KØHB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote

|
| - Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which
is not
| taken is not necessary for the privileges.
|

Here we go again! Damn it Jim, that is patently false and you know that
it is, yet you keep dragging it out as a fact. Allowing a free upgrade
isn't "proof" of anything except that a free-pass was given, sort of
like a day of amnesty when all overdue library books can be returned
without fees. Yes, it's a really bad idea, but it doesn't disprove the
need for proper qualification examinations. Go join Carl Stevenson and
Ed Hare in the NTI sign-up queue. (I'd mention them by call sign, but I
wouldn't want to risk compromising your "standards".)

If the Technicians are given the same privileges as a General, does it
not mean that a Technician is capable of those privileges after taking
the Technician test? If so then why should any further testing besides
Technician level be given for future General class licensees at the old
level. All that is needed is a Technician level test.

Amnesty? OY!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY)
writes:


In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY)
writes:


In article om, "Dee
D.
Flint" writes:

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means
that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC
has
never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that
they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another
idea
for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if
they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the
issue
came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech
Pluses
to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had
no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their
database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact
thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes
(take
at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O
for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer.

Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea?

It may be a realistic, and pragmatic, idea when considered against the
pros and cons:

Cons:

Provides a "free upgrade" to those that haven't explicitly tested for
it.

That's one. There are others:

- Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is
not
taken
is not necessary for the privileges.

Like that hasn't been the case for decades...

- Amateurs who miss the one time upgrade have to take more tests than
those who
didn't. How do we justify that?

You don't need to justify it. Life's a bitch and then you die.

- Decreased reason for more than half of all hams to upgrade by testing.

Pros:

Avoids having to wait until the last Advanced class license expires to
refarm the Advanced phone bands.

Why does that have to be done at all?

To eliminate having a dual set of regulations.

Alternatively, avoids opening up the
Advanced class phone bands to General-class hams (an effective downgrade
in privileges for Advanced, and crowding out DX users with more
U.S. hams in those bands) or opening up the Extra class phone bands to
Advanced-class hams (which would be a "free upgrade" in all but name).

Again, why not just leave those subbands as they are now?

The FCC and government prefer simplicity.

Also avoids having to accommodate a license class (Tech Plus) that isn't
even carried in the FCC database anymore, which is a records/
enforcement problem for the FCC, and requires the licensee to keep
documentation forever.

If the current rules are left alone, all Tech Pluses will be Techs in six
years, two months and 20 days or so.

But all Novices and Advanced won't be gone for decades.

Why not just give all the existing Techs, Tech Pluses and Novices the
"NewNovice" privs, in addition to their existing privileges? The database
doesn't need to change at all.

Rather, it is just one of
the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until
better
consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like
Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's
band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC
official's
desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official,
but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer,
is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading.

I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or
bad
idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial
release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000?

More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really
such a
burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass
Element
3, in order to get the next higher grade of license?

I think the ARRL may be politically shrewder than some would give them
credit.

You mean the BoD. I'm the ARRL too, remember?

How much of the ARRL proposal in 1998 got enacted?

Feel free to let us know.

They can turn to the reformers and say, "See, we're giving you
a both a Novice and General HF-class license that doesn't require Morse
Code." To the old-school (and long-time, dues-paying) members they can
at least imply, "We recognize that the Morse Code tests you took in the
past are valuable, so we are going to reward you with a higher class of
license. Then you will always know that you are better than anyone who
gets a General or Extra class license under the reduced standards in the
future."

Avoids the subject of why free upgrades are needed.

I say they're not.

So argue with the ARRL then.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"KØHB" wrote in message
news

Here we go again! Damn it [expletive deleted], that is patently false and
you know that
it is, yet you keep dragging it out as a fact.


'S called barking up a tree...

Kim W5TIT

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

|
| - Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which
is not
| taken is not necessary for the privileges.
|

Here we go again! Damn it Jim, that is patently false and you know that
it is, yet you keep dragging it out as a fact. Allowing a free upgrade
isn't "proof" of anything except that a free-pass was given, sort of
like a day of amnesty when all overdue library books can be returned
without fees. Yes, it's a really bad idea, but it doesn't disprove the
need for proper qualification examinations. Go join Carl Stevenson and
Ed Hare in the NTI sign-up queue. (I'd mention them by call sign, but I
wouldn't want to risk compromising your "standards".)

