In (N2EY) writes:

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY) writes:

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY)
writes:


In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY)
writes:


In article om, "Dee
D.
Flint" writes:

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means
that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has
never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea
for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if
they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the
issue
came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech
Pluses
to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had
no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their
database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact
thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take
at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O
for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer.

Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea?

It may be a realistic, and pragmatic, idea when considered against the
pros and cons:

Cons:

Provides a "free upgrade" to those that haven't explicitly tested for
it.

That's one. There are others:

- Allowing a free upgrade

*can be taken as*

proof that the material in the test which is not
taken is not necessary for the privileges.

To quote from the ARRL's FAQ on their proposal:

http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/faq.html

"The fact is that the examination bar has never been at a uniform height
over ham radio's nearly 100-year history."

And I say: "So what? The question is whether there is any good reason to
give almost 60% of existing hams a free upgrade to the next license class,
even though the upgrade to that class requires only a written test from a
published pool.

Were you also opposed to giving pre-1917 hams a waiver for the 20 WPM
code test?

No such waiver ever existed. What *was* waived were the 20 wpm receiving and
sending code tests, plus the Extra written test. The person who got the waiver
had to hold at least a General license, too.

Now you're being pedantic. I was describing a subset of the waiver
given, enough for the purpose of the argument. You described the entire
waiver. Both are correct, and neither contradicts my arguments.

That was long before my time, too. And it affected maybe 2% of the licensed
hams at the time.

So you might accept grandfathering, if it occurred at some asymptotic
point in the past, and only affected a small minority of hams? What
percentage would be a threshold? You say that it is wrong to
grandfather 60% of all hams, but you might be willing to accept
grandfathering of 2% of all hams. What about a proposal that
grandfathers some percentage of hams in-between? What would be your
greater objection, grandfathering all of the Techs, or grandfathering
all of the Advanced?

Remember that at some time in the future, we may be looking on this
grandfathering as occurring at some asymptotic point in the past, as
with the pre-1917 waiver above. You ask below what is the long-term
plan. I say one aspect of the plan is to be able to look back on this
grandfathering in the same way that we look upon the pre-1917 waiver.

- Amateurs who miss the one time upgrade have to take more tests than those
who didn't. How do we justify that?

It's called "grandfathering," which is done in more regulatory contexts
than can possibly be named here. Due to the need for certainty in the
law, it is nearly always based on hard cutoff dates. Technologies,
practices, and people change over the very long timeline that laws and
regulations are required to cover. It is not possible to predict the
future with certainty, so laws and regulations must change to reflect
current knowledge. It is also impractical for society to retest,
recertify, or revalidate every existing entity against current
requirements.

None of which is proposed.

But when considering alternatives, one really has to identify all
implicit alternatives, and argue for or against them (avoiding the
logical pitfall of false dichotomies, trichotomies, etc.). The status
quo, which you have advocated, and might be labeled alternative #4 based
on your exchange with Bill Sohl, is one such implicit alternative. I
would argue against that, for the reasons I have given previously
(streamlining of license classes, streamlining of band plans, reduction
of regulatory burden, reduction in confusion for amateurs and the FCC,
harmonization with the deletion of S25.5 and with other countries'
regulations, etc.).

If license classes are consolidated to a smaller number, one alternative
is simply to grandfather existing hams, which the ARRL has advocated.
One other implicit alternative (say, #5), is to make every Novice,
Advanced (and possibly non-Plus, or would that be non-Plussed, Tech)
come back in to take written tests to upgrade to the next level, or
otherwise lose privileges. I would argue against that also, for the
reasons I have also given previously (it is impractical to retest
everyone, and such existing hams are a large, stable user base such as
that in the definition of grandfathering below).


The web site for Malvern Instrumentation gives a good definition of
grandfathering in a technical context:

"Grandfathering is the practice of claiming exemption of older systems
from validation regulations and requirements on the basis that these
systems have proved their reliability by adoption for a long period of
time by a large user base."

