wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18 existing
proposals. Expected to become public about the middle of 2005. With the
usual comment period, etc., Report and Order by maybe late 2006/early
2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I refuse to
visit their site anymore. TNX 73

KB7ADL

Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL wrote:
wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18
existing
proposals. Expected to become public about the middle of 2005. With
the
usual comment period, etc., Report and Order by maybe late
2006/early
2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I
refuse to
visit their site anymore. TNX 73

Just like you guys refuse to deal with reality anymore.

Look - you can't stop progress. Going around acting bitter about ever
little thing is no way to live.

Maybe it is time you guys try something different... learn a foreign
language, learn to play a musical instrument, get some exercise, play
cards/chess in the park, chase women... ANYTHING but the constant
negative attempts to block progress. Even if you guys were right
(which you aren't, and never have been), it isn't a useful expenditure
of your time to fret over this CRAP.

- Stewart (N0MHS)

wrote:
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL wrote:
wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18
existing
proposals. Expected to become public about the middle of 2005.
With
the
usual comment period, etc., Report and Order by maybe late
2006/early
2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I
refuse to
visit their site anymore. TNX 73

Just like you guys refuse to deal with reality anymore.

Look - you can't stop progress. Going around acting bitter about
ever
little thing is no way to live.

Maybe it is time you guys try something different... learn a foreign
language, learn to play a musical instrument, get some exercise, play
cards/chess in the park, chase women... ANYTHING but the constant
negative attempts to block progress. Even if you guys were right
(which you aren't, and never have been), it isn't a useful
expenditure
of your time to fret over this CRAP.

- Stewart (N0MHS)

Some have developed alternative realities, others have expired.

At least the second deal is honorable.

"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in
nk.net:

wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18 existing
proposals. Expected to become public about the middle of 2005. With
the usual comment period, etc., Report and Order by maybe late
2006/early 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I refuse
to visit their site anymore. TNX 73

KB7ADL


I don't have the full details of the ARRL petition to hand, but basically
it brings back the Novice licence (without the code), makes Techs into
Generals and Advanceds into Extras, and dumps ths code test except for
Extras, who would still have to pass it.

Two comments on the Antique Radio Relay League's news item. Firstly, it's
very telling that they buried it down the page, just as they did with the
announcement that the code test was abolished by the ITU.

Secondly, it does say at the end that "it's possible the Commission could
wrap up the proceeding before that time frame", so IOW the 2006/7 is just
the League's guesswork.

IMHO, the FCC will not adopt the League's proposal as such. The FCC say
that they are looking for a consensus amongst us, and they are also on
record as saying that the code test doesn't serve any useful purpose. 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.

I predict the code test will not be a continuing feature in the NPRM,
whatever else is, since eliminating a test reduces administrative burden
and they are already on record as wanting to get rid of it.

Reducing the number of classes also appeals to the FCC, so maybe they might
even adopt most of the League's proposal but get rid of element 1 as well?
I don't think so, though, as the line of least resistance is to keep the
current test elements as they are. This means grandfathering Novice to Tech
instead of Tech to General, so that is what I predict they will do.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in
nk.net:

wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18
existing
proposals. Expected to become public about the middle of 2005.
With
the usual comment period, etc., Report and Order by maybe late
2006/early 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I
refuse
to visit their site anymore. TNX 73

KB7ADL


I don't have the full details of the ARRL petition to hand, but
basically
it brings back the Novice licence (without the code), makes Techs
into
Generals and Advanceds into Extras, and dumps ths code test except
for
Extras, who would still have to pass it.

Basically a compromise that gives everybody something they want but
doesn't give anybody everything.

Two comments on the Antique Radio Relay League's news item.

Your bias is showing, Alun.

Firstly, it's
very telling that they buried it down the page, just as they did with
the
announcement that the code test was abolished by the ITU.

They post the stories in chronological order. If it's not at the top,
that's because a newer story has displaced it. They did not "bury"
anything.

