|
btw, the FCC's words were "serves no *REGULATORY* purpose" (emphasis added) not "useful purpose". BIG difference! Thanks for correcting the wording, but it really isn't much of a difference The code test is no longer *required*, but is *optional* for countries to test prospective hams for HF licenses. Which means that the treaty doesn't *forbid* code tests or code use for that matter. What if their minds *have* changed? Perhaps they have looked at the arguments provided by pro-code-test folks, and at the results of the reduction/elimination of code testing in the USA and other countries, and have concluded that Element 1 is no big deal. Maybe they've even concluded that it *does* serve a useful, regulatory purpose! The FCC noted that there's been no noticeable increase in violations in HF since they let 5wpm'ers loose on it back in 2000. Trouble spots like 14.313 predate that by many years. So 13 or 20wpm doesn't serve a regulatory purpose, and the FCC isn't in the business of handing out "gold star" awards. One alleged violation of the treaty (no sending test) does not justify another. Way back when (1976) I had to do a sending test. On a straight key mounted to a school desk test station. I pounded a few words of code and the examiner said, "okay, you pass". It seems that it was extremely rare that someone who passed code copying failed sending, so why bother? There is no consensus, so I think they will choose from whatever has been proposed those things that suit their own organisational objectives, i.e. reducing administrative burden. IOW, fewer tests and fewer licence classes suits the FCC. Then keeping code for extras but not generals doesn't satisfy the above. Either the code test exists or it is gone completely. If they decide to keep the code test, the FCC might decide to leave things the way they are now. That requires minimal effort on their part, and then they can do something else like make rules that one company can own every broadcast station and paper in every city..... Advanced licence with some of the theory and some of the privileges of an Extra and not admit new people to it. The FCC could equate 13wpm with the old element 4b (the old pre-restructuring written) and declare that every advanced is now qualified to be an extra and make them all extras. I don't have a problem with that. IF OTOH, you counter that by saying that there's little difference in the theory level, then why not grandfather the Advanceds to Extra? Because there *is* a difference. See above Enforcement is a nonissue; the FCC folks know where the subbands are. And it's the rare ham who strays, judging by enforcement actions. That means that few hams violate that rule, or many do and the FCC doesn't much worry about it. Though with databases like QRZ.com other hams may question why you seem to be out of you subband. I had this happen for a few weeks after I upgraded, and I said that I just upgraded. "Congrads" was the usual reply. I had neglected to do "whiskey alpha two india sierra echo slash alpha echo" to mark my new upgrade. No biggie. The fact is that comments to FCC show no consensus on a number of issues. In fact, if you look at the number of *individuals* who comment pro-or-con on code testing, you find majority support *for* the test. Now since everyone is free to comment on FCC proposals, why shouldn't the majority opinion decide? It's not a popularity contest, a *good* reason will trump many "votes" for a weak reason. Who decides "good" vs "weak" is another issue.... |
robert casey wrote: N2EY wrote: What if their minds *have* changed? Perhaps they have looked at the arguments provided by pro-code-test folks, and at the results of the reduction/elimination of code testing in the USA and other countries, and have concluded that Element 1 is no big deal. Maybe they've even concluded that it *does* serve a useful, regulatory purpose! The FCC noted that there's been no noticeable increase in violations in HF since they let 5wpm'ers loose on it back in 2000. Trouble spots like 14.313 predate that by many years. So 13 or 20wpm doesn't serve a regulatory purpose, and the FCC isn't in the business of handing out "gold star" awards. No, they're not. But they ARE in the business of making sure that thier rules meet the test of the enabling regulations. Part 97.1 establishes the Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. The B&P continues to establish an expectation of self training and communications skills that prepare the licensee to meet the needs of the B & P. So...Until Part 97 is altered per process otherwise, Morse Code is still required for access to HF allocations. And as Jim noted, so far, the overwhelming opinion of those who have cared to express an opinion is "Morse Code skills are needed"...Even if Lennie says they aren't... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: robert casey wrote: N2EY wrote: What if their minds *have* changed? Perhaps they have looked at the arguments provided by pro-code-test folks, and at the results of the reduction/elimination of code testing in the USA and other countries, and have concluded that Element 1 is no big deal. Maybe they've even concluded that it *does* serve a useful, regulatory purpose! The FCC noted that there's been no noticeable increase in violations in HF since they let 5wpm'ers loose on it back in 2000. Trouble spots like 14.313 predate that by many years. So 13 or 20wpm doesn't serve a regulatory purpose, and the FCC isn't in the business of handing out "gold star" awards. No, they're not. Nor merit badges. The Amateur Radio Service is not the Boy Scouts. The FCC is not BSA Headquarters. But they ARE in the business of making sure that thier rules meet the test of the enabling regulations. They should start with the "rule" requiring a Morse Code Exam at 5WPM refer to another "rule" defining Morse Code and how to derive a 5WPM rate. Then then need to explain how a 13-15WPM character rate can be legal for a 5WPM exam. Or not. Part 97.1 establishes the Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. The B&P continues to establish an expectation of self training and communications skills that prepare the licensee to meet the needs of the B & P. The Basis and Purpose does not specify your favorite mode as the one, true path to rightiousness. So...Until Part 97 is altered per process otherwise, Morse Code is still required for access to HF allocations. 