RadioBanter - View Single Post - How many licenses should there be, why and what privileges?

December 31st 05, 08:37 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:

(SNIP)

FCC also
left 13wpm and 20wpm as requirements for many years
with the lack of change/elimination of said 13/20 wpm
elements supposedly waiting for a "consensus" in the
amateur ranks.

Perhaps. Yet anyone who could come up with a doctor's
note could get a medical waiver. Such notes were never
hard to get.

But in the overall perspective waivers were used only by
a relatively small percentage of new hams.

I've heard figures as high as 10%.

Perhaps, but that can't be verified easily.

The FCC database does indicate if someone used a medical waiver.
You have to know the codes but they're pretty easy to figure out.

Secret codes like on the DD-214?

Ancient history now anyway, since medical waivers haven't existed
for almost six years now.

Not ancient.

In the few VE
sessions I assisted in I don't recall ever seeing one being
used. Was the waiver process abused by some?
Probably, but it wasn't a wide practice at all.

Who can say what constitutes "abuse" if the person got
a doctor's note?

Exactly. In the end, it was the doctor's, if anyone, that
would have to be assessed as signing off on a waiver
that shouldn't have been issued.

In spite of the lack of any consensus on
code the FCC did, in fact, end 13/20wpm test elements
in April 2000 based on arguments and the FCC's own
conclusions at that time.

Yep. FCC also reduced the written tests at the same time
and closed off three license classes to new issues.

I presume you mean the FCC reduced the number
of written tests as opposed to the overall
difficulty of the test material since the syllabus for
the now three remaining test elements did not change.

What FCC did was to reduce both the number of tests and
the total number of questions for each class of license.

Neither of which makes testing easier as long as
the total syllabus of questions remains the same.

I disagree!

Of course. You are one of the most disagreeing amateurs on RRAP.

If a student is given a list of 100 spelling words
to learn, it is neither easier or harder for the student
to pass if the spelling test has 20 words or 10 words.
In the end, the student still has to learn all the
words on the list.

No, the student simply has to learn enough words to get
a passing grade.

And the number of tests was reduced as well, so the chances
of squeaking by improved!

Nope. Wrong. False. The questions are random within each group.
Study of only 70% of eack does not guarantee a passing single exam, let
alone fewer exams.

(SNIP)

End result is less admin work for FCC. No more medical
waivers, only three written elements instead of five, and
eventual elimination of some rules.

That eventual elimination, unless
changes are made by the FCC, could
well be upwards of 50+ years assuming there are
some Advanced hams who are in their 20s.

Only true if those hams continue to renew and never
ever upgrade.

Do you see any mass effort to upgrade by currently
licensed Novice or Advanced license holders?

Nope. Novice total is down to about half what it was before
restructuring,
Advanced is down to about three-quarters. Part of that is clearly
attrition, and some is due to upgrading.

Some may be staying in that "rank" because of the reasons given by your
genious freind, Bruce/WA8ULX. But then he went and upgraded, busting
his own rant.

In fact,
there seems to be more than a handful of Advanced
that say they'll never upgrade so they can be ID'd
as having passed 13wpm morse.

Which simply proves their ignorance!

Bruce has many, many other ways to prove his ignorance.

The simple possession of an Advanced is not
proof of 13 wpm code testing, because:

- For a decade or so, an Advanced could be had
with 5 wpm code and a medical waiver

- For a limited time after the 2000 restructuring,
an Advanced could be had by getting a 5 wpm General
and a CSCE for the Advanced written.

That would be an -unexpired- CSCE for Advanced. My CSCE for G/A/E
expired a long time before that.

One of my VE's walked out when, after having passed both exams, I said
that I had no intention of taking a code exam. He didn't want his name
on any of my docs.

Bottom line, every statement or opinion offered by the FCC
in any NPRM and/or R&O is not cast in stone and can
end up being revisited and changed at a later review.

Agreed - but at the same time, getting them to do so
is an uphill battle. Particularly when such an change will
result in more work for FCC.

On the issue of a learners license I see no additional
work for FCC if there are only one or two other
licenses as some (e.g. Hans) have proposed.

The big admin issue with new license classes is that the
database has to be re-done.

In today's environment that shouldn't be a big deal at all.

I know, but FCC sure seems to make a big deal about it.

But don't they have a "code" for waiver hams?

For example, why in the world did FCC decide to renew
Tech Pluses as Techs?

Lack of leadership?

Why doesn't FCC renew licenses when a modification
(address/name change, upgrade, etc.) is done? (see
below for possible reason).

Lack of leadership?

The entire database could probably be imported into an
Excel file and given to some college computer science
majors and modified in a day or so. This stuff just isn't rocket
science anymore.

"Rocket Surgery" Thanks, Frank.

The problem is that since the database is official Government
information, it can't just be handed out that way. And with
over 700,000 entries in the amateur radio database alone,
(including grace period licenses), checking for mistakes
could be a major headache.

I'm thinking about 3 million for a "served in other ways" contractor to
take on the task of upgrading a 700K record database.

The main point in trying to understand the FCC mindset is
to help craft proposals that have a better-than-snowball's-chance
of actually being implemented.

To hell with that. Why not tell the FCC what WE want rather than what
we think they might want to hear?

How much time have you spent in government or academia?

There was a time when FCC would renew a license with
a modification. This helped me out back in the 1970s when
I moved a few times (school, job, etc.). Each move got me
a new 5 year term on the license.

OK

The FCC went to 10 year license terms back in 1983-84 to
reduce paperwork.

And that is inconsistant with what they are doing today, right?

But then FCC changed the rules so that renewal can only
be done if the license is within 90 days of expiring, or if
a vanity call is issued.

The vanity call thing is to avoid pro-rating the fee, IIRC.

But why not renew a ham's license whenever the amateur
moves? Doing so would reduce the number of interactions
each ham would have with FCC unless they didn't change
anything for 10 years.

OK.

One possible reason is enforcement. An enforcement tool
that FCC has used recently is to not routinely renew the license of
an amateur who is at odds with the Commission. (K1MAN?)
The license renewal is "under review" for as long as FCC deems
suitable. Obviously it helps not to be handing out renewals all
the time for that tool to be effective.

Another reason may be to keep the database more accurate.

73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY

HNY