And the code test was not abolished by ITU. All that changed was that
the treaty no longer requires such a test. Signatory countries are now
no longer *required by treaty* to have a code test, that's all.

Secondly, it does say at the end that "it's possible the Commission
could
wrap up the proceeding before that time frame", so IOW the 2006/7 is
just
the League's guesswork.

Of course - and they make that clear in the article.

Back in summer 2003, ARRL said at least two years. Which seemed
incredibly long at the time, but is now turning out to be short, if
anything.

IMHO, the FCC will not adopt the League's proposal as such.

Probably not. Nor will they adopt anyone's proposal as presented, IMHO.

The FCC say
that they are looking for a consensus amongst us, and they are also
on
record as saying that the code test useful doesn't serve any useful
purpose.

When did they say those things?

btw, the FCC's words were "serves no *REGULATORY* purpose" (emphasis
added) not "useful purpose". BIG difference!

And if FCC still thinks the code test serves no regulatory purpose, why
didn't they just dump Element 1 in late summer 2003, as proposed by at
least two groups? All it would take is a Memorandum Report and Order.
In fact, as a temporary measure pending rewriting the rules, they could
have simply ordered that anyone who passed Element 2, 3 or 4 gets
Element 1 credit.

But they didn't.

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.

Maybe.

But back in 1998, ARRL proposed free upgrades for Novices and Tech
Pluses so that there would be four classes and no closed-out classes.
Others have proposed similar freebies. FCC has consistently said no,
and keeps the Tech Plus, Advanced and Novice alive in their rules and
database. At the current rate of decline, it may be 15 more years
before the last Advanced is gone.

I predict the code test will not be a continuing feature in the NPRM,

whatever else is, since eliminating a test reduces administrative
burden
and they are already on record as wanting to get rid of it.

Yet they have not done so. If they really think Element 1 should go,
why wasn't it dumped in 2003?

Reducing the number of classes also appeals to the FCC, so maybe they
might
even adopt most of the League's proposal but get rid of element 1 as
well?
I don't think so, though, as the line of least resistance is to keep
the
current test elements as they are. This means grandfathering Novice
to Tech
instead of Tech to General, so that is what I predict they will do.

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...

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in
nk.net:


wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18

existing

proposals. Expected to become public about the middle of 2005.

With

the usual comment period, etc., Report and Order by maybe late
2006/early 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I

refuse

to visit their site anymore. TNX 73

KB7ADL


I don't have the full details of the ARRL petition to hand, but

basically

it brings back the Novice licence (without the code), makes Techs

into

Generals and Advanceds into Extras, and dumps ths code test except

for

Extras, who would still have to pass it.


Basically a compromise that gives everybody something they want but
doesn't give anybody everything.


Two comments on the Antique Radio Relay League's news item.


Your bias is showing, Alun.


Firstly, it's very telling that they buried it down the page, just
as they did with

the

announcement that the code test was abolished by the ITU.


They post the stories in chronological order. If it's not at the top,
that's because a newer story has displaced it. They did not "bury"
anything.

And the code test was not abolished by ITU. All that changed was that
the treaty no longer requires such a test. Signatory countries are
now no longer *required by treaty* to have a code test, that's all.

Secondly, it does say at the end that "it's possible the Commission


could

wrap up the proceeding before that time frame", so IOW the 2006/7
is

just

the League's guesswork.


Of course - and they make that clear in the article.

Back in summer 2003, ARRL said at least two years. Which seemed
incredibly long at the time, but is now turning out to be short, if
anything.

IMHO, the FCC will not adopt the League's proposal as such.


Probably not. Nor will they adopt anyone's proposal as presented,
IMHO.


The FCC say that they are looking for a consensus amongst us, and
they are also

on

record as saying that the code test useful doesn't serve any useful


purpose.

When did they say those things?

btw, the FCC's words were "serves no *REGULATORY* purpose" (emphasis
added) not "useful purpose". BIG difference!

