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