Michael Coslo wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109706299.033324.211320
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
I see. Well, I guess the're not journalists.
I don't understand. Chronological order seems a good way to
post articles.
I agree!
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
something snipped there, I bet!
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.
FCC didn't need consensusone in 2000.
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.
Sure it would! How many hams run electron-tube linear amplifiers today?
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.
Or maybe they simply followed majority opinion.
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)
bwaahaahaa
All kidding aside, I have *never* seen Alun write anything that could
possibly be interpreted to mean that all sides should not have their
say.
There's another frequent poster here who has told others to
"shut the hell up", but he bears no similarity to Alun except
for being against the code test.
It's just an unnecessary complication. Three classes are easier to
enforce
than six.
Exactly what would be so difficult about it?
It would be nice if there were no closed-off license classes - but not
at the cost of free upgrades. FCC isn't complaining about the admin
cost of Novices and Advanceds, either.
Look at it this way:
An Advanced is same as Extra except for small parts of 4 HF bands,
vanity call choices and some VE privs.
A Novice is a beginner license with certain limited privileges
A Tech Plus or "Tech-with-HF" is a license with the privs of a Tech and
a Novice.
73 de Jim, N2EY