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 =----

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.

"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

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 =----

"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