[CW] Licensing Proposal

[John Rippey]

I would like to see someone opposed to the ARRL BOD's new licensing plan 
provide a rational argument for the status quo, and here is an opportunity 
to do so.

I submitted a petition to the FCC in mid-2001 which became RM-10354. It 
advanced, with reasoned arguments, why the present entry-level licenses (at 
that time the Novice or Tech Plus) failed to provide new hams with a 
meaningful experience on the HF bands, particularly with regard to CW.

I did not address the code/no code issue in my submittal.

Since the principal thrust of my idea was to allow for more participation 
by newbies on HF CW, one would have thought that the FISTS-types would have 
taken an interest in it. Instead, FISTS remained silent, and virtually all 
commenters who were hams rained down criticism on the proposal, and in some 
cases on me personally for being a "slacker," etc.

It was clear from the comments that they were of the shoot-from-the-hip 
type, and that most if not all had neither read my proposal nor were they 
about to take the time to address the logic of my arguments in a reasoned 
response. (Some regular participants on this reflector were among the 
negative commenters.)

A typical response was: "An upgrade to the next level of license (easy to 
do nowadays) is the answer, rather than those who don't wish to put any 
effort into furthering their license."
This was the response even though I addressed that very argument in my 
submittal--clear evidence that the commenter had not bothered to read my 
proposal.

So if there is anyone out there who would: (a) take the time to carefully 
read RM-10354 and (b) provide on this reflector reasoned arguments against 
it, I would be much obliged. (The proposal is easily accessed via the FCC's 
web site.)

I am asking this because, coincidentally, a considerable part of the new 
ARRL proposal reflects what I was saying in RM-10354 lo those many years ago.

73,
John, W3ULS