3333333, Hans, K0-Heavenly-Body

Jim is going down the same path that both Larry Roll and Bruce Benyon
have admitted to taking. If they can't have an ARS that meets their
lofty ideals, then they want to destroy it.

You read it here first.

bb

If they can't have an ARS that meets their
lofty ideals, then they want to destroy it.

You read it here first.

bb

I have no intention of destroying it, groups like NCI and "CBRRL" are doing a
GREAT JOB without my help.

In (N2EY) writes:

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY) writes:


In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY)
writes:


In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has
never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea
for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the issue
came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech
Pluses
to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their
database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact
thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take
at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O
for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer.

Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea?

It may be a realistic, and pragmatic, idea when considered against the
pros and cons:

Cons:

Provides a "free upgrade" to those that haven't explicitly tested for
it.

That's one. There are others:

- Allowing a free upgrade is proof that the material in the test which is not
taken is not necessary for the privileges.

To quote from the ARRL's FAQ on their proposal:

http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/faq.html

"The fact is that the examination bar has never been at a uniform height
over ham radio's nearly 100-year history."

Were you also opposed to giving pre-1917 hams a waiver for the 20 WPM
code test?

- Amateurs who miss the one time upgrade have to take more tests than those
who didn't. How do we justify that?

It's called "grandfathering," which is done in more regulatory contexts
than can possibly be named here. Due to the need for certainty in the
law, it is nearly always based on hard cutoff dates. Technologies,
practices, and people change over the very long timeline that laws and
regulations are required to cover. It is not possible to predict the
future with certainty, so laws and regulations must change to reflect
current knowledge. It is also impractical for society to retest,
recertify, or revalidate every existing entity against current
requirements.

The web site for Malvern Instrumentation gives a good definition of
grandfathering in a technical context:

"Grandfathering is the practice of claiming exemption of older systems
from validation regulations and requirements on the basis that these
systems have proved their reliability by adoption for a long period of
time by a large user base."

Grandfathering in the context of ham radio recognizes that existing hams
have not only passed the tests in effect at the time, sometimes topics
not covered presently (Morse code, drawing circuit diagrams, etc.), but
have also gained experience beyond their initial exam topics. It is a
fair, and pragmatic, distinction between existing hams and entry-level
ones. Quoting again from the FAQ document:

"Passing any amateur examination does not magically result in a good
operator. It's just the key to the kingdom, so to speak. Experience and
good mentoring create skillful and knowledgeable operators, not the
relative difficulty or ease of the test."

You might argue that not every existing ham has obtained the same degree
of experience, or even a minimum necessary level of experience to be
given a free upgrade. That would be true, but ultimately would be
self-limiting, as experience would correlate with participation. An
inactive ham using no privileges today would be using no more privileges
if the FCC gave him a free upgrade tomorrow. Free upgrades are not a
perfect solution, ideal in all cases, but are a good solution overall.

- Decreased reason for more than half of all hams to upgrade by testing.

No proposal is perfect. Weigh this one against the pros.


Pros:

Avoids having to wait until the last Advanced class license expires to
refarm the Advanced phone bands.

Why does that have to be done at all?

So, are you advocating not refarming the Advanced phone bands even
*after* the last Advanced class license expires? Yeah, that's a
semantic nit-pick over what you wrote above, but then so is "You mean
the BoD. I'm the ARRL too, remember?" that you wrote below.

If you do agree that the Advanced phone bands should be refarmed at some
point in the future, at what point would you have it done? Would you
leave it to Extras, give it to Generals, or would you otherwise split it
up in some way?

Alternatively, avoids opening up the
Advanced class phone bands to General-class hams (an effective downgrade
in privileges for Advanced, and crowding out DX users with more
U.S. hams in those bands) or opening up the Extra class phone bands to
Advanced-class hams (which would be a "free upgrade" in all but name).

Again, why not just leave those subbands as they are now?

