From: Bill Sohl on Dec 5, 6:48 am

wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
K؈B wrote:
wrote

snip

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.

License examination privatization happed to BOTH the
commercial radio operator license exams as well as
radio amateurs.

There was no "VEC system" any more than it was a "COLEM
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?

There were no "secrets" prior to the "Bash Books" since
the essential questions were included in the "Q & A"
books available in the 1950s.

The copyright laws of the United States haven't changed
appreciably since 1950 insofar as the federal government
has NO copyright on anything it publishes. One example
that should be familiar to civilians looking at news
stands is J. K. Lassers Income Tax guide books which
include copies of all IRS forms.



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?

Those who don't like the amateur radio license examination
written questions can communicate with the VEC Question
Pool Committee. The VEC QPC makes up ALL the questions
for EACH class' written examinations.

That situation is eminently fair to me and should be to
all radio amateurs desiring the "clubhouse" kind of
"community." :-)

It seems more likely that the longer a complainant has
been licensed, the smarter they are, and the newcomers
are way dumber than they, the OTs, were. :-)



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.

ARRL's Petition RM-10867. ARRL's Comments filed on 31
October 2005 on NPRM 05-143 is partly a slight rewrite
of RM-10867. [Chris is trying very hard to get his
handiwork approved? :-) ]

ARRL's new "petition" (no RM assignment yet) calls
for a revision of the "band plans." That is
accessible from their www.arrl.org splash page.

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.

Whatever. :-) First item is excellent. Second, okay.
Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the
third? What "assessments" were done in the past?