On Jul 27, 2:39?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

- Some hams haven't gotten the word

I still have prospective Hams tell me that they have to brush up on
their Morse code so they can test. Oddly enough a few fellows continued
in that line of even after I told them they didn't need to.

I just don't understand that at all.

For example, I have had more than one Advanced tell me
that s/he won't upgrade to Extra because the Advanced "proves" the
person passed a code test, while the Extra doesn't.

Same here! I suppose that if a person runs with a crowd that sees that
as somehow being better than other people it might be legit. Otherwise
it strikes me as really odd.

Which is a better indicator of Morse Code skill:

1) Once upon a time, maybe decades ago, a person passed a particular
test under certain conditions

or

2) A person demonstrating their *current* skills under real-world
operating conditions?

Seems to me #2 is the better indicator.

Others have told
me that they're sure FCC will eventually give Advanceds a free upgrade
to Extra, so they're just waiting it out.

Even when I point out that FCC has repeatedly turned down auto-upgrade
proposals, they aren't convinced.

I'd tell them the same thing I told those who waited out element one's
demise: "If the wait doesn't bother you, then go ahead and wait." There
were people telling me to wait it out back in 1999 "because Element 1
will be going away any day now!" But I didn't wait, and I wouldn't trade
the extra 7 years I had my General and Extra for anything.

When I got my Extra in 1970, some folks said I was wasting my time and
effort because "incentive licensing won't last - in a few years
Generals will have all privileges again..."

At least one I know feels
insulted that it takes the same testing to go from General to Extra as
it does to go from Advanced to Extra.

Oh my! Does this person want a special test made up just for him?

Actually, yes - or rather, for all Advanceds.

Exactly what dud they see as insulting about having to take the same
test?

He was angry that having passed the old Advanced written did not carry
any testing credit towards Extra.

Perhaps there is someone out there who is determined to be the last


make that "Advanced"

or the last Novice on the books.

Did you mean Advanced instead of Extra?

Yes - sorry!

Sooner or later, the last of those closed-off licenses will disappear.
It may take a very long time, though - the number of Advanceds today
is about 67% of what it was when the license class was closed to new
issues.

While we have discussed lots of reasons for that decline, I know of
another possibility, at least for a delay. I know several Hams who
waited for the Element one to go away after it was eliminated from the
treaty yet not gone from our testing requirements. The long wait made
for an upgrade delay on some peoples part. I thought that the delay was
actually a harmful thing in that respect.

IOW: "if you're going to change the rules, change 'em! Don't take
3-1/2 years to make such a simple change!"

I think the amateur radio organizations that pushed for the changes
bear some responsibility for that delay.

Here's why:

It seems to me that the way we US hams deal with the FCC is completely
backwards.

What happens is that an individual or group puts together a proposal
and sends it to FCC, who then assigns it an RM number and puts it up
there for comments. FCC gets anywhere from a few to a few thousand
comments of all kinds, somebody at FCC has to read them and categorize
them and figure out the best course of action.
Often the comments are all over the map, or solidly against the
proposed change.

What all this does is make a lot of unnecessary work for the FCC.

Two examples:

When the ITU treaty changed, FCC got more than a dozen different
proposals about changing the license structure. One organization,
NCVEC, sent in two proposals! Some of the proposals were essentially
identical to others, such as the NCI proposal and the first NCVEC
proposal.

The result was that FCC had to assign RM numbers and deal with
thousands of comments before taking any action. Which then resulted in
an NPRM, still more comments, and finally action after 3-1/2 *years*.

Or consider the ARRL "regulation by bandwidth" proposal, and the
"Communications Think Tank" proposal to eliminate subbands-by-mode.
Both proposals were opposed by a vast majority of commenters (I
counted something like 7 to 1 against the ARRL proposal and 8 to 1
against the CTT proposal) and both were quietly withdrawn by those who
proposed them - after they had generated a lot of work for FCC.

What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the
legwork up-front. IOW,
I think the way to do a proposal is:
1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community
2) Write a draft proposal
3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what
is proposed and why.
4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc.
5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received
6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and
compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the
opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first*
7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results.

If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be
flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp
approval of the proposal.

But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort.
Also takes compromise.

73 de Jim, N2EY