea of how adroit we
want the typical member to be and go from there. From
EE to CB.



In that case, why stop with just excluding "dumbed down" people. There is
just as many reasons to write rules to exclude the poor. 'Those people'
can't buy good radios and the cheap radios owned by 'those people' can cause
problems on the ham frequencies. Clearly, we should write rules to get rid
of anyone who earns less than $50k. When you start down the path of
intentionally excluding others, it has the tendency to go much further then
you ever intended.

Where on earth did you come up with that one, Dwight? I'd never say
such a thing, and I'm a little disappointed you would try to inject that
here.

Note that there is a big difference between expecting that a person has
some level of adroitness and denying them because of some external and
irrelevant factor.

- Mike KB3EIA -