wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote

But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that
the requirementsare "too high"....

Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me.

It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others.

First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code
waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute-
solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and
look at the writtens:

1) there's the official publication of the written exams.

Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition
for the test questions to be published?

2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time.

Your point? And again, who lobbied for that change?

3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements
so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written.

4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover
more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions
from the 1976 exams?

One could argue that is making the test
more difficult...depending on the individual.

5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over as long
as time and the wallet hold out.

Hasn't that been recently changed? Even if
not, I don't know of any VE group that allows
retesting on the smae test at the same test session.

In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and
the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes.

And yet NCVEC says we need another license class because
the current Tech is "too hard".

Hasn't the ARRL said the same thing by proposing a new beginners
license?
(SNIP

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote

But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that
the requirementsare "too high"....

Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me.

It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others.

First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code
waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute-
solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and
look at the writtens:

1) there's the official publication of the written exams.

Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition
for the test questions to be published?

Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by
FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence
of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them
secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled
the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it
when the VEs ran the testing?

2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time.

Your point?

In the bad old days, all the elements for a particular license had
to be passed at the same test session. For example, getting an
Extra meant that you had to pass both code and theory at the
same time. That's a tougher requirement than being able to
take them separately.

And again, who lobbied for that change?

I don't recall if anyone did.

3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements
so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written.

4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover
more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions
from the 1976 exams?

One could argue that is making the test
more difficult...depending on the individual.

It's the difference between knowing a little bit of the basics of a
wide variety
of subjects vs. an in-depth knowledge of fewer subjects. Most people
find
the latter to be more challenging.

5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over as long
as time and the wallet hold out.

Hasn't that been recently changed?

I don't think so. It was proposed but AFAIK not acted upon.

Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows
retesting on the smae test at the same test session.

My understanding is that some do - if you pay another fee.

In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and
the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes.

And yet NCVEC says we need another license class because
the current Tech is "too hard".

Hasn't the ARRL said the same thing by proposing a new beginners
license?
(SNIP

Have they really proposed a new license? Or different privileges for
the
existing one?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Have they really proposed a new license? Or different privileges for
the existing one?

Both. Both in Petitions, one that was already denied in part, the
other supposedly pending before the Commission (no RM number
assigned to it yet so it hasn't yet been accepted AS a Petition).

Tsk, tsk, you haven't looked at the league website? Both were
up there.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote
But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that
the requirementsare "too high"....

Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me.

It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others.

In other words, that is your opinion based
on your view of certain actions of others but
you have NO example where anyone has
said the requirements are too high. So the
reality is that we have NOT been told by
anyone that the requirements are too high.

First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code
waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute-
solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and
look at the writtens:

1) there's the official publication of the written exams.

Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition
for the test questions to be published?

Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by
FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence
of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them
secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled
the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it
when the VEs ran the testing?

2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time.

Your point?

In the bad old days, all the elements for a particular license had
to be passed at the same test session. For example, getting an
Extra meant that you had to pass both code and theory at the
same time. That's a tougher requirement than being able to
take them separately.

But again, that wasn't asked for by amateurs or any amateur
organization.

And again, who lobbied for that change?

I don't recall if anyone did.

Exactly!

3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements
so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written.

4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover
more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions
from the 1976 exams?

One could argue that is making the test
more difficult...depending on the individual.

It's the difference between knowing a little bit of the basics
of a wide variety of subjects vs. an in-depth
knowledge of fewer subjects. Most people find
the latter to be more challenging.

Amd you know this to be true based on what scientific
study/analysis?

And again, who asked for that or drove that change?

5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over
as long as time and the wallet hold out.

Hasn't that been recently changed?

I don't think so. It was proposed but AFAIK not acted upon.


Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows
retesting on the smae test at the same test session.

My understanding is that some do - if you pay another fee.

Do they allow the taking of the exact same test?
I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here
in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the
exact same test a second time on that same session
regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also
is that the VEs running the session have no desire to
allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's
money runs out.

In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and
the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes.

And yet NCVEC says we need another license class
because the current Tech is "too hard".

Hasn't the ARRL said the same thing by proposing a
new beginners license?
(SNIP

Have they really proposed a new license?
Or (just) different privileges for the existing one?

In another reply to your question,
Len stated the ARRL has filed both proposals.
I'll take his word on that.

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed
2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.
3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Cheers
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote
But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that
the requirementsare "too high"....

Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me.

It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others.

In other words, that is your opinion based
on your view of certain actions of others but
you have NO example where anyone has
said the requirements are too high. So the
reality is that we have NOT been told by
anyone that the requirements are too high.

Here are some more examples:

- ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams. These
proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech Pluses getting
Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds getting Extras
with no additional testing. While they don't come right out and say
the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands
of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively
says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are
too high. Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements.

NCI agreed with the ARRL proposal on the free upgrades, btw.
But FCC disagreed and denied all proposals for free upgrades.
FCC cited the comments of certain people in that denial - see
footnote 142 in the NPRM. (ahem)

- NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is
full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly
for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed
the "21st Century" paper closely.

First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code
waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute-
solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and
look at the writtens:

1) there's the official publication of the written exams.

Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition
for the test questions to be published?

Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by
FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence
of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them
secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled
the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it
when the VEs ran the testing?

Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because
the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down
to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference
from secret tests!

For example, in the old days we knew there would be Ohm's Law
problems on the exam, possibly including series and parallel resistors,
voltage dividers, power calculations and more. But we didn't know
exactly what the problems to be solved would look like, so we learned
to solve almost anything we could think up.

With open pools the exact form of the problem is known, and only
solutions for the problems which may be on the test need be learned.

2) CSCEs mean the tests can be taken one at a time.

Your point?

In the bad old days, all the elements for a particular license had
to be passed at the same test session. For example, getting an
Extra meant that you had to pass both code and theory at the
same time. That's a tougher requirement than being able to
take them separately.

But again, that wasn't asked for by amateurs or any amateur
organization.

And again, who lobbied for that change?

I don't recall if anyone did.

Exactly!

3) In March 1987 the General written was split into two elements
so that Techs no longer had to pass the full General written.

4) The content of the exams has been gradually made to cover
more subjects at less depth. Want to see some study questions
from the 1976 exams?

One could argue that is making the test
more difficult...depending on the individual.

It's the difference between knowing a little bit of the basics
of a wide variety of subjects vs. an in-depth
knowledge of fewer subjects. Most people find
the latter to be more challenging.

Amd you know this to be true based on what scientific
study/analysis?

Observation of human beings for over half a century ;-)

A typical first grader knows a little bit about a lot of
things, but not that much about any one thing.

And again, who asked for that or drove that change?

It was driven by the QPC and NCVEC.

5) Instant retest means someone can try over and over
as long as time and the wallet hold out.

Hasn't that been recently changed?

I don't think so. It was proposed but AFAIK not acted upon.

Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows
retesting on the smae test at the same test session.

My understanding is that some do - if you pay another fee.

Do they allow the taking of the exact same test?

No.

I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here
in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the
exact same test a second time on that same session
regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also
is that the VEs running the session have no desire to
allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's
money runs out.

Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory
30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the
test *really* prepared because coming back was not that
easy.

In 2000, FCC reduced both the number of the written tests and
the overall number of questions for all remaining license classes.

And yet NCVEC says we need another license class
because the current Tech is "too hard".

Hasn't the ARRL said the same thing by proposing a
new beginners license?
(SNIP

Have they really proposed a new license?
Or (just) different privileges for the existing one?

In another reply to your question,
Len stated the ARRL has filed both proposals.
I'll take his word on that.

He's hardly a reliable source.

ARRL proposed a new license class in 2004.
NCVEC has too, and some others. FCC denied them all.

The original 2004 ARRL proposal would have given all Techs and
Tech pluses a free upgrade to General. Advanceds would get a
free upgrade to Extra, too.

ARRL then proposed that the Technician then be replaced by a
new entry-level license that had a balance of HF and VHF/UHF
privileges, instead of the current Technician's all-VHF/UHF
setup.

That part of the 2004 ARRL proposal was denied by FCC.

Now, in comments on the current NPRM, ARRL has
recommended expanded privileges for all Technicians, rather
than a completely new license class. The claim is that
the all-VHF/UHF privileges of the Technician are not optimum
for the entry-class license, and that it would be expecting
too much for new hams to get a General just to get on
HF - *even without any code test for General*.

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed

Will probably happen regardless of anything else.

2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.

Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading
the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and
analyzing it a la AH0A.

It would not be possible to determine "never before" hams as
opposed to "retreads" without a lot of historic info.

Upgrades could be derived by comparing the current license class
of each license with the license class from the previous analysis.

