| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#20
March 3rd 05, 12:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Coslo wrote: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109706299.033324.211320 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com I see. Well, I guess the're not journalists. I don't understand. Chronological order seems a good way to post articles. I agree! 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 something snipped there, I bet! 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. FCC didn't need consensusone in 2000. 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. Sure it would! How many hams run electron-tube linear amplifiers today? 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. Or maybe they simply followed majority opinion. 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) bwaahaahaa All kidding aside, I have *never* seen Alun write anything that could possibly be interpreted to mean that all sides should not have their say. There's another frequent poster here who has told others to "shut the hell up", but he bears no similarity to Alun except for being against the code test. It's just an unnecessary complication. Three classes are easier to enforce than six. Exactly what would be so difficult about it? It would be nice if there were no closed-off license classes - but not at the cost of free upgrades. FCC isn't complaining about the admin cost of Novices and Advanceds, either. Look at it this way: An Advanced is same as Extra except for small parts of 4 HF bands, vanity call choices and some VE privs. A Novice is a beginner license with certain limited privileges A Tech Plus or "Tech-with-HF" is a license with the privs of a Tech and a Novice. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| BBC Says Morse Code Still Alive and Well In UK | Policy | |||
| Morse Code: One Wonders... and Begins to Think ! [ -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ] | Shortwave | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
| Some comments on the NCVEC petition | Policy | |||
| NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy | |||
Threaded Mode