And if FCC still thinks the code test serves no regulatory purpose,
why didn't they just dump Element 1 in late summer 2003, as proposed
by at least two groups? All it would take is a Memorandum Report and
Order. In fact, as a temporary measure pending rewriting the rules,
they could have simply ordered that anyone who passed Element 2, 3 or
4 gets Element 1 credit.

But they didn't.


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.


Maybe.

But back in 1998, ARRL proposed free upgrades for Novices and Tech
Pluses so that there would be four classes and no closed-out classes.
Others have proposed similar freebies. FCC has consistently said no,
and keeps the Tech Plus, Advanced and Novice alive in their rules
and database. At the current rate of decline, it may be 15 more years
before the last Advanced is gone.

The reports of database nightmares due to more classes are greatly
exxagerated. If no more people are added to those classes, the database
simply sits there, bothering no one except the hand wringers. As
attrition hits, du to upgrading or license expiry or licensee expiry,
that just gets deducted from the otherwise inactive database. No biggee.





I predict the code test will not be a continuing feature in the
NPRM,


whatever else is, since eliminating a test reduces administrative

burden

and they are already on record as wanting to get rid of it.


Yet they have not done so. If they really think Element 1 should go,
why wasn't it dumped in 2003?

When did they say it was a burden?




Reducing the number of classes also appeals to the FCC, so maybe
they might even adopt most of the League's proposal but get rid of element 1
as well?

I don't think so, though, as the line of least resistance is to
keep the current test elements as they are. This means grandfathering Novice
to Tech instead of Tech to General, so that is what I predict they will do.



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...

Why not?

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote in news:1109706299.033324.211320
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in
nk.net:

wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18
existing proposals. Expected to become public about the middle of
2005. With the usual comment period, etc., Report and Order by
maybe late 2006/early 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I
refuse to visit their site anymore. TNX 73

KB7ADL


I don't have the full details of the ARRL petition to hand, but
basically it brings back the Novice licence (without the code), makes
Techs into Generals and Advanceds into Extras, and dumps ths code test
except for Extras, who would still have to pass it.

Basically a compromise that gives everybody something they want but
doesn't give anybody everything.

Two comments on the Antique Radio Relay League's news item.

Your bias is showing, Alun.


Sure. I don't think the League is a very progressive organisation.

Firstly, it's
very telling that they buried it down the page, just as they did with
the announcement that the code test was abolished by the ITU.

They post the stories in chronological order. If it's not at the top,
that's because a newer story has displaced it. They did not "bury"
anything.


I see. Well, I guess the're not journalists.

And the code test was not abolished by ITU. All that changed was that
the treaty no longer requires such a test. Signatory countries are now
no longer *required by treaty* to have a code test, that's all.

Same thing.


Secondly, it does say at the end that "it's possible the Commission
could wrap up the proceeding before that time frame", so IOW the
2006/7 is just the League's guesswork.

Of course - and they make that clear in the article.

Back in summer 2003, ARRL said at least two years. Which seemed
incredibly long at the time, but is now turning out to be short, if
anything.

IMHO, the FCC will not adopt the League's proposal as such.

Probably not. Nor will they adopt anyone's proposal as presented, IMHO.

The FCC say
that they are looking for a consensus amongst us, and they are also on
record as saying that the code test useful doesn't serve any useful
purpose.

When did they say those things?

They said that they wouldn't restructure until a consensus emerged


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

And if FCC still thinks the code test serves no regulatory purpose, why
didn't they just dump Element 1 in late summer 2003, as proposed by at
least two groups?

I don't know, but you admit they said it serves no regulatory purpose

All it would take is a Memorandum Report and Order.
In fact, as a temporary measure pending rewriting the rules, they could
have simply ordered that anyone who passed Element 2, 3 or 4 gets
Element 1 credit.

But they didn't.

Maybe they didn't feel that they could do that when they had 19 petitions
dumped on them?


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.

Maybe.

