Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109706299.033324.211320
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
snip
Your bias is showing, Alun.
Sure. I don't think the League is a very progressive organisation.
What would make the league progressive Alun?
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.
I don't understand. Chronological order seems a good way to post articles.
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.
Here is a question:
If a country were to require higher standards for their version of the
ARS, are they hazing their applicants? If country A requ
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
Hehe, that could be a long long time.
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
I respectfully disagree. That is a huge difference. If we were tested
for our knowledge of Electron tube circuitry, it would not be serving a
useful purpose.
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
Despite the hand wringing, Element 1 is just another part of the test.
A good case can be made that its inclusion or exclusion makes no
particular difference pro or con to the ARS. So they probably didn't
feel the need to mess with 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?
I doubt that. Maybe the No coders can try to throttle the petition
process so that messy things like the law, due process and free speech
can be eliminated for expediency?
(major tongue in cheek mode here, I know you would never seriously
suggest that people should be able to speak their mind)
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. It's better to
make a clean break and get everybody in the same system.
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.
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.
Exactly what would be so difficult about it?
- Mike KB3EIA -