[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Sorry for the SPAM but..



<<SOAPBOX ON>>

  Oh please, we heard this same argument over adopting a no-code 
license when it was first brought up a loooong time ago. If we would 
just create this no-code license, our VHF and UHF bands would be 
flooded with tons of "technical" people who were just itching to get 
into ham radio. We were also told that the test would be more 
"technical" and require more knowledge of advanced 
communications and techniques. Of course what we got was "how 
well do you memorize" tests. I am wondering where all those 
engineers are that were going to revolutionize the upper bands?

<<SOAPBOX OFF>>

  The HF bands are very well populated but that does not sway a 
commercial company from LYING (yes, I'll call a spade a spade) 
about its use for their interest. Just look at when UPS decided it 
wanted a significant portion of the 220 Mhz band. It sure got it even 
though it filed late comments WELL after the deadline to the FCC 
in its NPRM. The point being, it will not matter to the general public 
about ham radio when it comes to them or us. Whoever has the 
money and influence will decide what happens to the ARS. I don't 
think that many Americans base their votes on ARS issues 
anyway. I am all for a no-code license on HF (or any other 
frequency band) if the test is stringent enough to demonstrate 
knowledge of the material and we stop publishing the Q&A's. 
Maybe going back to a syllabus like we used to have would solve 
the problem (very highly unlikely).

<<FLAME SUIT ACTIVATED>>  :)

-- Patrick Riggins KA4ZNU


----
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home