Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109706299.033324.211320
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in
nk.net:

wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18
existing proposals. Expected to become public about the middle
of
2005. With the usual comment period, etc., Report and Order by
maybe late 2006/early 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I
refuse to visit their site anymore. TNX 73

KB7ADL


I don't have the full details of the ARRL petition to hand, but
basically it brings back the Novice licence (without the code),
makes
Techs into Generals and Advanceds into Extras, and dumps ths code
test
except for Extras, who would still have to pass it.

Basically a compromise that gives everybody something they want but
doesn't give anybody everything.

Two comments on the Antique Radio Relay League's news item.

Your bias is showing, Alun.


Sure. I don't think the League is a very progressive organisation.

At least you admit your bias. Can't argue with that!

Firstly, it's
very telling that they buried it down the page, just as they did
with
the announcement that the code test was abolished by the ITU.

They post the stories in chronological order. If it's not at the
top,
that's because a newer story has displaced it. They did not "bury"
anything.


I see. Well, I guess the're not journalists.

The webpage isn't a newspaper. By listing the stories in chrono order,
you always have the newest stuff on top.

And the code test was not abolished by ITU. All that changed was
that
the treaty no longer requires such a test. Signatory countries are
now
no longer *required by treaty* to have a code test, that's all.

Same thing.

No, completely different things. The change does not require member
countries to drop the code test.



Secondly, it does say at the end that "it's possible the
Commission
could wrap up the proceeding before that time frame", so IOW the
2006/7 is just the League's guesswork.

Of course - and they make that clear in the article.

Back in summer 2003, ARRL said at least two years. Which seemed
incredibly long at the time, but is now turning out to be short, if
anything.

IMHO, the FCC will not adopt the League's proposal as such.

Probably not. Nor will they adopt anyone's proposal as presented,
IMHO.

The FCC say
that they are looking for a consensus amongst us, and they are
also on
record as saying that the code test useful doesn't serve any
useful
purpose.

When did they say those things?

They said that they wouldn't restructure until a consensus emerged

*When* did FCC say that? They restructured in 2000 without a consensus.


btw, the FCC's words were "serves no *REGULATORY* purpose"
(emphasis
added) not "useful purpose". BIG difference!


Thanks for correcting the wording, but it really isn't much of a
difference

Yes, it is. Since FCC's role is regulatory, their interest is in what
should be regulated, not what's good and bad.

And if FCC still thinks the code test serves no regulatory purpose,
why
didn't they just dump Element 1 in late summer 2003, as proposed by
at
least two groups?

I don't know, but you admit they said it serves no regulatory purpose

When did FCC say it?

All it would take is a Memorandum Report and Order.
In fact, as a temporary measure pending rewriting the rules, they
could
have simply ordered that anyone who passed Element 2, 3 or 4 gets
Element 1 credit.

But they didn't.

Maybe they didn't feel that they could do that when they had 19
petitions
dumped on them?

Maybe. Or maybe their mind has changed on the subject.


There
is no consensus, so I think they will choose from whatever has
been
proposed those things that suit their own organisational
objectives,
i.e. reducing administrative burden. IOW, fewer tests and fewer
licence classes suits the FCC.

Maybe.

But back in 1998, ARRL proposed free upgrades for Novices and Tech
Pluses so that there would be four classes and no closed-out
classes.
Others have proposed similar freebies. FCC has consistently said
no,
and keeps the Tech Plus, Advanced and Novice alive in their rules
and
database. At the current rate of decline, it may be 15 more years
before the last Advanced is gone.

A mistake IMO. I don't think closed classes are a good idea.

Why not?

It's better to
make a clean break and get everybody in the same system.

All US hams are in the same system. IMHO, and FCC's to date, free
upgrades are *not* a good idea.


I predict the code test will not be a continuing feature in the
NPRM,

whatever else is, since eliminating a test reduces administrative
burden and they are already on record as wanting to get rid of it.


Yet they have not done so. If they really think Element 1 should
go,
why wasn't it dumped in 2003?


See above. They will have to consider all the petitions and then
write an
NPRM that either does or doesn't restructure the licence classes.

They don't have to do that to dump Element 1. They can say the issue
was dealt with in the past and there's no new info and since there's no
regulatory purpose served, bye bye Element 1. But they haven't.


Reducing the number of classes also appeals to the FCC, so maybe
they
might even adopt most of the League's proposal but get rid of
element
1 as well? I don't think so, though, as the line of least
resistance
is to keep the current test elements as they are. This means
grandfathering Novice to Tech instead of Tech to General, so that
is
what I predict they will do.

Why? Keeping the closed-out license classes costs them little or
nothing. Tech Plus will disappear in a little more than 5 years, as
the
last Tech Plus is renewed as Tech. The other two closed-out classes
are
slowly dropping, yet may last a lot longer because of renewals.

Maybe I'll write a proposal...

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's just an unnecessary complication. Three classes are easier to
enforce
than six.

Yet FCC *turned down* such proposals in the past. They prefer more
classes to free automatic upgrades. Enforcement is a nonissue; the FCC
folks know where the subbands are. And it's the rare ham who strays,
judging by enforcement actions.

73 de Jim, N2EY