In this day and age, regulatory agencies seem more eager to simplify
regulations. Removing regulations that are obsolete, or cover too small
an intended audience to be justified on a cost basis, is likely a top
priority for such agencies. Again, what is your timeline for change?
Decades in the future, or never?

Also avoids having to accommodate a license class (Tech Plus) that isn't
even carried in the FCC database anymore, which is a records/
enforcement problem for the FCC, and requires the licensee to keep
documentation forever.

If the current rules are left alone, all Tech Pluses will be Techs in six
years, two months and 20 days or so.

If by saying, "If the current rules are left alone..." you really meant
leaving alone everything *except* the 5 WPM Morse code requirement
(which would be eliminated for these General and below under the ARRL
proposal), then, and only then, Technician-class hams will assume the
HF privileges of Technician-Plus. That's still a long time in FCC
enforcement (and VEC administration) years. Even if you argue that FCC
action on further restructuring will take most of that six years anyway,
there are still all those Novice and Advanced class licenses that will
likely exist in the database for decades to come.

Why not just give all the existing Techs, Tech Pluses and Novices the
"NewNovice" privs, in addition to their existing privileges? The database
doesn't need to change at all.

Did you notice that Novices actually lose privileges? See the FAQ
document above for more details. In particular, power limits are
lowered from 200 Watts PEP to 100 Watts PEP on HF bands except for 10
meters, and 50 Watts PEP on 10 meters. From the FAQ:

"The reason behind the change in Novice power limits is to avoid having
to examine entry-level applicants about how to evaluate amateur stations
for RF safety. "

I'm sure that you would argue that Technicians should retain their power
limits (1500 Watts PEP) on 6 meters and up, and I would agree, but what
about HF? Should Technicians lose privileges on those bands, by having
their power limits lowered (from 200 Watts PEP), or should there be
separate power limits for Novice and Technician on HF? This is starting
to get more complicated than before.


Rather, it is just one of
the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better
consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like
Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's
band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's
desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official,
but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer,
is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading.

I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or
bad
idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial
release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000?

More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such a
burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element
3, in order to get the next higher grade of license?

I think the ARRL may be politically shrewder than some would give them
credit.

You mean the BoD. I'm the ARRL too, remember?

Yes, I meant the governance of the ARRL when I used the shorthand "ARRL"
in the context of offering an opinion on a BoD decision. Only they can
establish ARRL official policy and petition the FCC in the name of the
ARRL. Who else did you think I meant?

How much of the ARRL proposal in 1998 got enacted?

You will need more than a rhetorical question to make an argument here.
Instead, why don't you just come right out and say, for the benefit of
the audience, which items in the ARRL proposal got enacted, and which
ones didn't? And, of those that didn't get enacted, which ones you
think have already been given a final "no" answer?

They can turn to the reformers and say, "See, we're giving you
a both a Novice and General HF-class license that doesn't require Morse
Code." To the old-school (and long-time, dues-paying) members they can
at least imply, "We recognize that the Morse Code tests you took in the
past are valuable, so we are going to reward you with a higher class of
license. Then you will always know that you are better than anyone who
gets a General or Extra class license under the reduced standards in the
future."

Avoids the subject of why free upgrades are needed.

But does address the subject of why they may be politically desirable,
not only by leading to simplified FCC regulations, but also resulting
in a more harmonious and productive amateur radio in the future by
addressing most of the concerns of most factions.

I say they're not.

So you've said. I'm sure that you will also say this to your
representatives within the ARRL and comment on any future FCC NPRM on
the subject. I will, too. For the record, I'm not in complete
agreement with the ARRL proposal, either. I don't see the regulatory
justification for the retention of 5 WPM Morse code for Extra, and I
remain skeptical that a Novice license (even a restructured one) is
viable today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
news

Here we go again! Damn it [expletive deleted], that is patently false and
you know that
it is, yet you keep dragging it out as a fact.


'S called barking up a tree...

...or trying to nail jelly to it... :-)

LHA / WMD

(WA8ULX) wrote in message ...
If they can't have an ARS that meets their
lofty ideals, then they want to destroy it.

You read it here first.

bb

I have no intention of destroying it, groups like NCI and "CBRRL" are doing a
GREAT JOB without my help.

