Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!ptb@mitre-bedford.ARPA
From: ptb@mitre-bedford.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: crrl bulletin nr 30 (EVERYONE SHOULD READ)
Message-ID: <45@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 12:05:03 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.45
Posted: Mon Nov 25 12:05:03 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Nov-85 07:50:40 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 19

I am concerned about this, especially if the FCC decides to go this
way.  I can understand the first license ("A" I beleive) needing to go
with commercial gear (Their license does not seem to cover enough
technical info to safely allow them to do that.)  However, I think
that the solution should be to PUT THAT INTO THE LICENSE EXAM, so that
the technical state of the art would continue to be expanded.

Just my opinion, but I think that the things an operator should be
entrusted to do should be partially be on the examination - at least
the basics of making sure that his transmitter will not CAUSE other
people problems by being out of band, having harmonics on it, or
splattering all over blazes.

I disagree with the approach taken by DOC.  If they want a technical
license without Morse Code, fine.  But then there should be technical
privileges too.

				Peter Baldwin, WA1SNH
				(ptb@mitre-bedford)