About Us

January 20th 05, 12:30 PM

On 20 Jan 2005 02:15:19 -0800, wrote:

Leo wrote:
The following bulletin was sent out today by the Radio Amateurs of
Canada HQ:

Great stuff, Leo! Thanks for posting it.

After following the link and reading, I see a couple of interesting
points:

1) The expressed support for reduction of code testing in Canada is
overwhelming. A clear mandate from those who commented.

I found that quite surprising as well - the original RAC survey (which
formed the basis for the recommendations made to IC) showed that
around 66% of the Amateur community was in favour of retiring Morse as
a mandatory requirement.

The comments to IC on those recommendations were an amazing 123 to 19
in favour of dropping code - a significant increase.

2) The proposal, if I understand it correctly, does not completely
eliminate Morse Code testing. Instead, it offers alternative ways of
getting a license, with or without a code test.

Correct - but I suspect that this was an effort by the RAC to try and
accomodate the wishes of as much of their membership as possible
(which was not too well received, based on the responses...).
Actually, they exceeded the request of IC considerably - the question
was whether to retain Morse, but the RAC took it a step further and
used it as a platform to reform the entire license structure. It is
unlikely that this will be done in the short term - to quote IC:

".....the RAC proposal went substantially beyond the issue of Morse
code, and made recommendations to modify the existing amateur
certificate structure through the introduction of a new certificate
(Intermediate) as well as a general increase in the pass level for
obtaining the existing basic and advanced certificates. While these
recommendations received various levels of support as indicated in the
comments received, it is not clear whether each element of the
proposal can be entertained without the benefit of a more
comprehensive certificate review, and substantial regulatory
amendments to accommodate an additional amateur certificate."

3) The comment period was only 60 days long, and only about 150 people
(mostly already-licensed amateurs, I think) commented.

That's true - although the opportunity to comment was not limited to
the Amateur community, few (if any) others showed any interest.

60 days is plenty of time for a subject of this level of signifigance
to the public - we get things done efficiently up here!

---

It's interesting to note that the various code test
reduction/elimination proposals here in the USA have had a very
different response.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

Industry Canada has analyzed the responses to the public consultation

called under Canada Gazette Notice DGRB-003-04. A summary of the
comments received and the individual replies are now available on the

Industry Canada web site at

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08280e.html.

Amateurs should note that while the responses heavily favoured
deletion of the Morse Qualification as a requirement for access to
the
HF bands, Industry Canada still has to make and announce a decision
on
Morse retention or deletion. Until a decision to delete Morse is
announced, amateurs who do not hold the Morse Qualification may not
operate on the HF bands below 30 MHz.

It's almost over up here now - decision time is just around the
corner!

73, Leo

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?	William	Policy	378	December 7th 04 11:25 AM
Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?	Steve Robeson K4CAP	Policy	148	October 29th 04 01:26 AM
Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?	Len Over 21	Policy	42	October 29th 04 01:23 AM
FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions	N2EY	Policy	165	April 6th 04 07:44 PM
Why You Don't Like The ARRL	Louis C. LeVine	CB	188	January 6th 04 06:05 PM

Menu

About Us