Grandfathering in the context of ham radio recognizes that existing hams
have not only passed the tests in effect at the time, sometimes topics
not covered presently (Morse code, drawing circuit diagrams, etc.), but
have also gained experience beyond their initial exam topics. It is a
fair, and pragmatic, distinction between existing hams and entry-level
ones. Quoting again from the FAQ document:

"Passing any amateur examination does not magically result in a good
operator. It's just the key to the kingdom, so to speak. Experience and
good mentoring create skillful and knowledgeable operators, not the
relative difficulty or ease of the test."

I disagree with that assessment. YMMV.

You might argue that not every existing ham has obtained the same degree
of experience, or even a minimum necessary level of experience to be
given a free upgrade. That would be true, but ultimately would be
self-limiting, as experience would correlate with participation. An
inactive ham using no privileges today would be using no more privileges
if the FCC gave him a free upgrade tomorrow. Free upgrades are not a
perfect solution, ideal in all cases, but are a good solution overall.

I disagree. What's wrong with simply allowing Techs, Tech Pluses and Advanceds
to upgrade in their own time?

What is the sudden need to eliminate those license classes? The Novice and
Advanced have been closed off to new issues for almost 4 years, and their
numbers have declined. And from 1953 to 1967, no new Advanceds were issued. Did
any of that cause problems?

What's the rush?

Are the written tests too hard?

- Decreased reason for more than half of all hams to upgrade by testing.

No proposal is perfect. Weigh this one against the pros.

I have. The cons win.

Pros:

Avoids having to wait until the last Advanced class license expires to
refarm the Advanced phone bands.

Why does that have to be done at all?

So, are you advocating not refarming the Advanced phone bands even
*after* the last Advanced class license expires? Yeah, that's a
semantic nit-pick over what you wrote above, but then so is "You mean
the BoD. I'm the ARRL too, remember?" that you wrote below.

You're avoiding the question.

Why do the Advanced class subbands have to be "refarmed" at all? Who or what
would they be "refarmed" to? What's the longterm plan?

If you do agree that the Advanced phone bands should be refarmed at some
point in the future, at what point would you have it done? Would you
leave it to Extras, give it to Generals, or would you otherwise split it
up in some way?

Why does it need to be done at all? Is the Extra written that hard?

So you would argue that any refarming would be done at some asymptotic
point in the far future, indistinguishable at present between "decades"
and "never."


Alternatively, avoids opening up the
Advanced class phone bands to General-class hams (an effective downgrade
in privileges for Advanced, and crowding out DX users with more
U.S. hams in those bands) or opening up the Extra class phone bands to
Advanced-class hams (which would be a "free upgrade" in all but name).

Again, why not just leave those subbands as they are now?

In this day and age, regulatory agencies seem more eager to simplify
regulations. Removing regulations that are obsolete, or cover too small
an intended audience to be justified on a cost basis, is likely a top
priority for such agencies. Again, what is your timeline for change?
Decades in the future, or never?

I don't see any reason to "refarm" them at all. Not at this time, anyway.

Note that in 4 years, the number of Advanceds has dropped by only about 16%.
Seems to be a pretty popular license even today.

It sounds to me like you want all Advanceds to become Extras so that the
Advanced subbands can become General bandspace. That's not part of the ARRL
proposal, though.

No, I never said that. I would combine Advanced and Extra phone bands
into just Extra phone bands, and leave the General bands as they are.
That doesn't mean that I wouldn't support frequency shifting, such as
that proposed to make 40 meters a primary amateur allocation, or part of
Novice band refarming. Just that I would keep the proportional amounts
roughly the same. I realize that the current ARRL proposal splits up
the Advanced phone bands, giving proportionally more to the General than
the Extra phone bands on 80 and 40 meters, and proportionally less on 15
meters (no changes on 20 meters). I do not strongly support that, but
even that proposal isn't giving the entire Advanced phone bandwidth to
the Generals.

Also avoids having to accommodate a license class (Tech Plus) that isn't
even carried in the FCC database anymore, which is a records/
enforcement problem for the FCC, and requires the licensee to keep
documentation forever.

If the current rules are left alone, all Tech Pluses will be Techs in six
years, two months and 20 days or so.

