| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
November 6th 05, 02:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come. Steve, K4YZ IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are not bound by any "voting" analogy. Exactly! FCC need only consider the comments, not act on them. What also is obvious to those that have been around long enough is that the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions within the amateur community as compared to prior efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the first efforts to bring a nocode license began. I disagree, Bill. Or rather, I'd say it's not that clear. Back in 1998, NCI supported the concept of "5 wpm now, complete elimination when the treaty changes". That position got about 45% support (check Carl's post of around that time when he reported KC8EPO's tally of comments). Now the NPRM proposes "complete elimination now that the treaty has changed" but the support is still about 45% of commenters. So the support for total code test elimination isn't much different than it was 7 years ago. The trend is and has been towards ending code. Ending code or code *testing*? Ending code testing. Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion. Doesn't mean it's a good thing. IYHO Playing your number realignment, you must admit then that 68% of commentors DO support ending code for General. Yep. Exactly as proposed by ARRL. THAT is dramatic in comparison to past opinion analysis. We don't really know that, do we? There was never a serious proposal before that suggested "code test for Extra only" that I know of. Fair enough. Agreed. Consider too that IF the FCC retained any level of code testing for Extra then the FCC would/will have to reintroduce waivers as the international treaty no longer provides absolute minimal code requirements for any level. Why would FCC "have to" do waivers? IIRC there's no mention of waivers in the NPRM. The treaty's been changed for almost 2-1/2 years but no waivers. IF the code test isn't dropped totally, the president for waivers in the absence of any treaty requirement will rule. How do we know that? If that precedent really existed, why didn't FCC institute waivers as soon as the treaty requirement ended? They wouldn't need an NPRM - they could cite the 1990-2000 procedures and just change the words for "5 wpm". Inactivity in response to the treatty change by the FCC can certainly be chalked up to digestion of the host of petitions filed after WRC and the ultimate issuance of NPRM 98-235 which is now pending. Maybe - but if there really was a precedent, FCC could cite it, but they haven't. IF (let's be hypothetical) Sure! 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. IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't a right - only access to the tests for one is. ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Waivers of any kind are a real quagmire because they say the waivered test isn't really necessary for the license. What's to prevent someone for demanding a waiver of the Extra *written* test? Anyone can demand anything. On your first statement regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain any code testing. That's a path that FCC just won't go down. Probably not. PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code was only retained for Extra. Several: First off, I don't think ADA has ever been successfully cited against FCC regulations So? It hasn't been needed on any FCC basis yet. Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar. ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access" on a broad basis. Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes, bands or other operating privileges *except* a little more frequency spectrum. That's a contradictory statement. You say there's no additional privileges and then you note that there is. There's also the vanity call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but that's about it. Ditto my last. Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only access to the tests is a right. I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise. As an analogy, consider the national parks. There are places where access to the park by motor vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle because some people can't walk to them? ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done. Your national park analogy doesn't apply. One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep code testing but change how it is scored. One method is to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written) to the following: Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the 35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark on the code test. That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more. I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise would pass ADA requirements. I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems. We clearly differ in opinion then. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#2
November 7th 05, 03:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... The trend is and has been towards ending code. Ending code or code *testing*? Ending code testing. Whew! Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion. Doesn't mean it's a good thing. IYHO Of course. Inactivity in response to the treatty change by the FCC can certainly be chalked up to digestion of the host of petitions filed after WRC and the ultimate issuance of NPRM 98-235 which is now pending. Maybe - but if there really was a precedent, FCC could cite it, but they haven't. IF (let's be hypothetical) Sure! 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. IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't a right - only access to the tests for one is. ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Did code waivers come first, or ADA? Waivers of any kind are a real quagmire because they say the waivered test isn't really necessary for the license. What's to prevent someone for demanding a waiver of the Extra *written* test? Anyone can demand anything. Of course. But there's as much reason to use ADA against the Extra written as their is to use it against an "Extras only" code test. On your first statement regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain any code testing. Probably right! That's a path that FCC just won't go down. Probably not. PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code was only retained for Extra. Several: First off, I don't think ADA has ever been successfully cited against FCC regulations So? It hasn't been needed on any FCC basis yet. Or maybe it doesn't apply. Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar. ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access" on a broad basis. Which is up to interpretation. "Access" can be interpreted to mean being allowed to take the test, not being guaranteed a license. Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes, bands or other operating privileges *except* a little more frequency spectrum. That's a contradictory statement. You say there's no additional privileges and then you note that there is. Read it again! I wrote there are no additional operating (meaning on-the-air) privs *except* a bit more spectrum. There's also the vanity call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but that's about it. Ditto my last. Let me try another way... What does upgrading to Extra get for a General class licensee? There's the ability to VE all exams including Extra. There's the really spiffy callsigns. But Generals have access to all the same bands as Extras. All the same modes, too, and the same power level. On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that are for Extras only. The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in the Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly related to the privileges gained. Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only access to the tests is a right. I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise. But would they win? As an analogy, consider the national parks. There are places where access to the park by motor vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle because some people can't walk to them? ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done. Your national park analogy doesn't apply. I think it does. Paved paths could be provided, and small motor vehicles. Point is, that's not done because, in those parts of the national parks, access by everyone is deemed secondary to preserving the wild state of the park. One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep code testing but change how it is scored. One method is to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written) to the following: Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the 35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark on the code test. That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more. I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise would pass ADA requirements. I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems. We clearly differ in opinion then. I'm wondering how the options given above would not meet ADA. The two grading methods would be open to everyone. What would be the problem? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#4
November 7th 05, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... The trend is and has been towards ending code testing. Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion. Doesn't mean it's a good thing. IYHO Of course. Inactivity in response to the treaty change by the FCC can certainly be chalked up to digestion of the host of petitions filed after WRC and the ultimate issuance of NPRM 98-235 which is now pending. Maybe - but if there really was a precedent, FCC could cite it, but they haven't. IF (let's be hypothetical) Sure! 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. IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't a right - only access to the tests for one is. ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Did code waivers come first, or ADA? I I think the ADA may predate waivers... but that isn't of any importance anyway. The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately do anything. Most or much of the ADA impact has been with new accomodations. Application of ADA in existing situations has usually been the reult of a complaint by an individual or a group of individuals. Waivers of any kind are a real quagmire because they say the waivered test isn't really necessary for the license. What's to prevent someone for demanding a waiver of the Extra *written* test? Anyone can demand anything. Of course. But there's as much reason to use ADA against the Extra written as their is to use it against an "Extras only" code test. Perhaps, perhaps not. On your first statement regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain any code testing. Probably right! Which is why further discussion on this is a waste of my time. I'll wait to see what the FCC does before continuing this hypothetical. That's a path that FCC just won't go down. Probably not. PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code was only retained for Extra. Several: First off, I don't think ADA has ever been successfully cited against FCC regulations So? It hasn't been needed on any FCC basis yet. Or maybe it doesn't apply. Ditto my last comment. Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar. ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access" on a broad basis. Which is up to interpretation. "Access" can be interpreted to mean being allowed to take the test, not being guaranteed a license. Ditto my last again. Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes, bands or other operating privileges *except* a little more frequency spectrum. That's a contradictory statement. You say there's no additional privileges and then you note that there is. Read it again! I wrote there are no additional operating (meaning on-the-air) privs *except* a bit more spectrum. I know what you said, but in reality your except does contradict your lead statement. There's also the vanity call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but that's about it. Ditto my last. Let me try another way... What does upgrading to Extra get for a General class licensee? There's the ability to VE all exams including Extra. There's the really spiffy callsigns. But Generals have access to all the same bands as Extras. All the same modes, too, and the same power level. On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that are for Extras only. Which clearly is additional operating privileges. The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in the Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly related to the privileges gained. I doubt it, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only access to the tests is a right. I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise. But would they win? I believe so, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. As an analogy, consider the national parks. There are places where access to the park by motor vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle because some people can't walk to them? ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done. Your national park analogy doesn't apply. I think it does. Paved paths could be provided, and small motor vehicles. The ADA calls for "reasonable" accomodations. That is the defining point. But again, for now I see no need to discuss or debate the point. Point is, that's not done because, in those parts of the national parks, access by everyone is deemed secondary to preserving the wild state of the park. Which is why the legislation isn't absolute as to access. Ditto again...end of discussion for now. One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep code testing but change how it is scored. One method is to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written) to the following: Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the 35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark on the code test. That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more. I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise would pass ADA requirements. I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems. We clearly differ in opinion then. I'm wondering how the options given above would not meet ADA. The two grading methods would be open to everyone. What would be the problem? Cross that bridge if and when it happens. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#5
November 8th 05, 11:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... 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. IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't a right - only access to the tests for one is. ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Did code waivers come first, or ADA? I I think the ADA may predate waivers... but that isn't of any importance anyway. I think it is. IMHO anyway. The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately do anything. Most or much of the ADA impact has been with new accomodations. Application of ADA in existing situations has usually been the reult of a complaint by an individual or a group of individuals. Exactly - and *nobody complained*. It took backdoor diplomacy by a foreign King to get waivers, not advocacy by any US group. But there's as much reason to use ADA against the Extra written as their is to use it against an "Extras only" code test. Perhaps, perhaps not. On your first statement regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain any code testing. Probably right! Which is why further discussion on this is a waste of my time. I'll wait to see what the FCC does before continuing this hypothetical. I think it's worthwhile to consider where a path may lead before going that way. Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar. ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access" on a broad basis. Which is up to interpretation. "Access" can be interpreted to mean being allowed to take the test, not being guaranteed a license. Ditto my last again. Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes, bands or other operating privileges *except* a little more frequency spectrum. That's a contradictory statement. You say there's no additional privileges and then you note that there is. Read it again! I wrote there are no additional operating (meaning on-the-air) privs *except* a bit more spectrum. I know what you said, but in reality your except does contradict your lead statement. Not at all. See below. There's also the vanity call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but that's about it. Ditto my last. Let me try another way... What does upgrading to Extra get for a General class licensee? There's the ability to VE all exams including Extra. There's the really spiffy callsigns. But Generals have access to all the same bands as Extras. All the same modes, too, and the same power level. On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that are for Extras only. Which clearly is additional operating privileges. But not *different* operating privileges! (I should have said it that way from the beginning!) IOW, what's the difference between operating on, say, 14,030 kHz vs. 14,020 kHz using the same mode and power level? What additional knowledge or skills are needed for the lower frequency that aren't needed for the higher one? It could be claimed that since the Extra written isn't required to use 14,030, why is it an absolute requirement to use 14,020? Particularly for folks who have a really tough time memorizing/understanding all the stuff in the written tests? By allowing waivers *in principle*, the whole quagmire opens up to question all test requirements. The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in the Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly related to the privileges gained. I doubt it, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. Just the opposite - because if they go there, and cite the precedent, what possible argument could be used against them? This is actually backing up your assertion that FCC won't go for waivers under any circumstances, because they set the precedent for more waivers in cases like the above. Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only access to the tests is a right. I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise. But would they win? I believe so, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. And so far, nobody has. As an analogy, consider the national parks. There are places where access to the park by motor vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle because some people can't walk to them? ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done. Your national park analogy doesn't apply. I think it does. Paved paths could be provided, and small motor vehicles. The ADA calls for "reasonable" accomodations. That is the defining point. But again, for now I see no need to discuss or debate the point. "Reasonable" means there's a very wide latitude for interpretation and argument. Point is, that's not done because, in those parts of the national parks, access by everyone is deemed secondary to preserving the wild state of the park. Which is why the legislation isn't absolute as to access. Ditto again...end of discussion for now. One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep code testing but change how it is scored. One method is to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written) to the following: Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the 35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark on the code test. That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more. I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise would pass ADA requirements. I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems. We clearly differ in opinion then. I'm wondering how the options given above would not meet ADA. The two grading methods would be open to everyone. What would be the problem? Cross that bridge if and when it happens. "Failing to plan is planning to fail" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
November 8th 05, 03:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Man in the Maze QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ |
|
#7
November 8th 05, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: on Tues 8 Nov 2005 03:43
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Did code waivers come first, or ADA? I I think the ADA may predate waivers... but that isn't of any importance anyway. I think it is. IMHO anyway. ADA didn't use any morse code after 1948. The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately do anything. Most or much of the ADA impact has been with new accomodations. Application of ADA in existing situations has usually been the reult of a complaint by an individual or a group of individuals. Exactly - and *nobody complained*. It took backdoor diplomacy by a foreign King to get waivers, not advocacy by any US group. ADA still doesn't use any morse code. ADA isn't subject to any "diplomacy" and is responsible only to the United States Army as Headquarters, U. S. Army Pacific. Reference on ADA: http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf "Failing to plan is planning to fail" Jimmie, you should be in our State Department! :-) |
|
#8
November 11th 05, 10:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... cut ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Did code waivers come first, or ADA? I I think the ADA may predate waivers... but that isn't of any importance anyway. I think it is. IMHO anyway. The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately do anything. Most or much of the ADA impact has been with new accomodations. Application of ADA in existing situations has usually been the reult of a complaint by an individual or a group of individuals. Exactly - and *nobody complained*. wrong agian nobody listened to the complaints of americans on the subject I know at least one fellow that did complain It took backdoor diplomacy by a foreign King to get waivers, not advocacy by any US group. disgusting that it took going to Jordan to ask for freedom in the USA , and an absolute disgrace to the USA cut Which is why further discussion on this is a waste of my time. I'll wait to see what the FCC does before continuing this hypothetical. I think it's worthwhile to consider where a path may lead before going that way. when there is not real chance it will go that way cut On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that are for Extras only. Which clearly is additional operating privileges. But not *different* operating privileges! (I should have said it that way from the beginning!) IOW, what's the difference between operating on, say, 14,030 kHz vs. 14,020 kHz using the same mode and power level? What additional knowledge or skills are needed for the lower frequency that aren't needed for the higher one? It could be claimed that since the Extra written isn't required to use 14,030, why is it an absolute requirement to use 14,020? Particularly for folks who have a really tough time memorizing/understanding all the stuff in the written tests? By allowing waivers *in principle*, the whole quagmire opens up to question all test requirements. no it does not However I will grant you in makes it hardert to sustain each level beyond the first test. the first test is justified legaly by the term of the ITY treaty. each test after that one becomes harder and harder to justify on a legal basis but the waivers were allowed already in principle so that horse has left the barn years ago The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in the Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly related to the privileges gained. I doubt it, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. Just the opposite - because if they go there, and cite the precedent, what possible argument could be used against them? that the US has had a series of license tied to freq prevlegges granting more prevledge to more learned ops OTOH I agree with you to point the arguement is weak But I support an Ideal of ONE class of license for all and in practice would support (as opposed to merely accepting what is likely to result in the R&O) 2 class at most ( a "Novice" and full prevledges) BTW that is MY position not NCI's and just becuase I am No Coders doesn't mean other nocoders fell eetc..... cut |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| 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 | |||
Hybrid Mode
