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

snip

Your bias is showing, Alun.



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


What would make the league progressive 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.



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

I don't understand. Chronological order seems a good way to post articles.



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.

Here is a question:

If a country were to require higher standards for their version of the
ARS, are they hazing their applicants? If country A requ



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

Hehe, that could be a long long time.


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


I respectfully disagree. That is a huge difference. If we were tested
for our knowledge of Electron tube circuitry, it would not be serving a
useful purpose.


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

Despite the hand wringing, Element 1 is just another part of the test.
A good case can be made that its inclusion or exclusion makes no
particular difference pro or con to the ARS. So they probably didn't
feel the need to mess with 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?

I doubt that. Maybe the No coders can try to throttle the petition
process so that messy things like the law, due process and free speech
can be eliminated for expediency?

(major tongue in cheek mode here, I know you would never seriously
suggest that people should be able to speak their mind)


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.

Exactly what would be so difficult about it?


- Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote in
:

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

snip

Your bias is showing, Alun.



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


What would make the league progressive Alun?


Good question. Damned if I know!


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.

I don't understand. Chronological order seems a good way to post
articles.


Newspapers put the big headlines at the top of page one in large print.
however, if that's too much work for them I can accept that (especially as
I'm not even a member!). Chronological order does take out any value
judgements at least.



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.

Here is a question:

If a country were to require higher standards for their version of
the
ARS, are they hazing their applicants? If country A requ


Maybe, maybe not. It depends what those requirements are. For example,
maybe a lack of an entry level licence is not hazing, but too hard a
regular licence might be.



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

Hehe, that could be a long long time.


Indeed


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


I respectfully disagree. That is a huge difference. If we were
tested
for our knowledge of Electron tube circuitry, it would not be serving a
useful purpose.


Testing electron tube knowledge or sending and receiving Morse by hand and
by ear serves no useful/regulatory purpose, but electron tube knowledge and
CW are useful.


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

Despite the hand wringing, Element 1 is just another part of the
test.
A good case can be made that its inclusion or exclusion makes no
particular difference pro or con to the ARS.

In a sense it makes no particular difference to me or you, but we are not
the whole ARS. No-coders are hams too, and there are other people who are
not yet hams to consider as well.

So they probably didn't
feel the need to mess with 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?

I doubt that. Maybe the No coders can try to throttle the petition
process so that messy things like the law, due process and free speech
can be eliminated for expediency?


NCI did try to get the FCC to issue a Memorandum Report and Order, but as
you say, the FCC probably thought that would deny due process to all the
people who filed petitions, which is probably fair comment.

(major tongue in cheek mode here, I know you would never seriously
suggest that people should be able to speak their mind)


I'm all for free speech. Why do you think otherwise?


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.

Exactly what would be so difficult about it?


- Mike KB3EIA -



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

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote in
:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:

wrote in news:1109706299.033324.211320
:

snip


Your bias is showing, Alun.



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


What would make the league progressive Alun?



Good question. Damned if I know!


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.

I don't understand. Chronological order seems a good way to post
articles.



Newspapers put the big headlines at the top of page one in large print.
however, if that's too much work for them I can accept that (especially as
I'm not even a member!). Chronological order does take out any value
judgements at least.

There are plenty enough people - like myself - that don't see the Morse
code issue as the big headline. Despite my support for the continuance
of the test, I think there are more important issues in the ARS. Morse
code testing is probably about 4th or 5th. Not in the noise, but far
enough down.




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.

Here is a question:

If a country were to require higher standards for their version of
the
ARS, are they hazing their applicants? If country A requ



Maybe, maybe not. It depends what those requirements are. For example,
maybe a lack of an entry level licence is not hazing, but too hard a
regular licence might be.


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

Hehe, that could be a long long time.


Indeed


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


I respectfully disagree. That is a huge difference. If we were
tested
for our knowledge of Electron tube circuitry, it would not be serving a
useful purpose.



Testing electron tube knowledge or sending and receiving Morse by hand and
by ear serves no useful/regulatory purpose, but electron tube knowledge and
CW are useful.