Bruce, then you've obviously never read anything you've posted here. bb

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY) writes:

In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY)
writes:


In article , Paul W. Schleck
writes:

In (N2EY)
writes:


In article om, "Dee
D.
Flint" writes:

Basically I think the ARRL Board knows that the free upgrades means
that
their proposal probably will not be adopted in this form. The FCC has
never
gone along with free upgrades before and there is no evidence that they
would do so now. However, I believe they tossed it in as another idea
for
the FCC to consider in developing whatever the FCC decides to do, if
they
decide to do anything at all.

That's probably correct, Dee. And that's what bothers me!

As you say, FCC has never done free upgrades, and the last time the
issue
came
up (98-143), the ARRL proposal was for existing Novices (!) and Tech
Pluses
to
get free upgrade to General. Of course, FCC said "no way", and has had
no
problem whatever keeping the closed-to-new-issues classes in their
database.

So why propose something FCC obviously isn't going to do? Just wastes
everybody's time.

More important, it diverts attention from the other issues.

oh wait, I think I just answered my own question...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I brought this subject up with someone in the League. This exact
thread, actually. I was told that the ARRL BoD sincerely believes (take
at face value, or not) that failure to upgrade licensees in the FCC R&O
for WT 98-143 was not a final "no" answer.

Maybe it wasn't. But are such freebies really a good idea?

It may be a realistic, and pragmatic, idea when considered against the
pros and cons:

Cons:

Provides a "free upgrade" to those that haven't explicitly tested for
it.

That's one. There are others:

- Allowing a free upgrade

*can be taken as*

proof that the material in the test which is not
taken is not necessary for the privileges.

To quote from the ARRL's FAQ on their proposal:

http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/faq.html

"The fact is that the examination bar has never been at a uniform height
over ham radio's nearly 100-year history."

And I say: "So what? The question is whether there is any good reason to
give almost 60% of existing hams a free upgrade to the next license class,
even though the upgrade to that class requires only a written test from a
published pool.

Were you also opposed to giving pre-1917 hams a waiver for the 20 WPM
code test?

No such waiver ever existed. What *was* waived were the 20 wpm receiving and
sending code tests, plus the Extra written test. The person who got the waiver
had to hold at least a General license, too.

That was long before my time, too. And it affected maybe 2% of the licensed
hams at the time.

- Amateurs who miss the one time upgrade have to take more tests than those
who didn't. How do we justify that?

It's called "grandfathering," which is done in more regulatory contexts
than can possibly be named here. Due to the need for certainty in the
law, it is nearly always based on hard cutoff dates. Technologies,
practices, and people change over the very long timeline that laws and
regulations are required to cover. It is not possible to predict the
future with certainty, so laws and regulations must change to reflect
current knowledge. It is also impractical for society to retest,
recertify, or revalidate every existing entity against current
requirements.

None of which is proposed.

The web site for Malvern Instrumentation gives a good definition of
grandfathering in a technical context:

"Grandfathering is the practice of claiming exemption of older systems
from validation regulations and requirements on the basis that these
systems have proved their reliability by adoption for a long period of
time by a large user base."

Grandfathering in the context of ham radio recognizes that existing hams
have not only passed the tests in effect at the time, sometimes topics
not covered presently (Morse code, drawing circuit diagrams, etc.), but
have also gained experience beyond their initial exam topics. It is a
fair, and pragmatic, distinction between existing hams and entry-level
ones. Quoting again from the FAQ document:

"Passing any amateur examination does not magically result in a good
operator. It's just the key to the kingdom, so to speak. Experience and
good mentoring create skillful and knowledgeable operators, not the
relative difficulty or ease of the test."

I disagree with that assessment. YMMV.

You might argue that not every existing ham has obtained the same degree
of experience, or even a minimum necessary level of experience to be
given a free upgrade. That would be true, but ultimately would be
self-limiting, as experience would correlate with participation. An
inactive ham using no privileges today would be using no more privileges
if the FCC gave him a free upgrade tomorrow. Free upgrades are not a
perfect solution, ideal in all cases, but are a good solution overall.

I disagree. What's wrong with simply allowing Techs, Tech Pluses and Advanceds
to upgrade in their own time?

