Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
----- Original Message -----
From: "W2DNE" Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:40 PM Subject: Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235 "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "Iitoi" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl Wrote: IF (let's be hypothetical) the FCC did retain code for Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will surely be raised by someone who need only point to the use of waivers previously and no court in this country would rule against such a clain. The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a claim. The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The precident stands based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty established code speeds. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Last I checked the president stands in the white house. I'll never claim to be a great speller. Also last I checked there was no precedent for a waiver of 5 word-per-min. The precident is for waivers of code testing of non-treaty required code knowledge. It matters not if that was 20, 13 or now 5wpm. Conceptually the precident is there. In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require possibility of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing outright. The waivers in the past were only for disabled with a medical certification statement. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill Sohl wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "W2DNE" Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:40 PM Subject: Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235 "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "Iitoi" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl Wrote: IF (let's be hypothetical) the FCC did retain code for Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will surely be raised by someone who need only point to the use of waivers previously and no court in this country would rule against such a clain. The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a claim. The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The precident stands based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty established code speeds. True - up to a point. It can also be argued that the precedent is limited only to 'higher-speed' code tests, and not to code testing in general. IOW, there's a difference between a waiver of a higher level of skill vs. a complete waiver of the skill. As an analogy, there have been cases (not amateur radio) where a disabled person was given additional time to complete a test that, for everyone else, had a strict time limit. That person essentially got a waiver of the time limit but not of the test itself. Opponents of the waiver said that the time limit was an integral part of the test. Also last I checked there was no precedent for a waiver of 5 word-per-min. The precident is for waivers of code testing of non-treaty required code knowledge. It matters not if that was 20, 13 or now 5wpm. Conceptually the precident is there. But only for higher-speed tests, not for the basic skill itself. In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require possibility of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing outright. The waivers in the past were only for disabled with a medical certification statement. Which took the form of a letter from any M.D. or D.O. stating that it would take the person longer-than-usual to reach the skill level necessary to pass the 13 or 20 wpm code test. There was no requirement of an actual documented disability, nor that the disability would make it *impossible* for the person to pass the test. Nor did the disability have to be permanent and/or untreatable. The doctor didn't have to write the letter, just sign it. Nor did the doctor need any particular qualifications to make the judgement. I don't know of anyone who sought a medical waiver who was denied if they had the required doctor's letter. Most of all, the waivers did not come about because of ADA. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ps.com... Bill Sohl wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "W2DNE" Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:40 PM Subject: Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235 "Bill Sohl" wrote in message nk.net... "Iitoi" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl Wrote: IF (let's be hypothetical) the FCC did retain code for Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will surely be raised by someone who need only point to the use of waivers previously and no court in this country would rule against such a clain. The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a claim. The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The precident stands based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty established code speeds. True - up to a point. It can also be argued that the precedent is limited only to 'higher-speed' code tests, and not to code testing in general. IOW, there's a difference between a waiver of a higher level of skill vs. a complete waiver of the skill. Agreed... BUT there is no longer ANY international treaty requirement for even a basic skill which, I believe, is exactly why we have an open (almost closed now) NPRM addressing ending ALL code testing. It is also why, IMHO, the FCC won't go with any code test at all for Extra. As an analogy, there have been cases (not amateur radio) where a disabled person was given additional time to complete a test that, for everyone else, had a strict time limit. That person essentially got a waiver of the time limit but not of the test itself. Opponents of the waiver said that the time limit was an integral part of the test. Also last I checked there was no precedent for a waiver of 5 word-per-min. The precident is for waivers of code testing of non-treaty required code knowledge. It matters not if that was 20, 13 or now 5wpm. Conceptually the precident is there. But only for higher-speed tests, not for the basic skill itself. And again, the basic skill was, in the past, an ITU treaty requirement. It ain't anymore. In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require possibility of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing outright. The waivers in the past were only for disabled with a medical certification statement. Which took the form of a letter from any M.D. or D.O. stating that it would take the person longer-than-usual to reach the skill level necessary to pass the 13 or 20 wpm code test. There was no requirement of an actual documented disability, nor that the disability would make it *impossible* for the person to pass the test. Nor did the disability have to be permanent and/or untreatable. The doctor didn't have to write the letter, just sign it. Nor did the doctor need any particular qualifications to make the judgement. Agreed..and such was "my" intent regarding medical certficiation. I don't know of anyone who sought a medical waiver who was denied if they had the required doctor's letter. Nor would they (IMHO) in the future IF any code test remains. Most of all, the waivers did not come about because of ADA. Agreed as to the past. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Docket Scorecard | Policy | |||
Docket 05-235 Scorecard | Policy | |||
Stonewalling on WT Docket 05-235? | Policy | |||
Stonewalling WT Docket 05-235? | Policy | |||
Status of WT Docket 05-235 | Policy |