"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

I think the proposal is on AG4RQ's website.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I believe it also proposes NO public question pools and
a 10 day waiting period before retesting a failed element.

You are correct, sir! Thanks for the reminder.

Neither of these are likly at all.

The 10 day wait is possible but not likely. How could it be enforced?

Agree 100%

With the internet today, questions
will become public regardless of any effort to not publish them

Agreed. All it would take is one VE who wanted to make them public.

Test takers themselves could, as was done by Bash in the 60's
just remember a couple of questions and share them on RRAQ
(rec.radio.amateur.questions :-)

Also, someone would have to rewrite the entire
existing Q&A pools. Who is going
to bell that cat?

Agree again.

and
as for a waiting period on retesting, I can see no "same day"
retesting, but anything beyond that becomes an administrative
pain in the butt for VECs and FCC.

FCC won't do it.

The only way I could see it happening would be for there to be
some sort of "clearinghouse" where all the VEs would send their
records for comparison. The clearinghouse would keep the last
10-11 days' worth of records and look for the same person taking
the same test less than 10 days apart, and pass it on to FCC.

Sun will rise in the west on the day that happens!

What *could* be implemented is "no retest at the same VE session" but
that's
about it.

Wow, Jim, we are in 100% agreement here on those two
points.

Cheers and see my post on "section 21". I'm interested
in your opinion of what the petitioners are suggesting.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:


What *could* be implemented is "no retest at the same VE session" but
that's
about it.



That would be surfficient enough of a rule change. Some VEs arrange
things where
the guy who registers the testees and takes the fees leaves before the
tests come out.
So it isn't possible to reregister and pay another fee at the same
session.


Actually the VEs always have the option to not run a retest. When we've had
limited time access to the facility or have limited time due to other
commitments, we've simply stated no retests at that particular session.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:


What *could* be implemented is "no retest at the same VE
session" but that's about it.

That would be surfficient enough of a rule change.
Some VEs arrange things where
the guy who registers the testees and takes the fees leaves
before the tests come out.
So it isn't possible to reregister and pay another fee at the
same session.


Actually the VEs always have the option to not run a retest.

I agree.

When we've had limited time access to the facility
or have limited time due to other commitments, we've
simply stated no retests at that particular session.

I believe you don't need any reason to not allow
retests. There is no "right" to an immediate retest
for anyone regardless of how long the test session
may actually be.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net...

What does dropping code testing for General or
Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare."

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

What am I missing here?

I don't think you're missing a thing, Bill...However the
"authors" of the petition you cite are certainly a bit shy of a bag
full...! ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

I think the proposal is on AG4RQ's website.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Doesn't sound a likely prosepect

The FISTS proposal has more of a chance, I think.

It will be interesting to see when/if all these proposals get RM
numbers and how long it is before FCC does the NPRM thing. Perhaps we
need another pool!

73 de Jim, N2EY




Remind me Jim, what do FISTS propose? Given that they are an organisation
for the promotion of CW, I have trouble beleiving that they would suggest
anything that is actually responsive to the removal of the international CW
test requirement, but I could be wrong(?).

Alun

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

I just read the proposal. Much of the code retention argument
is the same as was raised and dismissed by the FCC in
the R&O for 98-143...howvever, there is a section
21 that I have no clue what they are talking about. It reads:

"21. Finally, it should be noted that by removing the Morse
radiotelegraphy requirements from the General Class and
Amateur Extra Class licenses, the Commission would be
creating the groundwork for a socially divisive caste system
within the Amateur Service - the 'no-codes' versus the
'know-codes'.

We've had hams who never passed a code test since 1991. Where have these guys
been?

To some degree, this is already a fact in
some circles.

Oh?

Amateur radio, by its very nature, is a very
social pursuit. However, by removing telegraphy from the
requirements of the General Class and Amateur Extra
Class licenses as petitioned by some in the community,
the Commission is potentially embarking upon a mission
that is virtually guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare." End of Quoted material

Couldn't that same thing be said of almost anything? Multiple license classes,
vabity calls, operating awards.....

What does dropping code testing for General or
Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare."

I have no idea. I had no part in writing the thing, just in analyzing it.

Why not ask the authors? A few of them are all over eham.net

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

I don't see how, since that hasn't been the case for Techs.

What am I missing here?

I'm not sure what they're getting at, either.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in
om:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...

What does dropping code testing for General or
Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare."

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

What am I missing here?

I don't think you're missing a thing, Bill...However the
"authors" of the petition you cite are certainly a bit shy of a bag
full...! ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ


I think that reading section 21 is a bit like entering the twilight zone.
Somehow 'Area 51' comes to mind!

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

I just read the proposal. Much of the code retention argument
is the same as was raised and dismissed by the FCC in
the R&O for 98-143...howvever, there is a section
21 that I have no clue what they are talking about. It reads:

"21. Finally, it should be noted that by removing the Morse
radiotelegraphy requirements from the General Class and
Amateur Extra Class licenses, the Commission would be
creating the groundwork for a socially divisive caste system
within the Amateur Service - the 'no-codes' versus the
'know-codes'.

