Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109760226.362991.253290
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
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:
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.
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.
Making a requirement optional is indistinguishable from abolishing
it. It's
just a different form of words used to keep some countries happy.
You wrote:
"the announcement that the code test was abolished by the ITU."
The *treaty requirement* was abolished, not the test itself. Very
different things.
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.
Maybe a google search would find the answer to that
My point is simply that something said by FCC years and years ago may
or may not still be their thinking today.
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.
i.e. no regulatory purpose means no purpose useful to them as
regulators -
no contradiction there
Not useful to them doesn't mean not useful at all.
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?
I can't recall, but you know they did. You've admitted it.
Not the point - of course they said it. My point is simply that
something said by FCC years and years ago may or may not still be their
thinking today.
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.
I think they have beleived that since the '70s, but have hung onto
the code
test under pressure from some hams, including the League. The
question is
not whether their minds have changed (I beleive they haven't) but
whether
they beleive they can get rid of the pesky code test without
upsetting too
many hams. At this point in time I think they can, but it depends on
one's
definition of 'too many'.
What if their minds *have* changed? Perhaps they have looked at the
arguments
provided by pro-code-test folks, and at the results of the
reduction/elimination
of code testing in the USA and other countries, and have concluded that
Element 1 is no big deal. Maybe they've even concluded that it *does*
serve a useful,
regulatory purpose!
Of course, prior to 2003 they couldn't do it, but they had long since
abolished the sending test anyway, even though that was required by
the
ITU. Talk to Phil Kane and see what he thinks of that from a purely
legal
perspective. You can't construe a statute in such a way as to ignore
it's
plain language by arguing that meeting one of the requirements
indicates
that you _could_meet_ (NB: not _have_met_) the other requirement. I
am
talking about _sending_ and receiving Morse code by _hand_ and by
ear. Of
course, it was a treaty, not a statute, but that should make no
difference.
One alleged violation of the treaty (no sending test) does not justify
another.
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.
Look at it from the other way around. It's not right to have a closed
Advanced licence with some of the theory and some of the privileges
of an
Extra and not admit new people to it.
Sure it is. In fact, there's a precedent for it. From Jan 1 1953 to
November 22 1967, you could not get a new Advanced but existing ones
could be renewed and modified.
That's not fair to the new Generals.
Sure it is. They get the current tests, not the old ones.
IF OTOH, you counter that by saying that there's little difference in
the
theory level, then why not grandfather the Advanceds to Extra?
Because there *is* a difference.
If everything were done your way you could only create licence
classes and
never abolish them.
Nope.
Eventually you would have Heinz 57 varieties of
licence, but only two or three that you could actually apply for, a
system
that only a civil servant could love. The only way to avoid that
would be
to change nothing, ever, which may be your hidden agenda.
Not at all.
The closed-off license classes are slowly but surely disappearing. As
hams holding those licenses upgrade or drop out, the numbers will
decline and eventually reach zero. At that point, the license class can
simply be written out of the rules.
FCC kept Advanced as a separate license class not available to new
issues from 1953 to 1967. During most of that time the "database" was
not computerized. Advanceds made up about 40,000 of the then-250,000 US
hams. Today with a computerized database it's a lot simpler.
I think keeping old license classes is better than free upgrades.
Apparently so does FCC.
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
I think they turned them down for lack of consensus on our part. If
we
agree, then they'll do it.
Perhaps. But we don't agree!
The fact is that comments to FCC show no consensus on a number of
issues. In fact, if you look at the number of *individuals* who comment
pro-or-con on code testing, you find majority support *for* the test.
Now since everyone is free to comment on FCC proposals, why shouldn't
the majority opinion decide?
73 de Jim, N2EY