But back in 1998, ARRL proposed free upgrades for Novices and Tech
Pluses so that there would be four classes and no closed-out classes.
Others have proposed similar freebies. FCC has consistently said no,
and keeps the Tech Plus, Advanced and Novice alive in their rules and
database. At the current rate of decline, it may be 15 more years
before the last Advanced is gone.

A mistake IMO. I don't think closed classes are a good idea. It's better to
make a clean break and get everybody in the same system.


I predict the code test will not be a continuing feature in the NPRM,

whatever else is, since eliminating a test reduces administrative
burden and they are already on record as wanting to get rid of it.

Yet they have not done so. If they really think Element 1 should go,
why wasn't it dumped in 2003?


See above. They will have to consider all the petitions and then write an
NPRM that either does or doesn't restructure the licence classes.

Reducing the number of classes also appeals to the FCC, so maybe they
might even adopt most of the League's proposal but get rid of element
1 as well? I don't think so, though, as the line of least resistance
is to keep the current test elements as they are. This means
grandfathering Novice to Tech instead of Tech to General, so that is
what I predict they will do.

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...

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's just an unnecessary complication. Three classes are easier to enforce
than six.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109706299.033324.211320
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in
nk.net:

wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18
existing proposals. Expected to become public about the middle
of
2005. With the usual comment period, etc., Report and Order by
maybe late 2006/early 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I
refuse to visit their site anymore. TNX 73

KB7ADL


I don't have the full details of the ARRL petition to hand, but
basically it brings back the Novice licence (without the code),
makes
Techs into Generals and Advanceds into Extras, and dumps ths code
test
except for Extras, who would still have to pass it.

Basically a compromise that gives everybody something they want but
doesn't give anybody everything.

Two comments on the Antique Radio Relay League's news item.

Your bias is showing, Alun.


Sure. I don't think the League is a very progressive organisation.

At least you admit your bias. Can't argue with that!

Firstly, it's
very telling that they buried it down the page, just as they did
with
the announcement that the code test was abolished by the ITU.

They post the stories in chronological order. If it's not at the
top,
that's because a newer story has displaced it. They did not "bury"
anything.


I see. Well, I guess the're not journalists.

The webpage isn't a newspaper. By listing the stories in chrono order,
you always have the newest stuff on top.

And the code test was not abolished by ITU. All that changed was
that
the treaty no longer requires such a test. Signatory countries are
now
no longer *required by treaty* to have a code test, that's all.

Same thing.

No, completely different things. The change does not require member
countries to drop the code test.



Secondly, it does say at the end that "it's possible the
Commission
could wrap up the proceeding before that time frame", so IOW the
2006/7 is just the League's guesswork.

Of course - and they make that clear in the article.

Back in summer 2003, ARRL said at least two years. Which seemed
incredibly long at the time, but is now turning out to be short, if
anything.

IMHO, the FCC will not adopt the League's proposal as such.

Probably not. Nor will they adopt anyone's proposal as presented,
IMHO.

The FCC say
that they are looking for a consensus amongst us, and they are
also on
record as saying that the code test useful doesn't serve any
useful
purpose.

When did they say those things?

They said that they wouldn't restructure until a consensus emerged

*When* did FCC say that? They restructured in 2000 without a consensus.


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

Yes, it is. Since FCC's role is regulatory, their interest is in what
should be regulated, not what's good and bad.

And if FCC still thinks the code test serves no regulatory purpose,
why
didn't they just dump Element 1 in late summer 2003, as proposed by
at
least two groups?

I don't know, but you admit they said it serves no regulatory purpose

When did FCC say it?

All it would take is a Memorandum Report and Order.
In fact, as a temporary measure pending rewriting the rules, they
could
have simply ordered that anyone who passed Element 2, 3 or 4 gets
Element 1 credit.

But they didn't.

Maybe they didn't feel that they could do that when they had 19
petitions
dumped on them?

Maybe. Or maybe their mind has changed on the subject.


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.

Maybe.