3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" - do all
the analysis work?

It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes.

If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders
have an incentive to pass the tests.

But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the
requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how
things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a
few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL
got you a free upgrade?

Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back.

As an example, yesterday I was in BestBuy and took a look at
the HDTVs. All sorts of them on the market - and some of the
older ones were being sold at clearance prices.

But I decided not to get one now, because I think the prices
will come down. I don't "need" an HD set just yet, so why
pay the high price now?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote
But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that
the requirementsare "too high"....

Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me.

It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others.

In other words, that is your opinion based
on your view of certain actions of others but
you have NO example where anyone has
said the requirements are too high. So the
reality is that we have NOT been told by
anyone that the requirements are too high.

Here are some more examples:

- ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams.
These proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech
Pluses getting Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds
getting Extras with no additional testing.
While they don't come right out and say
the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands
of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively
says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are
too high.

bunk! Your logic is failed because those free upgrades were
proposed as a one time only set of upgrades to get people
to a newly aligned set of licenses and privileges without
subjecting anyone to a lose of privileges.

Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements.

Ditto my last comment.

NCI agreed with the ARRL proposal on the free upgrades, btw.
But FCC disagreed and denied all proposals for free upgrades.
FCC cited the comments of certain people in that denial - see
footnote 142 in the NPRM. (ahem)

OK, no point there.

- NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is
full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly
for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed
the "21st Century" paper closely.

Prior to 2000, was the Novice too high?
If the FCC went back or
changed Tech to a Novice level test (retaining the
General and Extra as is) would that bother you?

First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code
waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute-
solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and
look at the writtens:

1) there's the official publication of the written exams.

Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition
for the test questions to be published?

Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by
FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence
of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them
secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled
the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it
when the VEs ran the testing?

Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because
the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down
to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference
from secret tests!

Yawn.... BUT publishing the questions was never proposed
by ARRL. That being so, who in the FCC do you
attribute the change to?

(SNIP)

I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here
in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the
exact same test a second time on that same session
regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also
is that the VEs running the session have no desire to
allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's
money runs out.

Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory
30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the
test *really* prepared because coming back was not that
easy.

So? If someone wants to risk failing that's their choice.
It's a real stretch to consider that making requirements easier.

(SNIP)

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed

Will probably happen regardless of anything else.

2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.

Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading
the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and
analyzing it a la AH0A.

ARRL is perfectly capable of that I'm sure.

It would not be possible to determine "never before" hams as
opposed to "retreads" without a lot of historic info.

The number of "retreads" is propably a very small percentage
of those that appear as new.

Upgrades could be derived by comparing the current license class
of each license with the license class from the previous analysis.

OK

3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" - do all
the analysis work?

ARRL can do it.

It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes.

If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders
have an incentive to pass the tests.

But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the
requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how
things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a
few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL
got you a free upgrade?
Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back.

I could care less about those that might want to wait for
changes they have no assurance are coming.

(SNIP)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote
But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that
the requirementsare "too high"....

Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me.

It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others.

In other words, that is your opinion based
on your view of certain actions of others but
you have NO example where anyone has
said the requirements are too high. So the
reality is that we have NOT been told by
anyone that the requirements are too high.

Here are some more examples:

- ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams.
These proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech
Pluses getting Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds
getting Extras with no additional testing.
While they don't come right out and say
the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands
of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively
says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are
too high.

bunk! Your logic is failed because those free upgrades were
proposed as a one time only set of upgrades to get people
to a newly aligned set of licenses and privileges without
subjecting anyone to a lose of privileges.

I don't think it's "bunk" at all. Neither does FCC.

Here's why:

ARRL proposed that Technicians and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to
General without taking any tests.

Any such action by FCC would need an effective date - a date when the
rules would change, and the free upgrade would take effect.

A new amateur who earned the Technician the day before the effective
date would get the free upgrade, just like all other Techs. The result
would be that Generals who hadn't taken the General test would
outnumber Generals who *had* taken the General test.

Worse, new hams who were licensed after the effective date would still
have
to pass the General exam.

IOW, if the effective date were February 1, a Tech first licensed on
January 31
would be a General on February 2, yet have only taken the Tech test.
But a new
ham licensed on Feb 2 would have to take the General test for the same
privileges. IOW, new hams would have to pass more and harder tests for
the
same privileges that others got for free.

