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



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

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.

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.

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

---

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

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

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

wrote:

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

Heaven fobid that a non-licensed person might comment.

-----------------

Summary

On August 28, 2004, Industry Canada published notice DGRB-003-04 in the
Canada Gazette,seeking public comment to the proposal submitted to
Industry Canada by the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC), entitled,
Recommendations from Radio Amateurs of Canada to Industry Canada
concerning Morse Code and Related Matters.

In general, this proposal was intended to suggest how the Department
might deal with the potential to implement relaxed Morse code
requirements made possible as a result of the decision taken at the
World Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-03). This decision gives
the regulatory agencies of International Telecommunication Union member
states the option of maintaining or removing the existing Morse code
requirement for operating on the amateur radio bands below 30 MHz.
However, 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.

As the RAC's proposal consisted of twelve specific recommendations, we
have attempted to gauge the level of public support for each of these
elements as a first step in selecting a course of action with respect
to the changes that will be made to the structure of the Canadian
amateur certificate.

Results of Public Comment

During the 60 day comment period, the department received 150
submissions from individuals or associations (Amateur clubs, Radio
Advisory Board of Canada (RABC) etc.) Where clear support or
disagreement for each element was indicated, we attempted to capture
and tabulate those opinions (see graphs). However, in many instances,
the comments simply indicated agreement or disagreement with the
general issue of relaxing the code requirements and this was captured
in a separate graph.

This analysis shows that there is overwhelming agreement that Canada
should move away from having a Morse code requirement as the sole means
of gaining access to the amateur spectrum below 30 MHz. There were 123
comments in favour of relaxed code requirements and only 19 that were
clearly opposed. The remaining six comments were either neutral or did
not address that issue.

The Department will now formulate a plan to implement the changes that
have emerged from this consultation process. The results will be
published in a revision to Radiocommunication Information Circular 2,
Standards for the Operation of Radio Stations in the Amateur Radio
Service (RIC-2), and a notice to that effect will appear in the Canada
Gazette at that time.

Leo wrote:

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!

One has to keep moving, lest they freeze? ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:
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.

I don't find the results to be a surprise at all, if the RAC survey
showed 66% in favour of no Morse test. 66% is a clear majority. Here in
the USA the majority of commenters have long favoured keeping the Morse
test.

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

It's a significant increase, but there are a number of ways to explain
it. For example:

- Comments require more action than replying to a survey
- The majority response to the survey may have caused fewer comments.
(If 66% want something, that's a clear majority, so why comment against
it?)
- Support of one view is increasing while its opposite decreases.

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

That's a *major* difference from "just drop the code test".

I suspect that if a similar proposal* were put forth here in the lower
provinces, the support for it would be much greater than the simple
"just drop the code test" ones we've seen.

* meaning a proposal where code testing was kept as an option, which
could be avoided by an additional written test, or a higher grade on
the existing written test. Not just "drop the code test" proposals.

- 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...).

I see it as an attempt to build support by forming a coalition rather
than dividing into opposing camps. Similar method to the ARRL proposal,
but a better implementation, IMHO.

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."

I see that as simple common sense along the lines of "let's do the big
job and get it done, rather than a little bit here and a little bit
there". RAC took the opportunity to fix a bunch of problems at once.

I suspect that if the question were simply keep Morse/drop Morse, the
results would have been far less decisive. By doing it the way they
did, RAC can present a clear majority opinion to IC.

That's the smart way to do this sort of thing. Come up with a proposal
that garners lots of support in surveys, *then* present it to the
government. Makes their job easy - just do what the majority wants.

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.

That's to be expected, since (IIRC) Canada already has a nocodetest
amateur license. Almost anyone who is really interested in amateur
radio in a positive way, is not a manufacturer of products for the ham
market, and who is knowledgeable about the regulatory process, probably
already has a license.

IOW, you probably don't see a lot of people saying they really want an
amateur radio license but the code test prevents them. Same as here.
Those people may or may not exist, but if they do exist, they're not
commenting to the FCC or to IC.

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

Another thing the lower provinces could learn....;-)

But only about 150 comments from 44,000(?) licensees is a pretty small
showing. That, to me, is the biggest surprise.

---

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

So I'll ask this question:

If the comments to FCC on the various proposals show that a clear
majority of *individuals who bother to comment* want the code test to
stay, what should FCC do? IOW, should FCC go with the majority or
ignore them?


73 de Jim, N2EY

bb wrote:
wrote:

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

Heaven fobid that a non-licensed person might comment.
Yeah, yassuh, that would twist yo' massa's knickers really good.

wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

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

Heaven fobid that a non-licensed person might comment.

Yeah, yassuh, that would twist yo' massa's knickers really good.

On obviously failed attempt to celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr's
birthday.