I don't recall proposing that myself. If you can find me writing such then perhaps I mistyped, you misunderstood, or I simply changed my mind. I don't recall proposing that. I do believe that if General has passed the material needed to get access to all bands, all modes, and at power levels equal to Extra then they have all the theory they need to access the frequencies held back for Extra. That is different than upgrading to Extra, since only Extra is allowed to proctor exams for others to upgrade to General and Extra. If it's still "working" then why is the ARRL trying to fix it? Saying it's always been this way is not an argument. What is the goal of incentive licensing? How does the current license structure achieve that? How is success of incentive licensing defined? We cannot know if it is working if the goals have not been defined in a measurable way. I did not say "the material is identical". I pointed out that the theory of operation from one end of 10 meters is identical to the other end, same for 15, 40, and 80. The questions on Winlink and Pactor did not come until well after those modes came into existence in the 1990s. I have a General study guide from 2007 and I could not find any mention of Pactor or Winlink in it. Perhaps I missed them but I couldn't find it. Saying that the questions were not in the Technician question pool is not an argument, many licensed Amateurs today were not tested on it. If that's the argument then we'd have to remove privileges to these bands from half the people licensed now. The theory on phone modes for HF is the same as that for above 30 MHz. The questions in the pool changes some year to year but the theory is based on physics, which doesn't change. If Technicians are unprepared to operate on the HF privileges already granted then that's been a failure in the question pool for a very long time. So... Technicians are the kind of people that eat Tide pods? Insults are not an argument. I'm fine with my Extra. If there is a test the FCC wants me to take to stay where I am then I'll take the test. I don't see what I propose as any kind of "free stuff", I see it as correcting an error in the privileges granted. If we are to restore the concept of "incentive licensing" then we need a new incentive. I don't believe that this ARRL proposal is creating any kind of incentive, but it is on the right path to correcting errors in the privileges granted. I'd like to see them take it to it's logical conclusion.