5WPM. Not the 13-15WPM exam currently administered by the ARRL and W5YI VECs. And as Jim noted, so far, the overwhelming opinion of those who have cared to express an opinion is "Morse Code skills are needed"...Even if Lennie says they aren't... 73 Steve, K4YZ Then Jim and his commenting cronies march to the beat of a different drummer. The ARRL's scientific survey of 1998 said that there was no clear concensus. Since then the ITU has eliminated the requirement for a Morse Code Exam for HF access. |
K4YZ wrote:
robert casey wrote: N2EY wrote: What if their minds *have* changed? Perhaps they have looked at the arguments provided by pro-code-test folks, and at the results of the reduction/elimination of code testing in the USA and other countries, and have concluded that Element 1 is no big deal. Maybe they've even concluded that it *does* serve a useful, regulatory purpose! The FCC noted that there's been no noticeable increase in violations in HF since they let 5wpm'ers loose on it back in 2000. Where and when did the FCC note that? There have been 5 wpm hams with General, Advanced and Extra class licenses since 1990 (medical waivers). Trouble spots like 14.313 predate that by many years. And for many of those years, FCC did very little enforcement on the ham bands. Those problems were allowed to exist for *years* without FCC doing much of anything, despite complaints. So 13 or 20wpm doesn't serve a regulatory purpose, What mode are those folks on 14.313 using? Hint: It's not Morse Code! Recently an overzealous ham sending code practice 24/7 was the subject of an FCC enforcement action. Guy was sending Bible verses (which isn't a rule violation) but didn't answer FCC letters about his method of station control (which is). You've got to go back years and years to find another enforcement action of similar magnitude against a ham using Morse Code. Compare that to enforcement actions against hams using voice modes. and the FCC isn't in the business of handing out "gold star" awards. 20 wpm is hardly "gold star" performance. And if that is the case - would you support dumping the General and Extra class licenses, and giving all privs to everyone with a Tech or higher? No, they're not. But they ARE in the business of making sure that thier rules meet the test of the enabling regulations. Part 97.1 establishes the Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service. The B&P continues to establish an expectation of self training and communications skills that prepare the licensee to meet the needs of the B & P. All of which are interpretations and opinions. So...Until Part 97 is altered per process otherwise, Morse Code is still required for access to HF allocations. And as Jim noted, so far, the overwhelming opinion of those who have cared to express an opinion is "Morse Code skills are needed" I didn't say "overwhelming opinion". I said "majority opinion". *BIG* difference. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
So 13 or 20wpm doesn't serve a regulatory purpose, What mode are those folks on 14.313 using? Hint: It's not Morse Code! Yes, but everyone there had to take (or be waived) a 13wpm code test. |
|
wrote in message oups.com... [snip] Why? Keeping the closed-out license classes costs them little or nothing. Tech Plus will disappear in a little more than 5 years, as the last Tech Plus is renewed as Tech. The other two closed-out classes are slowly dropping, yet may last a lot longer because of renewals. Maybe I'll write a proposal... Please don't! There's too many proposals now! 73 de Jim, N2EY Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... wrote in news:1109760226.362991.253290 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: [snip] Making a requirement optional is indistinguishable from abolishing it. It's just a different form of words used to keep some countries happy. Abolishing the requirement would have meant that all countries would have had to drop code testing. That is not what the ITU did. [snip] I think they have beleived that since the '70s, but have hung onto the code test under pressure from some hams, including the League. The question is not whether their minds have changed (I beleive they haven't) but whether they beleive they can get rid of the pesky code test without upsetting too many hams. At this point in time I think they can, but it depends on one's definition of 'too many'. In what ways is the code test a nuisance to the FCC? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . Michael Coslo wrote in : [snip] It's not particurly difficult, but I can see no need to continue the closed classes. All those who would get a 'free upgrade' have held their licences for some time, so I foresee no impact whatsoever from eliminating those licences and upgrading them. Alun N3KIP Why not simply cancel their licenses unless they take the upgrade exam by a certain date? It gets rid of the closed classes yet gives no one a freebie. Those who are active or care about their license but are inactive due to circumstances in their lives currently will upgrade. Those who don't care won't be any great loss. Let's shake the dead wood out of the tree and find out how many hams we really do have. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"bb" wrote in message oups.com... 5WPM. Not the 13-15WPM exam currently administered by the ARRL and W5YI VECs. There are only 5 words sent in each minute of time. There are no tests being administered at this time in the ARS where more than 5 words are sent in one minutes time. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com