What is the sudden need to eliminate those license classes? The Novice and
Advanced have been closed off to new issues for almost 4 years, and their
numbers have declined. And from 1953 to 1967, no new Advanceds were issued. Did
any of that cause problems?

What's the rush?

Are the written tests too hard?

- Decreased reason for more than half of all hams to upgrade by testing.

No proposal is perfect. Weigh this one against the pros.

I have. The cons win.

Pros:

Avoids having to wait until the last Advanced class license expires to
refarm the Advanced phone bands.

Why does that have to be done at all?

So, are you advocating not refarming the Advanced phone bands even
*after* the last Advanced class license expires? Yeah, that's a
semantic nit-pick over what you wrote above, but then so is "You mean
the BoD. I'm the ARRL too, remember?" that you wrote below.

You're avoiding the question.

Why do the Advanced class subbands have to be "refarmed" at all? Who or what
would they be "refarmed" to? What's the longterm plan?

If you do agree that the Advanced phone bands should be refarmed at some
point in the future, at what point would you have it done? Would you
leave it to Extras, give it to Generals, or would you otherwise split it
up in some way?

Why does it need to be done at all? Is the Extra written that hard?

Alternatively, avoids opening up the
Advanced class phone bands to General-class hams (an effective downgrade
in privileges for Advanced, and crowding out DX users with more
U.S. hams in those bands) or opening up the Extra class phone bands to
Advanced-class hams (which would be a "free upgrade" in all but name).

Again, why not just leave those subbands as they are now?

In this day and age, regulatory agencies seem more eager to simplify
regulations. Removing regulations that are obsolete, or cover too small
an intended audience to be justified on a cost basis, is likely a top
priority for such agencies. Again, what is your timeline for change?
Decades in the future, or never?

I don't see any reason to "refarm" them at all. Not at this time, anyway.

Note that in 4 years, the number of Advanceds has dropped by only about 16%.
Seems to be a pretty popular license even today.

It sounds to me like you want all Advanceds to become Extras so that the
Advanced subbands can become General bandspace. That's not part of the ARRL
proposal, though.

Also avoids having to accommodate a license class (Tech Plus) that isn't
even carried in the FCC database anymore, which is a records/
enforcement problem for the FCC, and requires the licensee to keep
documentation forever.

If the current rules are left alone, all Tech Pluses will be Techs in six
years, two months and 20 days or so.

If by saying, "If the current rules are left alone..." you really meant
leaving alone everything *except* the 5 WPM Morse code requirement
(which would be eliminated for these General and below under the ARRL
proposal), then, and only then, Technician-class hams will assume the
HF privileges of Technician-Plus.

Whatever. I don't see why the 5 wpm code test is such a big deal as a
requirement.

That's still a long time in FCC
enforcement (and VEC administration) years.

Why? It's been almost 4 years since the last restructuring took effect. Look at
the enforcement letters - Techs without code masquerading as Tech Pluses isn't
a
big problem, from what I see.

Even if you argue that FCC
action on further restructuring will take most of that six years anyway,
there are still all those Novice and Advanced class licenses that will
likely exist in the database for decades to come.

It makes sense to grandfather existing Novices to the "NewNovice" (or whatever
it is called). There are only about 32,000 Novices left now, down from just
under 50,000 after restructuring.

What *is* the problem with Advanceds just staying as they are? Have you not
read from the Advanceds who say they *don't want* to become Extras?

Why not just give all the existing Techs, Tech Pluses and Novices the
"NewNovice" privs, in addition to their existing privileges? The database
doesn't need to change at all.

Did you notice that Novices actually lose privileges? See the FAQ
document above for more details. In particular, power limits are
lowered from 200 Watts PEP to 100 Watts PEP on HF bands except for 10
meters, and 50 Watts PEP on 10 meters.

Is that really much of a problem? How many Novices are on the air today running
more than those power levels?

From the FAQ:

"The reason behind the change in Novice power limits is to avoid having
to examine entry-level applicants about how to evaluate amateur stations
for RF safety. "

I'm sure that you would argue that Technicians should retain their power
limits (1500 Watts PEP) on 6 meters and up, and I would agree, but what
about HF? Should Technicians lose privileges on those bands, by having
their power limits lowered (from 200 Watts PEP), or should there be
separate power limits for Novice and Technician on HF? This is starting
to get more complicated than before.