We've had hams who never passed a code test since 1991. Where have these
guys
been?

To some degree, this is already a fact in
some circles.

Oh?

Amateur radio, by its very nature, is a very
social pursuit. However, by removing telegraphy from the
requirements of the General Class and Amateur Extra
Class licenses as petitioned by some in the community,
the Commission is potentially embarking upon a mission
that is virtually guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare." End of Quoted material

Couldn't that same thing be said of almost anything? Multiple license
classes,
vabity calls, operating awards.....

What does dropping code testing for General or
Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare."

I have no idea. I had no part in writing the thing, just in analyzing it.

Why not ask the authors? A few of them are all over eham.net

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

I don't see how, since that hasn't been the case for Techs.

What am I missing here?

I'm not sure what they're getting at, either.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Here's AG4RQ's response to my questions:

K2UNK Question: What does dropping code testing for General
or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a
very expensive enforcement nightmare."?

AQ5RQ Reply: Bill, the enforcememt nightmare would come
from instantly granting a quarter of a million or more
Techs HF privileges. We have intentional QRM on
the bands already. Add a quarter of a million Techs
to the bands, along with the resentment over this
whole code/no-code issue. What do you think will
happen?

K2UNK Question: Does RAF believe that if a General
or Advanced (K2UNK, mental goof, meant to say Extra)
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

AG4RQ Reply: Under the RAF proposal, the only Generals
and Extras (You said Advanced. I think you meant
Extra) would be those who passed a code test. We
want to keep licensing requirements for General and
Extra as is, with a 5 wpm code test.
----------------

Clearly section 21 is anything BUT clear as to what RAF
believes...IMHO.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net...

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

What am I missing here?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill, your question reminds me of a scenario painted by Steve, to
which TAFKA Rev Jim responded below. It is very enlightening to see
that after a decade of saying that the Morse Code Exam was no barrier
at all to the Amateur Service, he pipes in with a new theory - that a
Morse Exam is a disincentive to the use of CW on HF.

Thought you might enjoy the flip-flop.

bb
----------------
(William) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:
Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Why?
----------------

In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Here's AG4RQ's response to my questions:

K2UNK Question: What does dropping code testing for General
or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a
very expensive enforcement nightmare."?

AQ5RQ Reply: Bill, the enforcememt nightmare would come
from instantly granting a quarter of a million or more
Techs HF privileges.

Quarter million? More like 322,000, since the ARRL-proposed free upgrade would
go to all Techs and Tech Pluses.

OTOH there's no indication of how many would actually use the new privileges.

We have intentional QRM on
the bands already.

Haven't heard any on CW, myself...

Add a quarter of a million Techs
to the bands, along with the resentment over this
whole code/no-code issue. What do you think will
happen?

How will anyone know who is who just from a callsign? There's sure to be some
resentment no matter what.

Some fun facts:

If either the ARRL or FAR proposals are enacted, about 322,000 Techs and Pluses
will have more HF/MF. Not just 'phone but CW and data. The ARRL proposal
spreads them out over most of nine bands while the FAR proposal concentrates
all 322,000 into half of 160, small slivers of 80 and 40, and a bit more of 10
and 15. And no 'phone on the bands between 2 and 25 MHz.

Which proposal do you think will maximize crowding and resentment?

Comparisons to the old Novice are not valid because there were far fewer than
322,000. It's clear that one reason ARRL proposed the upgrade to General was to
*avoid* crowding.

K2UNK Question: Does RAF believe that if a General
or Advanced (K2UNK, mental goof, meant to say Extra)
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

AG4RQ Reply: Under the RAF proposal, the only Generals
and Extras (You said Advanced. I think you meant
Extra) would be those who passed a code test. We
want to keep licensing requirements for General and
Extra as is, with a 5 wpm code test.
----------------

He didn't understand the question?

It's clear from the proposal that all license classes would be allowed to use
Morse. Not an issue.

Clearly section 21 is anything BUT clear as to what RAF
believes...IMHO.

I think it's pretty clear. The FAR/RAF? proposal was written as a reaction to
the ARRL proposal, and is similar in some ways but offers drastically less
HF/MF (space and bands) to hams who haven't passed a code test.

The big question, then, comes down to this:

If it is accepted that Element 1 will be removed for at least some classes of
licenses with HF privs, (note that "if", folks!) is it preferable to:

A) limit them to small parts of a few bands that are relatively unpopular,
particularly during sunspot minima years

or

B) allow them significant access to all HF/MF bands?

Personally, I don't think the 5 wpm code test is a real "barrier" to anyone,
given the wide range of accomodations now in place and the training methods now
available. But if it's going to be dropped for some license classes, it seems
to me that B makes more sense than A.

IOW, ARRL would spread the free upgradees out and give them a smorgasboard of
options, FAR would concentrate them and give them a restricted diet.

Which do you think makes more sense?

73 de Jim, N2EY