But back in 1998, ARRL proposed free upgrades for Novices and Tech
Pluses so that there would be four classes and no closed-out
classes.
Others have proposed similar freebies. FCC has consistently said
no,
and keeps the Tech Plus, Advanced and Novice alive in their rules
and
database. At the current rate of decline, it may be 15 more years
before the last Advanced is gone.

A mistake IMO. I don't think closed classes are a good idea.

Why not?

It's better to
make a clean break and get everybody in the same system.

All US hams are in the same system. IMHO, and FCC's to date, free
upgrades are *not* a good idea.


I predict the code test will not be a continuing feature in the
NPRM,

whatever else is, since eliminating a test reduces administrative
burden and they are already on record as wanting to get rid of it.


Yet they have not done so. If they really think Element 1 should
go,
why wasn't it dumped in 2003?


See above. They will have to consider all the petitions and then
write an
NPRM that either does or doesn't restructure the licence classes.

They don't have to do that to dump Element 1. They can say the issue
was dealt with in the past and there's no new info and since there's no
regulatory purpose served, bye bye Element 1. But they haven't.


Reducing the number of classes also appeals to the FCC, so maybe
they
might even adopt most of the League's proposal but get rid of
element
1 as well? I don't think so, though, as the line of least
resistance
is to keep the current test elements as they are. This means
grandfathering Novice to Tech instead of Tech to General, so that
is
what I predict they will do.

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...

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's just an unnecessary complication. Three classes are easier to
enforce
than six.

Yet FCC *turned down* such proposals in the past. They prefer more
classes to free automatic upgrades. Enforcement is a nonissue; the FCC
folks know where the subbands are. And it's the rare ham who strays,
judging by enforcement actions.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in news:1109760226.362991.253290
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109706299.033324.211320
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in
nk.net:

wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18
existing proposals. Expected to become public about the middle
of 2005. With the usual comment period, etc., Report and Order
by maybe late 2006/early 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I
refuse to visit their site anymore. TNX 73

KB7ADL


I don't have the full details of the ARRL petition to hand, but
basically it brings back the Novice licence (without the code),
makes Techs into Generals and Advanceds into Extras, and dumps ths
code test except for Extras, who would still have to pass it.

Basically a compromise that gives everybody something they want but
doesn't give anybody everything.

Two comments on the Antique Radio Relay League's news item.

Your bias is showing, Alun.


Sure. I don't think the League is a very progressive organisation.

At least you admit your bias. Can't argue with that!

Firstly, it's
very telling that they buried it down the page, just as they did
with the announcement that the code test was abolished by the ITU.

They post the stories in chronological order. If it's not at the
top, that's because a newer story has displaced it. They did not
"bury" anything.


I see. Well, I guess the're not journalists.

The webpage isn't a newspaper. By listing the stories in chrono order,
you always have the newest stuff on top.

And the code test was not abolished by ITU. All that changed was
that the treaty no longer requires such a test. Signatory countries
are now no longer *required by treaty* to have a code test, that's
all.

Same thing.

No, completely different things. The change does not require member
countries to drop the code test.


Making a requirement optional is indistinguishable from abolishing it. It's
just a different form of words used to keep some countries happy.



Secondly, it does say at the end that "it's possible the Commission
could wrap up the proceeding before that time frame", so IOW the
2006/7 is just the League's guesswork.

Of course - and they make that clear in the article.

Back in summer 2003, ARRL said at least two years. Which seemed
incredibly long at the time, but is now turning out to be short, if
anything.

IMHO, the FCC will not adopt the League's proposal as such.

Probably not. Nor will they adopt anyone's proposal as presented,
IMHO.

The FCC say
that they are looking for a consensus amongst us, and they are also
on record as saying that the code test useful doesn't serve any
useful purpose.

When did they say those things?

They said that they wouldn't restructure until a consensus emerged

*When* did FCC say that? They restructured in 2000 without a consensus.

Maybe a google search would find the answer to that



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

Yes, it is. Since FCC's role is regulatory, their interest is in what
should be regulated, not what's good and bad.

i.e. no regulatory purpose means no purpose useful to them as regulators -
no contradiction there


And if FCC still thinks the code test serves no regulatory purpose,
why didn't they just dump Element 1 in late summer 2003, as proposed
by at least two groups?

I don't know, but you admit they said it serves no regulatory purpose

When did FCC say it?

I can't recall, but you know they did. You've admitted it.


All it would take is a Memorandum Report and Order.
In fact, as a temporary measure pending rewriting the rules, they
could have simply ordered that anyone who passed Element 2, 3 or 4
gets Element 1 credit.

But they didn't.

Maybe they didn't feel that they could do that when they had 19
petitions dumped on them?

Maybe. Or maybe their mind has changed on the subject.

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'.

Of course, prior to 2003 they couldn't do it, but they had long since
abolished the sending test anyway, even though that was required by the
ITU. Talk to Phil Kane and see what he thinks of that from a purely legal
perspective. You can't construe a statute in such a way as to ignore it's
plain language by arguing that meeting one of the requirements indicates
that you _could_meet_ (NB: not _have_met_) the other requirement. I am
talking about _sending_ and receiving Morse code by _hand_ and by ear. Of
course, it was a treaty, not a statute, but that should make no difference.



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.

Maybe.

But back in 1998, ARRL proposed free upgrades for Novices and Tech
Pluses so that there would be four classes and no closed-out
classes. Others have proposed similar freebies. FCC has consistently
said no, and keeps the Tech Plus, Advanced and Novice alive in their
rules and database. At the current rate of decline, it may be 15
more years before the last Advanced is gone.

A mistake IMO. I don't think closed classes are a good idea.

Why not?

It's better to
make a clean break and get everybody in the same system.

All US hams are in the same system. IMHO, and FCC's to date, free
upgrades are *not* a good idea.

Look at it from the other way around. It's not right to have a closed
Advanced licence with some of the theory and some of the privileges of an
Extra and not admit new people to it. That's not fair to the new Generals.
IF OTOH, you counter that by saying that there's little difference in the
theory level, then why not grandfather the Advanceds to Extra?

If everything were done your way you could only create licence classes and
never abolish them. Eventually you would have Heinz 57 varieties of
licence, but only two or three that you could actually apply for, a system
that only a civil servant could love. The only way to avoid that would be
to change nothing, ever, which may be your hidden agenda.



I predict the code test will not be a continuing feature in the
NPRM,

whatever else is, since eliminating a test reduces administrative
burden and they are already on record as wanting to get rid of it.


Yet they have not done so. If they really think Element 1 should go,
why wasn't it dumped in 2003?


See above. They will have to consider all the petitions and then write
an NPRM that either does or doesn't restructure the licence classes.

They don't have to do that to dump Element 1. They can say the issue
was dealt with in the past and there's no new info and since there's no
regulatory purpose served, bye bye Element 1. But they haven't.


Reducing the number of classes also appeals to the FCC, so maybe
they might even adopt most of the League's proposal but get rid of
element 1 as well? I don't think so, though, as the line of least
resistance is to keep the current test elements as they are. This
means grandfathering Novice to Tech instead of Tech to General, so
that is what I predict they will do.

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...

73 de Jim, N2EY


It's just an unnecessary complication. Three classes are easier to
enforce than six.

Yet FCC *turned down* such proposals in the past. They prefer more
classes to free automatic upgrades. Enforcement is a nonissue; the FCC
folks know where the subbands are. And it's the rare ham who strays,
judging by enforcement actions.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I think they turned them down for lack of consensus on our part. If we
agree, then they'll do it.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

And if FCC still thinks the code test serves no regulatory purpose,
why didn't they just dump Element 1 in late summer 2003, as proposed
by at least two groups?

I don't know, but you admit they said it serves no regulatory purpose

When did FCC say it?


I can't recall, but you know they did. You've admitted it.

They said it when they did restructuring back in Dec '99