If by saying, "If the current rules are left alone..." you really meant
leaving alone everything *except* the 5 WPM Morse code requirement
(which would be eliminated for these General and below under the ARRL
proposal), then, and only then, Technician-class hams will assume the
HF privileges of Technician-Plus.

Whatever. I don't see why the 5 wpm code test is such a big deal as a
requirement.

Does your "Whatever" answer above mean that you support 5 WPM Morse code
for all HF license classes, or just for Extra? If the former, then
there is a very real distinction that will continue to exist in the
license ladder whether or not it continues to be recorded in the
database. If so, then the expiring of Tech-Plus license in 6 years is
not a simplification, it is a complication.

That's still a long time in FCC
enforcement (and VEC administration) years.

Why? It's been almost 4 years since the last restructuring took effect. Look at
the enforcement letters - Techs without code masquerading as Tech Pluses isn't
a
big problem, from what I see.

You argue that it's not an enforcement problem because few or none have
been caught. I would argue that it is an enforcement problem because it
would be very hard to catch someone, especially if confirming who has
what privileges requires documentation that is no longer in the FCC
database, and might no longer be retained by hams or VEC's. The FCC's
limited staff time is probably being aimed at big fish, such as Advanced
and Extra-class scofflaws engaging in power and interference violations.

Even if you argue that FCC
action on further restructuring will take most of that six years anyway,
there are still all those Novice and Advanced class licenses that will
likely exist in the database for decades to come.

It makes sense to grandfather existing Novices to the "NewNovice" (or whatever
it is called). There are only about 32,000 Novices left now, down from just
under 50,000 after restructuring.

What *is* the problem with Advanceds just staying as they are? Have you not
read from the Advanceds who say they *don't want* to become Extras?

Which is as much of an argument as "Have you not read from the hams who
say that they *don't want* to have ham radio examinations without Morse
code?"


Why not just give all the existing Techs, Tech Pluses and Novices the
"NewNovice" privs, in addition to their existing privileges? The database
doesn't need to change at all.

Did you notice that Novices actually lose privileges? See the FAQ
document above for more details. In particular, power limits are
lowered from 200 Watts PEP to 100 Watts PEP on HF bands except for 10
meters, and 50 Watts PEP on 10 meters.

Is that really much of a problem? How many Novices are on the air today running
more than those power levels?

From the FAQ:

"The reason behind the change in Novice power limits is to avoid having
to examine entry-level applicants about how to evaluate amateur stations
for RF safety. "

I'm sure that you would argue that Technicians should retain their power
limits (1500 Watts PEP) on 6 meters and up, and I would agree, but what
about HF? Should Technicians lose privileges on those bands, by having
their power limits lowered (from 200 Watts PEP), or should there be
separate power limits for Novice and Technician on HF? This is starting
to get more complicated than before.

Not at all! Where an existing ham has greater privs, those privs would be
retained. This has been done with Tech Pluses for almost 4 years now. FCC
proposed it and enacted it, btw. Why can't it be done for existing Novices and
Techs?

So, again, as part of your status-quo alternative, you want to keep in
place the regulations and bandplans for six classes of license, only
five of which will be tracked in the FCC database six years from now.

The 1998 proposal from ARRL Hq was for Tech Pluses and Novices to get a freebie
to General - and FCC said no. What has changed that suddenly makes free
upgrades a good idea?

The ARRL argues that this is now the second round of restructuring. The
FCC prefers to revisit things every few years, and do things in
manageable chunks. What is driving this second round is the lifting of
the S25.5 requirement, the eventual need (in the ARRL's opinion, and
mine) to address the shrinking pools of Novice and Advanced class
licenses, as well as the fact that there will be no distinction in the
FCC database between two classes of licenses with different privileges
(Tech and Tech Plus) in the very near future.

Rather, it is just one of
the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better
consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like
Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's
band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's
desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official,
but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer,
is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading.

I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or
bad
idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial
release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000?

More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such
a
burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element
3, in order to get the next higher grade of license?

