[Lowfer] New Ham Licensing

Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:43:16 -0600

Good point Bill. We are a very well disciplined group and operate like
gentlemen.

Isn't that what 160-meters used to be like?

Mike>WE0H

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Bill Ashlock
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:27 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Lowfer] New Ham Licensing

I respectfully say 'Yes'. I understand that a lot of you see the code
requirement as a way of screening out the undesirables that would turn the
Ham bands into a uncontrolled CB-like hodgepodge. I see the code test as a
side issue - not one that makes this group of people with wide disciplines
basically get along pretty darn well.  My prediction is that there will be
sufficient policing action from the 'caring' Ham population, which will
always be there in sufficient numbers, to prevent most of the 'negatives'
from happening. Need I point to the success of the Lowfer, Medfer, and Hifer
bands where there is no written test, no code test, no official license, and
yet has extremely stiff power and antenna restrictions?

Bill A

>No.
>
>Mike>WE0H
>

>I suspect this is part of an ARRL strategy to save allocations by
>increasing occupancy and use.  But the ultimate question is, will the
>result be worth saving?
>
>Mark  WA9ETW

_________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________