Or to put it plainly:

If the General test isn't needed for those who got the free upgrade,
why is it
needed at all?

Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements.

Ditto my last comment.

FCC agrees with me, though.

NCI agreed with the ARRL proposal on the free upgrades, btw.
But FCC disagreed and denied all proposals for free upgrades.
FCC cited the comments of certain people in that denial - see
footnote 142 in the NPRM. (ahem)

OK, no point there.

- NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is
full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly
for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed
the "21st Century" paper closely.

Prior to 2000, was the Novice too high?

Not for the privileges granted.

If the FCC went back or
changed Tech to a Novice level test (retaining the
General and Extra as is) would that bother you?

If it retained the privileges, yes.

First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code
waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute-
solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and
look at the writtens:

1) there's the official publication of the written exams.

Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition
for the test questions to be published?

Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by
FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence
of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them
secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled
the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it
when the VEs ran the testing?

Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because
the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down
to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference
from secret tests!

Yawn.... BUT publishing the questions was never proposed
by ARRL. That being so, who in the FCC do you
attribute the change to?

Those who wanted to save money by getting FCC out of the exam-giving
process.

(SNIP)

I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here
in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the
exact same test a second time on that same session
regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also
is that the VEs running the session have no desire to
allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's
money runs out.

Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory
30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the
test *really* prepared because coming back was not that
easy.

So? If someone wants to risk failing that's their choice.
It's a real stretch to consider that making requirements easier.

I disagree.

(SNIP)

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed

Will probably happen regardless of anything else.

2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.

Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading
the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and
analyzing it a la AH0A.

ARRL is perfectly capable of that I'm sure.

But somebody has to pay for it. And you can bet that whatever
numbers ARRL puts out, some will say they are "massaged" and
accuse the ARRL of "fraud" and such.

It would not be possible to determine "never before" hams as
opposed to "retreads" without a lot of historic info.

The number of "retreads" is propably a very small percentage
of those that appear as new.

Agreed.

Upgrades could be derived by comparing the current license class
of each license with the license class from the previous analysis.

OK

3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" - do all
the analysis work?

ARRL can do it.

How do we get them to do it?

It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes.

If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders
have an incentive to pass the tests.

But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the
requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how
things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a
few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL
got you a free upgrade?
Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back.

I could care less about those that might want to wait for
changes they have no assurance are coming.

But those changes have an enormous impact on the numbers.
That's the point, whether we care about it or not.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
cut
bunk! Your logic is failed because those free upgrades were
proposed as a one time only set of upgrades to get people
to a newly aligned set of licenses and privileges without
subjecting anyone to a lose of privileges.

I don't think it's "bunk" at all. Neither does FCC.

now you speak for the FCC

Here's why:

ARRL proposed that Technicians and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to
General without taking any tests.

Any such action by FCC would need an effective date - a date when the
rules would change, and the free upgrade would take effect.

A new amateur who earned the Technician the day before the effective
date would get the free upgrade, just like all other Techs. The result
would be that Generals who hadn't taken the General test would
outnumber Generals who *had* taken the General test.

so what

what I see you is you cintinueing your whining
cut

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Here are some more examples:
- ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams.
These proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech
Pluses getting Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds
getting Extras with no additional testing.
While they don't come right out and say
the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands
of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively
says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are
too high.

bunk! Your logic is failed because those free upgrades were
proposed as a one time only set of upgrades to get people
to a newly aligned set of licenses and privileges without
subjecting anyone to a lose of privileges.

I don't think it's "bunk" at all. Neither does FCC.

The FCC never considered it a long term lowering of requirements
on any permananent basis. That is YOUR conclusion only.

Here's why:
ARRL proposed that Technicians and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to
General without taking any tests.

Any such action by FCC would need an effective date - a date when the
rules would change, and the free upgrade would take effect.

A new amateur who earned the Technician the day before the effective
date would get the free upgrade, just like all other Techs. The result
would be that Generals who hadn't taken the General test would
outnumber Generals who *had* taken the General test.

Worse, new hams who were licensed after the effective date would still
have to pass the General exam.

That is NOT the reason the FCC rejected the idea. The FCC
seems much more aligned with the idea of minimum changes
for now and a wait and see attitude. (IMHO)

IOW, if the effective date were February 1, a Tech first licensed
on January 31 would be a General on February 2, yet have
only taken the Tech test. But a new
ham licensed on Feb 2 would have to take the General test for
the same privileges. IOW, new hams would have to pass more
and harder tests for the same privileges that others got for free.

