In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article . net, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:


Did US rules change before Senate ratification?
Hey Jim (N2EY), got your history of the FCC and ham rules
handy?



I'll have to go look that one up for exact dates, but here's a general
scheme
of what happened:

At WARC-79, the allocation table was changed to allow amateurs access to
new
bands at 30, 17 and 12 meters. 30 meters was shared; I'll have to look up
12
and 17. But the changes did not take place instantly, because the
then-current
users of those bands had to be given time to move elsewhere, and the
various
governments had to be given time to amend their rules.

Most of all, however, signatory countries did not *have to* let their hams
use
those bands, nor was there any specific allocation of modes, power levels,
license classes, etc.

Some countries moved quickly; the US less so. I recall ARRL repeatedly
petitioning FCC to open at least some of the bands (12 meters?) because
*years*
had passed and some other countries had full access.

I don't recall that Senate ratification had anyhting to do with it.

With WRC-2003, the situation is somewhat different. Changes to S25.5 do not
affect users of other services directly (nobody has to move). The change to
the
Morse Code test requirement is straightforward and simple:

Before WRC-2003, the treaty itself required code testing for an HF ham
license,
and FCC interpretation backed that up and referenced it as a prime and
later
only reason to keep Element 1.

After WRC-2003, the treaty requires code testing policy to be set by each
signatory country. Each country's code-test policy can be anything that
country
wants it to be. No requirement to change anything, nor to retain anything.

And the simplest thing is........?

Just do nothing & leave it alone!

Yet so far, the US rules are the same as they were on April 16, 2000 -
four-and-a-half years ago almost exactly. Obviously this isn't a high
priority
to FCC.

What's odd is that in the R&O for 98-143, FCC specifically cited the treaty
requirement as the one-and-only reason they kept Element 1. Yet they also
refused the idea of a sunset clause that would eliminate Element 1 if the
treaty requirement vanished.

15 months ago, I thought that Senate ratification would be an issue, but
that's
obviously not the case. I also thought FCC would just dump Element 1
without
the whole NPRM cycle, but that's obviously not the case either. (And I'm
gald
to have been mistaken!)

Back in 2003, ARRL predicted two years (2005) before we'd see rules changes
resulting from WRC-2003. Now ARRL says 2006 - three years.

So far, most of us who entered a date in The Pool have seen the date come
and
go with no action.

So what's going on? Some speculations (in order of wildness):

1) Perhaps FCC is simply doing the NPRM cycle. With over a dozen proposals
out
there, thousands of comments and reply comments, and limited resources, it
simply takes FCC a while to decide what to do.

2) Perhaps FCC has looked at the comments, seen how much widespread support
Element 1 has, and is not about to do anything at all.

3) Perhaps the whole issue is simply not a big deal to the FCC. The
existing
test, complete with all the authorized accomodations, just isn't that hard
for
most people to pass. (Remember that VEs can do all kinds of things in the
line
of accomodation, even replacing the receiving test with a sending test).

I don't think it is a big deal to them. I doubt that ease is an issue
(and it isn't necessarily easy for everyone)

No, it isn't *easy* for everyone. But with all the available accomodations, and
success stories like yours, it's hard to sell Element 1 as a "barrier", either.


4) Perhaps, as Mike suggests, this administration isn't big on paying
attention to treaties. Look at the flip-flop on support for the Kyoto
treaty back in 2001.

It isn't much of a stretch. We must remember that the present
administration is very true to their principles. International treaties
are *not* a popular thing with them. Let 'em know that the change would
be due to a change in the treaty, and wanna make a wager on their reaction?

5) Perhaps FCC is more focused on BPL, Howard Stern and Janet
Jackson than on requirements for a ham license.

Of course. More ideology-based stuff.

(Devil's Advocate mode = ON)

6) Perhaps FCC has bought the claim that the code test reduces growth in
the
ARS, and is keeping it in place for just that reason (!) After all, the
vast
majority of opponents to BPL have been hams and ham organizations. Why do
anything to increase our numbers - particularly on HF?

(Devil's Advocate mode = OFF)

hmmmm, now that is a real stretch....

Yes, it is! But given what I've seen from inside the Beltway, and from FCC, in
the past 25 years or so, anything's possible.

One more item:

If you look at the comments on the various recent petitions, it turns out that
support for retaining Element 1 is very strong. This is particularly true if
you count by individuals commenting rather than the raw number of comments.
IOW, the majority isn't silent.

73 de Jim, N2EY