I think the ARRL may be politically shrewder than some would give them
credit.

You mean the BoD. I'm the ARRL too, remember?

Yes, I meant the governance of the ARRL when I used the shorthand "ARRL"
in the context of offering an opinion on a BoD decision. Only they can
establish ARRL official policy and petition the FCC in the name of the
ARRL. Who else did you think I meant?

Those folks are elected and paid for by members like *me*. They supposedly
make those proposals in *my* name and with *my* support.

Well, I don't support everything in that proposal.

Welcome to the realities of representative democracy. Both of us pay
dues to the ARRL and elect Directors. They make proposals in both of
our names. I don't support everything in that proposal either, but it
is an ARRL proposal. You and I are perfectly free to submit comments to
the FCC as "ARRL Members," but the ARRL Board of Directors will submit
comments to the FCC as "*The* ARRL."


How much of the ARRL proposal in 1998 got enacted?

You will need more than a rhetorical question to make an argument here.
Instead, why don't you just come right out and say, for the benefit of
the audience, which items in the ARRL proposal got enacted, and which
ones didn't? And, of those that didn't get enacted, which ones you
think have already been given a final "no" answer?

All right.

Fact is, almost nothing proposed by ARRL Hq in 1998 got enacted. 5 wpm for
General, that's about it. On everything else, FCC either:

- said no: free upgrades, better written tests, Techs on HF CW without a formal
test

- went far beyond what was requested: 5 wpm Extra, Advanced closed off, written
testing reduced dramatically

They can turn to the reformers and say, "See, we're giving you
a both a Novice and General HF-class license that doesn't require Morse
Code." To the old-school (and long-time, dues-paying) members they can
at least imply, "We recognize that the Morse Code tests you took in the
past are valuable, so we are going to reward you with a higher class of
license. Then you will always know that you are better than anyone who
gets a General or Extra class license under the reduced standards in the
future."

Avoids the subject of why free upgrades are needed.

But does address the subject of why they may be politically desirable,
not only by leading to simplified FCC regulations, but also resulting
in a more harmonious and productive amateur radio in the future by
addressing most of the concerns of most factions.

I don't see that at all. Are the written tests so difficult, and the VE test
process so onerous, that free upgrades are the only answer?

I say they're not.

So you've said. I'm sure that you will also say this to your
representatives within the ARRL and comment on any future FCC NPRM on
the subject.

Already have. In detail. More to come, too.

I will, too. For the record, I'm not in complete
agreement with the ARRL proposal, either. I don't see the regulatory
justification for the retention of 5 WPM Morse code for Extra,

I do. Morse code is a big part of amateur radio, and having no code test at all
simply denies the reality of that.

I'm sure that you will argue in more detail than "Morse code is a big
part of ham radio, and having no code test simply denies the reality of
that." You may also have to find new arguments beyond those that the
FCC rejected in Docket WT 98-143, including yours.

and I
remain skeptical that a Novice license (even a restructured one) is
viable today.

What we have now is a system that tends to funnel newcomers into VHF/UHF
amateur radio, and manufactured equipment. And away from HF and homebrewing. A
restructured Novice could change that.

Part of arguing for a new Novice license would involve identifying what
has not worked with the present Novice license, and what changes would
somehow "open the floodgates" with the proposed future one. You argue
that most entry-level hams are being funneled to VHF/UHF. I might also
argue that there are not very many entry-level hams at all, especially
younger people, regardless of where they are being funneled. The
youngest members in most clubs locally are well into their mid-30's.
The presence of teenagers has all but evaporated.

What types of realistic homebrewing are you advocating for "NewNovice"
hams beyond 3-transistor OOK transmitters and single-conversion
receivers? Please be specific. What aspects of current communications
technology, something that would be used and would not be a trophy or
shop-project to be put on a shelf, can be realistically homebrewed via
commercially-available (and presently-manufactured) parts by high-school
age hams?

When you argue for "NewNovice" privileges, are you supporting it with 5
WPM code, or without? What if almost no one wants to sign up for 5 WPM
code as an entry-level requirement?

73 de Jim, N2EY

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key