Again, none of your argument presented here was a part of the FCC
commentary. You may believe it is so, but the FCC never stated
it as so.


Or to put it plainly:

If the General test isn't needed for those who got the free
upgrade, why is it needed at all?

Please point out wwhere the FCC said that.

Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements.

Ditto my last comment.

FCC agrees with me, though.

No they didn't. The FCC never said anything even close to
what you are concluding.

- NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is
full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly
for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed
the "21st Century" paper closely.

Prior to 2000, was the Novice too high?

Not for the privileges granted.

If the FCC went back or
changed Tech to a Novice level test (retaining the
General and Extra as is) would that bother you?

If it retained the privileges, yes.

And if it didn't retain the privileges, should the FCC
(a) lower privileges for all existing techs or (b) ??

(snip)

Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because
the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down
to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference
from secret tests!

Yawn.... BUT publishing the questions was never proposed
by ARRL. That being so, who in the FCC do you
attribute the change to?

Those who wanted to save money by getting FCC out of the
exam-giving process.

So the reality is that no one in the ham community pushed that.
I'll conclude then that anytime the FCC proposes a change
even if not originated in the ham community, if you view it
as a lowering of requirements then it is automatically bad
per your opinion.

(SNIP)

I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here
in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the
exact same test a second time on that same session
regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also
is that the VEs running the session have no desire to
allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's
money runs out.

Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory
30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the
test *really* prepared because coming back was not that
easy.

So? If someone wants to risk failing that's their choice.
It's a real stretch to consider that making requirements easier.

I disagree.

WHY must there be a waiting period? If applicant X passes
a different test at the same VE session, the applicant has
still passed the test. If the applicant had taken the one he
nowed passed after failing a different one first then the
applicant passed...PERIOD. You seem to want a punitive
element attached to failing such that the applicant is
prohibited from retesting for 'N' period of time. There
is NO rhyme or reason to why you want that.

(SNIP)

As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would
support that idea...but I think we need to approach
that concept slowly by the following path:

1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed

Will probably happen regardless of anything else.

2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely
the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams
and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years.

Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading
the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and
analyzing it a la AH0A.

ARRL is perfectly capable of that I'm sure.

But somebody has to pay for it.

ARRL has more than enough ability to fund such a study or
simply assign the task to one of the permanent ARRL staffers.

And you can bet that whatever
numbers ARRL puts out, some will say they are "massaged" and
accuse the ARRL of "fraud" and such.

WHO cares? There is always someone that will take issue
with any study conclusion, analysis, ets. If you expect
a 100% agreed to set of review and analysis as the end
result, tyhen yu're expecting the impossible.

(Snip)

3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists
regarding the ability to gain new hams.

Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" -
do the analysis work?

ARRL can do it.

How do we get them to do it?

Given the analysis I've seen before presented in QST on
various subjects, especially as to ham population and,
indirectly ARRL membership, I'll bet the ARRL is always
looking at ham and new ham numbers.

It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes.
If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders
have an incentive to pass the tests.

But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the
requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how
things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a
few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL
got you a free upgrade?
Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back.

I could care less about those that might want to wait for
changes they have no assurance are coming.

But those changes have an enormous impact on the numbers.
That's the point, whether we care about it or not.

The percent of people that might ultimately wait for "possible"
(emphasis on possible as opposed to actual)
future changes is, I suspect small. Odds are that there aren't
many current techs waiting for future free upgrades nor
where there likly many that shelved their upgrade plans
when the ARRL first proposed free upgrades. (IMHO of
course).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote

[snip]

Even if not, I don't know of any VE group that allows
retesting on the smae test at the same test session.

My understanding is that some do - if you pay another fee.

Do they allow the taking of the exact same test?
I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here
in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the
exact same test a second time on that same session
regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also
is that the VEs running the session have no desire to
allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's
money runs out.


Well the VE teams that I have been on allow the applicant to keep testing on
the same element until one of the following things happens:

1. The applicant passes
2. The team runs out of different versions of the test for the element that
the applicant trying to pass
3. The applicant runs out of money or patience
4. The VE team runs out of time or patience.

The team is not required to stay just because an applicant wants to keep
trying. It is within the team's rights to set the length of the test
session and whether or not to extend it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE