Leo wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005 02:15:19 -0800, wrote:
Leo wrote:
The following bulletin was sent out today by the Radio Amateurs of
Canada HQ:
Great stuff, Leo! Thanks for posting it.
After following the link and reading, I see a couple of interesting
points:
1) The expressed support for reduction of code testing in Canada is
overwhelming. A clear mandate from those who commented.
I found that quite surprising as well - the original RAC survey
(which
formed the basis for the recommendations made to IC) showed that
around 66% of the Amateur community was in favour of retiring Morse
as
a mandatory requirement.
I don't find the results to be a surprise at all, if the RAC survey
showed 66% in favour of no Morse test. 66% is a clear majority. Here in
the USA the majority of commenters have long favoured keeping the Morse
test.
The comments to IC on those recommendations were an amazing 123 to 19
in favour of dropping code - a significant increase.
It's a significant increase, but there are a number of ways to explain
it. For example:
- Comments require more action than replying to a survey
- The majority response to the survey may have caused fewer comments.
(If 66% want something, that's a clear majority, so why comment against
it?)
- Support of one view is increasing while its opposite decreases.
2) The proposal, if I understand it correctly, does not completely
eliminate Morse Code testing. Instead, it offers alternative ways of
getting a license, with or without a code test.
Correct
That's a *major* difference from "just drop the code test".
I suspect that if a similar proposal* were put forth here in the lower
provinces, the support for it would be much greater than the simple
"just drop the code test" ones we've seen.
* meaning a proposal where code testing was kept as an option, which
could be avoided by an additional written test, or a higher grade on
the existing written test. Not just "drop the code test" proposals.
- but I suspect that this was an effort by the RAC to try and
accomodate the wishes of as much of their membership as possible
(which was not too well received, based on the responses...).
I see it as an attempt to build support by forming a coalition rather
than dividing into opposing camps. Similar method to the ARRL proposal,
but a better implementation, IMHO.
Actually, they exceeded the request of IC considerably - the question
was whether to retain Morse, but the RAC took it a step further and
used it as a platform to reform the entire license structure. It is
unlikely that this will be done in the short term - to quote IC:
".....the RAC proposal went substantially beyond the issue of Morse
code, and made recommendations to modify the existing amateur
certificate structure through the introduction of a new certificate
(Intermediate) as well as a general increase in the pass level for
obtaining the existing basic and advanced certificates. While these
recommendations received various levels of support as indicated in
the
comments received, it is not clear whether each element of the
proposal can be entertained without the benefit of a more
comprehensive certificate review, and substantial regulatory
amendments to accommodate an additional amateur certificate."
I see that as simple common sense along the lines of "let's do the big
job and get it done, rather than a little bit here and a little bit
there". RAC took the opportunity to fix a bunch of problems at once.
I suspect that if the question were simply keep Morse/drop Morse, the
results would have been far less decisive. By doing it the way they
did, RAC can present a clear majority opinion to IC.
That's the smart way to do this sort of thing. Come up with a proposal
that garners lots of support in surveys, *then* present it to the
government. Makes their job easy - just do what the majority wants.
3) The comment period was only 60 days long, and only about 150
people
(mostly already-licensed amateurs, I think) commented.
That's true - although the opportunity to comment was not limited to
the Amateur community, few (if any) others showed any interest.
That's to be expected, since (IIRC) Canada already has a nocodetest
amateur license. Almost anyone who is really interested in amateur
radio in a positive way, is not a manufacturer of products for the ham
market, and who is knowledgeable about the regulatory process, probably
already has a license.
IOW, you probably don't see a lot of people saying they really want an
amateur radio license but the code test prevents them. Same as here.
Those people may or may not exist, but if they do exist, they're not
commenting to the FCC or to IC.
60 days is plenty of time for a subject of this level of signifigance
to the public - we get things done efficiently up here! 
Another thing the lower provinces could learn....;-)
But only about 150 comments from 44,000(?) licensees is a pretty small
showing. That, to me, is the biggest surprise.
---
It's interesting to note that the various code test
reduction/elimination proposals here in the USA have had a very
different response.
So I'll ask this question:
If the comments to FCC on the various proposals show that a clear
majority of *individuals who bother to comment* want the code test to
stay, what should FCC do? IOW, should FCC go with the majority or
ignore them?
73 de Jim, N2EY