wrote:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in
nk.net:


wrote in news:1109689325.032940.133970
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


http://www.arrl.org

scroll down about 3 stories

Article sez FCC is working on NPRM that will address all 18

existing

proposals. Expected to become public about the middle of 2005.

With

the usual comment period, etc., Report and Order by maybe late
2006/early 2007.

73 de Jim, N2EY


If the ARRL has a proposal, could you post it here for review. I

refuse

to visit their site anymore. TNX 73

KB7ADL


I don't have the full details of the ARRL petition to hand, but

basically

it brings back the Novice licence (without the code), makes Techs

into

Generals and Advanceds into Extras, and dumps ths code test except

for

Extras, who would still have to pass it.


Basically a compromise that gives everybody something they want but
doesn't give anybody everything.


Two comments on the Antique Radio Relay League's news item.


Your bias is showing, Alun.


Firstly, it's very telling that they buried it down the page, just
as they did with

the

announcement that the code test was abolished by the ITU.


They post the stories in chronological order. If it's not at the top,
that's because a newer story has displaced it. They did not "bury"
anything.

And the code test was not abolished by ITU. All that changed was that
the treaty no longer requires such a test. Signatory countries are
now no longer *required by treaty* to have a code test, that's all.

Secondly, it does say at the end that "it's possible the Commission


could

wrap up the proceeding before that time frame", so IOW the 2006/7
is

just

the League's guesswork.


Of course - and they make that clear in the article.

Back in summer 2003, ARRL said at least two years. Which seemed
incredibly long at the time, but is now turning out to be short, if
anything.

IMHO, the FCC will not adopt the League's proposal as such.


Probably not. Nor will they adopt anyone's proposal as presented,
IMHO.


The FCC say that they are looking for a consensus amongst us, and
they are also

on

record as saying that the code test useful doesn't serve any useful


purpose.

When did they say those things?

btw, the FCC's words were "serves no *REGULATORY* purpose" (emphasis
added) not "useful purpose". BIG difference!

And if FCC still thinks the code test serves no regulatory purpose,
why didn't they just dump Element 1 in late summer 2003, as proposed
by at least two groups? All it would take is a Memorandum Report and
Order. In fact, as a temporary measure pending rewriting the rules,
they could have simply ordered that anyone who passed Element 2, 3 or
4 gets Element 1 credit.

But they didn't.


There is no consensus, so I think they will choose from whatever
has been proposed those things that suit their own organisational
objectives,

i.e.

reducing administrative burden. IOW, fewer tests and fewer licence

classes

suits the FCC.


Maybe.

But back in 1998, ARRL proposed free upgrades for Novices and Tech
Pluses so that there would be four classes and no closed-out classes.
Others have proposed similar freebies. FCC has consistently said no,
and keeps the Tech Plus, Advanced and Novice alive in their rules
and database. At the current rate of decline, it may be 15 more years
before the last Advanced is gone.

The reports of database nightmares due to more classes are greatly
exxagerated. If no more people are added to those classes, the database
simply sits there, bothering no one except the hand wringers. As
attrition hits, du to upgrading or license expiry or licensee expiry,
that just gets deducted from the otherwise inactive database. No biggee.





I predict the code test will not be a continuing feature in the
NPRM,


whatever else is, since eliminating a test reduces administrative

burden

and they are already on record as wanting to get rid of it.


Yet they have not done so. If they really think Element 1 should go,
why wasn't it dumped in 2003?

When did they say it was a burden?




Reducing the number of classes also appeals to the FCC, so maybe
they might even adopt most of the League's proposal but get rid of element 1
as well?

I don't think so, though, as the line of least resistance is to
keep the current test elements as they are. This means grandfathering Novice
to Tech instead of Tech to General, so that is what I predict they will do.



Why? Keeping the closed-out license classes costs them little or
nothing. Tech Plus will disappear in a little more than 5 years, as
the last Tech Plus is renewed as Tech. The other two closed-out
classes are slowly dropping, yet may last a lot longer because of
renewals.

Maybe I'll write a proposal...

Why not?

- Mike KB3EIA -