| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
FCC Morse, restructuring proposals could hit the street by mid-year
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 |
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) |
"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 in message oups.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 Maybe they can include it in a well thought out proposal just like Powel with his BPL deal. Dan/W4NTI |
"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in message 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 Then why do you give a rip about what the proposal says? Dan/W4NTI |
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: 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. |
Good!
I think they need to just do away with code and ham test altogether! Too much class warfare being brought about by the extra class crackheads! Lloyd Davies, Supreme TimeLORD Talk Show Host "On the Domestic Front" Nim Buster of the year - 2004 http://www.network54.com/Forum/391414 |
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 |
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 - |
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 |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in news:3j4Vd.11600
: "Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in message 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 Then why do you give a rip about what the proposal says? Dan/W4NTI Me give a rip? More like Amateur radio R.I.P(rest in peace) You've heard of out-come based education, well the ARRL wants out-come based licensing. They don't care about about quality anymore, only quantity. I just want to see they are still continuing their campaign to destroy the integrity of the service. KB7ADL |
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 - |
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 |
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 |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: 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: 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. 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. You wrote: "the announcement that the code test was abolished by the ITU." The *treaty requirement* was abolished, not the test itself. Very different things. 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 My point is simply that something said by FCC years and years ago may or may not still be their thinking today. 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 Not useful to them doesn't mean not useful at all. 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. Not the point - of course they said it. My point is simply that something said by FCC years and years ago may or may not still be their thinking today. 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'. 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! 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. One alleged violation of the treaty (no sending test) does not justify another. 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. Sure it is. In fact, there's a precedent for it. From Jan 1 1953 to November 22 1967, you could not get a new Advanced but existing ones could be renewed and modified. That's not fair to the new Generals. Sure it is. They get the current tests, not the old ones. 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. If everything were done your way you could only create licence classes and never abolish them. Nope. 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. Not at all. The closed-off license classes are slowly but surely disappearing. As hams holding those licenses upgrade or drop out, the numbers will decline and eventually reach zero. At that point, the license class can simply be written out of the rules. FCC kept Advanced as a separate license class not available to new issues from 1953 to 1967. During most of that time the "database" was not computerized. Advanceds made up about 40,000 of the then-250,000 US hams. Today with a computerized database it's a lot simpler. I think keeping old license classes is better than free upgrades. Apparently so does FCC. 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. Perhaps. But we don't agree! 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 |
.. 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? Used to be the waivers for 13wpm, but that's no longer. And in another sense, as VEs do all the testing, any of the tests are of little nuisance to the FCC. Every so often some VEs cheat, but that's another issue. As for what knowledge should be tested for, as we are allowed to modify/build/hack our equipment we should know how to determine performance of our transmitters and such so we don't splatter/trash the RF spectrum. Also TVI issues. Also need to know safety issues, high voltage and RF. Rules and regs, what constitutes deliberate interference and what is just life on a crowded band. That ham radio is mostly 2 way comms (no broadcasting, no music). 3rd party rules and such for HF access licenses. Heard it said that the FCC finds that hams are for the most part well behaved and don't require much enforcement actions compared to other services. |
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. Farnsworth method. 13wpm characters sent at 5wpm spacing. Supposedly you start newbies like this and soon they can handle faster code than if you used slow 5wpm characters to start. |
robert casey wrote:
. 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? Used to be the waivers for 13wpm, but that's no longer. How were they a nuisance? And in another sense, as VEs do all the testing, any of the tests are of little nuisance to the FCC. Every so often some VEs cheat, but that's another issue. Exactly! All FCC does is approve new questions for the pools. VEs and QPC do the grunt work. As for what knowledge should be tested for, as we are allowed to modify/build/hack our equipment we should know how to determine performance of our transmitters and such so we don't splatter/trash the RF spectrum. Also TVI issues. Also need to know safety issues, high voltage and RF. Rules and regs, what constitutes deliberate interference and what is just life on a crowded band. That ham radio is stly 2 way comms (no broadcasting, no music). 3rd party rules and such for HF access licenses. All of that is tested for in the Technician exam, isn't it? Techs have all amateur radio operating privileges above 30 MHz, so all that stuff must, by definition, be contained in the 35 question Technician written test. Even some HF stuff must be in the Tech test because Techs who pass or have passed Element 1 get some HF privileges. In fact, FCC *decreased* the written exam for Tech back in 2000 by about 46%. Heard it said that the FCC finds that hams are for the most part well behaved and don't require much enforcement actions compared to other services. Probably true - because hams tend to follow the rules even if no one is watching. A big part of that is tradition and the 'culture of values' in amateur radio, IMHO. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: "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. Not so. Abolition of a requirement doesn't stop any member state from retaining it, so I repeat, there is no difference between abolishing a requirement and making it optional. An optional requirement is not a requirement, and thence a nullity. [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 |
"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 |
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 |
Brian Burke wrote on Thurs, Mar 3 2005 7:06 pm concerning the Avenging
Angle's further adventures in "waste of time": 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. Guess who used to remark that Boy Scout leaders are pedophiles? :-) Can't have any pedophiles in ham radio, no sir! All hams must be white males of deeply-rooted conservative everything rigidly preserving the traditions, standards, and practices of the 1930s. 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. I rather think that the FCC (that all-powerful adjunct secondary to the real leader of American ham radio, ARRL) cares much about a bunch of amateurs fooling around in a hobby activity. It's been nearly two years since the first of those 18 petitions arrived at the FCC and the conservative-traditionalists mounted much cross-fire to those nasty radicals wanting dirty, rotten change (hack, ptui) from divine, blessed, noble olde-tyme regulations. Code MUST stay! It is "right!" :-) [both guys at the FCC prolly threw up their hands and pigeon- holed all 18 while they concentrated on other things in their apprenticeship duties there] 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. Avengining Angle is a PCTA extra! He always Right, never wrong. 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. Irrelevant to the PCTA extras. Code test IS THE LAW! [no one, repeat no one, is allowed to change the law!] 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... Then Jim and his commenting cronies march to the beat of a different drummer. The Avenging Angle marches to an even stranger drummer... he thinks I'm here and commenting, saying things even when I'm not. Weird. He wired. Wired up differntly than others, always in overload conditions, no fusing. Tsk. [I been off for several days] Jimmy Who and cronies have had their craniums dutifully washed years ago, thinking that morsemanship is a vital, needed skill to "operate" any radio on HF or below. They had to take a morse test so EVERYONE has to take a morse test forever and ever to be allowed in a hobby activity. 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. ARRL's only "science" is that of trying (vainly) to get more members and to keep the Hq staff on the payroll by selling lots of ham publications. Their publishing business is still working well but the membership numbers are rather stagnant at old numbers. The ITU-R overhauled and revised nearly ALL of S25 at WRC-03. One revision allowed individual administrations the option of keeping their code tests or eliminating them. The mandatory requirement of a code test for privileges below 30 MHz was removed, but the OPTION remains. There's no "necessity" of any logical or legislative kind to keep the code test in U.S. regulations except in the fantasies of olde-tyme conservative traditionalist hammes who psychologically need the rank/status/titles of high- rate code-tested extra to show they are "better" than others. They need federal subsidies for the righteousness, all at the expense of newcomers who aren't coming in under their shining glory of ham greatness. |
|
"Cry Baby K4YZ" whined in message Lennie, you have once again DISproven your own assertions of who attacks who rather than discusses "subjects". Thanks. Putz. Steve, K4YZ Oh wissen to wittle cwy baby thievie cwy cwy cwy. He always wants the wast word. Cwy cwy cwy, that is all thievie does. Little thieve always wants the wast word. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com