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