Not at all! Where an existing ham has greater privs, those privs would be
retained. This has been done with Tech Pluses for almost 4 years now. FCC
proposed it and enacted it, btw. Why can't it be done for existing Novices and
Techs?

The 1998 proposal from ARRL Hq was for Tech Pluses and Novices to get a freebie
to General - and FCC said no. What has changed that suddenly makes free
upgrades a good idea?

Rather, it is just one of
the unresolved loose ends that was deliberately not tied up until better
consensus emerged from the amateur radio community about things like
Novice band refarming, etc. The League official noted that the ARRL's
band refarming proposal, RM-10413, has been sitting on an FCC official's
desk for about two years now (he claims to know the exact FCC official,
but did not name him). Because of this, as long a wait, if not longer,
is expected on a "final" answer concerning automatic upgrading.

I say we should judge by actions. When FCC thinksa proposal is a good or
bad
idea, they act. How long did the whole 98-143 process take, from initial
release of the NPRM to the new rules in April 2000?

More important, what would a lack of free upgrades hurt? Is it really such
a
burden to require an Advanced to pass Element 4, or a Tech to pass Element
3, in order to get the next higher grade of license?

I think the ARRL may be politically shrewder than some would give them
credit.

You mean the BoD. I'm the ARRL too, remember?

Yes, I meant the governance of the ARRL when I used the shorthand "ARRL"
in the context of offering an opinion on a BoD decision. Only they can
establish ARRL official policy and petition the FCC in the name of the
ARRL. Who else did you think I meant?

Those folks are elected and paid for by members like *me*. They supposedly
make those proposals in *my* name and with *my* support.

Well, I don't support everything in that proposal.

How much of the ARRL proposal in 1998 got enacted?

You will need more than a rhetorical question to make an argument here.
Instead, why don't you just come right out and say, for the benefit of
the audience, which items in the ARRL proposal got enacted, and which
ones didn't? And, of those that didn't get enacted, which ones you
think have already been given a final "no" answer?

All right.

Fact is, almost nothing proposed by ARRL Hq in 1998 got enacted. 5 wpm for
General, that's about it. On everything else, FCC either:

- said no: free upgrades, better written tests, Techs on HF CW without a formal
test

- went far beyond what was requested: 5 wpm Extra, Advanced closed off, written
testing reduced dramatically

They can turn to the reformers and say, "See, we're giving you
a both a Novice and General HF-class license that doesn't require Morse
Code." To the old-school (and long-time, dues-paying) members they can
at least imply, "We recognize that the Morse Code tests you took in the
past are valuable, so we are going to reward you with a higher class of
license. Then you will always know that you are better than anyone who
gets a General or Extra class license under the reduced standards in the
future."

Avoids the subject of why free upgrades are needed.

But does address the subject of why they may be politically desirable,
not only by leading to simplified FCC regulations, but also resulting
in a more harmonious and productive amateur radio in the future by
addressing most of the concerns of most factions.

I don't see that at all. Are the written tests so difficult, and the VE test
process so onerous, that free upgrades are the only answer?

I say they're not.

So you've said. I'm sure that you will also say this to your
representatives within the ARRL and comment on any future FCC NPRM on
the subject.

Already have. In detail. More to come, too.

I will, too. For the record, I'm not in complete
agreement with the ARRL proposal, either. I don't see the regulatory
justification for the retention of 5 WPM Morse code for Extra,

I do. Morse code is a big part of amateur radio, and having no code test at all
simply denies the reality of that.

and I
remain skeptical that a Novice license (even a restructured one) is
viable today.

What we have now is a system that tends to funnel newcomers into VHF/UHF
amateur radio, and manufactured equipment. And away from HF and homebrewing. A
restructured Novice could change that.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

It has worse S/N performance than SSB

That depends entirely on the type of encoding and modulation used,
doesn't it?
Can you categorically say that digital voice can *never* outperform
SSB?

No. One day it might. But not yet.

Even if the data rate is slowed down?

If there's anything that deserves spectrum space for experimentation,
it's digital modes, not analog voice modes.

73 de Jim, N2EY