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

Despite the hand wringing, Element 1 is just another part of the
test.
A good case can be made that its inclusion or exclusion makes no
particular difference pro or con to the ARS.


In a sense it makes no particular difference to me or you, but we are not
the whole ARS. No-coders are hams too, and there are other people who are
not yet hams to consider as well.

I was a no-coder once. In fact, until around mid 2000, I was perfectly
happy to remain such. Then after my first exposure to Field Day, I was
hooked. I said "I want to do this" and asked what I needed to do. So I
did it. It wasn't as easy for me as for some. The writtens were easy for
me, but the Morse code wasn't.

The point is Big deal, I wanted it, I went out and got it.

So they probably didn't
feel the need to mess with 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?

I doubt that. Maybe the No coders can try to throttle the petition
process so that messy things like the law, due process and free speech
can be eliminated for expediency?



NCI did try to get the FCC to issue a Memorandum Report and Order, but as
you say, the FCC probably thought that would deny due process to all the
people who filed petitions, which is probably fair comment.


(major tongue in cheek mode here, I know you would never seriously
suggest that people should be able to speak their mind)



I'm all for free speech. Why do you think otherwise?

You've been making a lot of comments on all those petitions.


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.

Exactly what would be so difficult about it?


- Mike KB3EIA -




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.


- mike KB3EIA -

"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

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"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




Cancelling is a bit harsh. Maybe they could be downgraded at the next
renewal after say three years notice up front. Of course, for Novices that
would mean cancellation, but I seriously doubt whether there are any active
Novices?

73 de Alun, N3KIP

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
.. .
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"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




Cancelling is a bit harsh. Maybe they could be downgraded at the next
renewal after say three years notice up front. Of course, for Novices that
would mean cancellation, but I seriously doubt whether there are any
active
Novices?

73 de Alun, N3KIP

There are a few though they are very few. I was looking at vanity call
signs recently issued on some site or another and there was even a Novice
who had received a vanity call. Since he/she was restricted to a 2x3 call
there must have been some other reason that they wished a new call.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"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





Cancelling is a bit harsh. Maybe they could be downgraded at the next
renewal after say three years notice up front. Of course, for Novices that
would mean cancellation, but I seriously doubt whether there are any active
Novices?

73 de Alun, N3KIP

I know of three local novices that are on ten meters every night. That's
all they want. They have no need for VHF and are just happy with what
privileges they have now.

whoever whoever@wherever wrote in
:



Alun L. Palmer wrote:

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
0...

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





Cancelling is a bit harsh. Maybe they could be downgraded at the next
renewal after say three years notice up front. Of course, for Novices
that would mean cancellation, but I seriously doubt whether there are
any active Novices?

73 de Alun, N3KIP

I know of three local novices that are on ten meters every night.
That's all they want. They have no need for VHF and are just happy with
what privileges they have now.



So that's where they are! Let them have Tech privileges and they'll stay
right where they are anyway, right?

Actually, I think there should be as few different licences as possible,
and that inevitably involves merging licences. I don't think that
'automatic upgrades' are a problem, as those affected all have 'time in
grade'. On reflection, I don't favour downgrades.

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Actually, I think there should be as few different licences as possible,
and that inevitably involves merging licences. I don't think that
'automatic upgrades' are a problem, as those affected all have 'time in
grade'. On reflection, I don't favour downgrades.

There is nothing inevitable about it. Time will take care of the matter.
There is no reason for either automatic upgrades or downgrades. It is no
particular additional burden to anyone to leave it as it is. There are only
three possible classes for new or upgrading hams. That seems about right to
me. Even when I originally licensed and passed through all five levels, I
thought three would be more appropriate.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"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?

Like the old Novice..

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.

I still remember the screaming from 1968 when "incentive licensing"
went back into effect. What you propose would be worse.

Those who don't care
won't be any great loss.

There's also the group who don't know. It's almost 5 years since
restructuring and I still read/hear questions from hams about what the
license structure and test requirements are, particularly from inactive
or narrow-focused hams.

Let's shake the dead wood out of the tree and find
out how many hams we really do have.

What good would that really do, Dee? If nothing else, it would give
folks like the BPL companies ammunition against us.

73 de Jim, N2EY