"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...


[snip]

PS: Looking for EPA in ARRL 160 tonight. They were scarce last night.

Hope you got EPA tonight. For me, they were everywhere!

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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:
wrote:
From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:42 pm
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm
wrote:
From: on Fri, Nov 25 2005 4:26 pm
wrote:


Mark, there's something curious about morsemen. They are very
SERIOUS about their hobby and INTENSE on certain skills.

Is there anything wrong with being serious or intense?

Let's see....WK3C and K2UNK spent their own time and money to
visit FCC officials about the Morse Code test issue. That's pretty
SERIOUS and INTENSE, isn't it?

DETERMINED would be a better descriptor.

So procodetest people are DETERMINED.

(not that there's anything wrong with that...)

St. Hiram went to Washington after WW1.

Who is "St. Hiram"?

Hiram Percy Maxim went to Washington DC after WW1. He and some others
also went to Paris a few times in the 1920s to attend world radio
conferences.

Those were good things because they helped insure the continued
existence
of amateur radio.

That established a precedent on "goodness" or "badness" of
"spending their own time and money" didn't it?

Depends on the goal.

Your buddy Mark claims that late filings break some law or other.

INCORRECT. Mark cited NO "law or other."

Yes, he did.

YOU brought out
the charges of "illegality."

He said I had no respect for the rule of law. I asked what law was
broken by
late comments.

Straighten him out - if you can.

Straighten out YOURSELF.

Nothing wrong with me.

In the case of publishing NPRM 05-143, the Commission was 6
calendar weeks LATE.

How? Is there a deadline for FCC?

Why are you asking?

Because you stated the FCC was LATE. To be LATE, there has to be
a deadline that was exceeded.

To misdirect MORE than usual into "charges"
that you invent as you go along? Or are you just trying to fight
in words because of some frustration of yours?

I'm just trying to determine how the FCC was LATE.

The Commission has typically published Notices in the Federal
Register WITHIN A WEEK of such Notices being made to the
public.

So it took unusually long to get the NPRM into the Federal Register.
That's not the same as being LATE. Can't be LATE without a
deadline.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking FCC 05-143 was released on 15
July 2005. In that initial release, the heading carried the
information that Comments [period] would exist for 60 days,
Replies to Comments [period] would exist for 75 days AFTER
PUBLISHING IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.

And yet you jumped the gun.

Maybe FCC won't read your comments that were filed too early, Len. ;-)

Publishing did not happen until 31 August 2005. THEN the
firm date period of filings was made.

But you couldn't wait....

So? Does FCC have to get NPRMs in the Federal Register
within a certain amount of time?

If it wants to be of service to the PUBLIC, it should.

Who are you to pass judgement on FCC?

Perhaps you should tell
them off and put them right, Len - after all, you've said you're
not afraid of authority. You could put in some of your
diminutive nicknames and catchphrases, and criticize them
for taking six long weeks.....

Already filed. See ECFS on WT Docket 05-235 for 25 November
2005, filing type EXHIBIT.

Did you call them diminutive nicknames and use your catchphrases?

The normal delay on public release to publishing is anywhere
from zero days to a week. A few have taken longer, but it
would be a VERY long search to find a docket/proceeding that
was delayed SIX WEEKS.

So? It took them a little longer. Have you no patience?

I have considerable patience.

Not from what I've seen ;-)

I also have fun with some
dumbsnits who only want to ARGUE for the sake of arguing.
:-)

So you have fun with yourself....

In those SIX WEEKS DELAY the public
filed 52% of all comments filed.

And the majority of those were anticodetest. The procodetest folks,
in general, waited for the official comment period.

Bullsnit. :-)

No, it's true - according to your tally, anyway. Isn't your tally
accurate? As of August 31, didn't the majority of filings
support the nocodetest position?

What of all the "procodetest" folks who DID comment in the
"unofficial" period?

They were outnumbered by the nocodetest commentary - according
to you, anyway.

What of all those FOR the NPRM who filed during the "official"
period?

They were outnumbered by the procodetest commentary in the
same period.

What does that say about the two groups' understanding of the
regulations?

What "regulation" states that an NPRM must be immediately
published in the Federal Register?

I don't know of any - but you keep yelling that FCC was "LATE".

No, the general public EXPECTS federal agencies to perform
their duties in manner established by considerable precedent.
The Commission has done fairly fast work in the past on all
regulation change documents publishing in the Federal
Register. A SIX WEEK DELAY in publishing is an error in
serving the public, a disservice.

Horrors! Oh woe, Len had to wait SIX WEEKS!

The "public" may not be fully aware of the official comment
period beginning date.

Nonsense. Most of those who filed comments are licensed
amateurs, aren't they?

WHAT "regulation" or "law" states that ONLY licensed radio
amateurs may communicate with the federal government on
amateur radio regulations?

There's none. But that's not the point! Most of those who filed
comments are licensed amateurs. The six week delay did not
prevent anyone from filing, nor did it somehow prevent "the
public" (which includes radio amateurs) from filing comments.

Name it. NOW.

You're not in charge, Len.

Not "six weeks from now."

Not this time! Why don't you complain, Len?

Already done, as I said. Are you suddenly blind? NOT aware
and informed?

I'm more aware and informed than you, Len.

You filed before the deadline, didn't you? ;-)

Yes. What "law" did I break?

While you have every right in the world to comment to FCC, Len, did
it ever occur to you that maybe - just maybe - your long wordy
diatribes really don't help the nocodetest cause one bit?

None at all.

Typical.

Filings made to a federal agency are not "newsgroup style."

Yours read that way.

I don't consider ANY of my filings as a "diatribe."

Others do. They're only slightly different than you blatherings
here. The big differences are that you get to stick in footnotes
and italics and bold type.

For most of my life I've lived in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.

Hardly anything to brag about...

Why not? Philly is a great town. Lots of history, lots of culture, lots
of diversity, lots of fun.

Better than living some place where the earth shakes every so
often, the hillsides either catch fire or slide away, and the people
elect aging movie actors to important public offices when they're
not busy trying to preserve their "views" at the expense of others'
property rights.

Washington DC is a day trip from here - done it many times.

Irrelevant. As the song in the musical "Annie" says "Tomorrow
is only a day away..."

In fact, some things I have designed are in daily use in the DC metro
area.

You designed pooper scoopers?!?

Nope. Did you? ;-) ;-)

It would be a simple thing for me to take a day or two to see
all those 6000 "filings".

So...what HAVE you said? Nothing, really. :-)

NOTHING what you said offers ANY proof that you've actually
seen and read 6000 filings of anything in DC.

I didn't say I did - or did not. Just that it's not an impossible or
even
difficult thing for me to do.

Old-timers of the League loved radiotelegraphy,

Is that a bad thing?

In the year 2005? :-)

Yes. But the discussion was about the past.

following the "tradition"
established by its first president, St. Hiram.

Maxim was a genius. You're not, Len.

How do you "know" that? :-)

Your behavior here proves it.

Do you live within a day's travel to Champaign-Urbana, IL,
and have you read the University of Illinois' statewide
high school testing efforts of 1950? All of my two-week-
long test scores (including a Stanford-Binet IQ test) are
there in their archives.

Do you think you're a genius, Len?

And then why did ARRL *oppose* the creation of the Extra
class license in 1951? And why did ARRL's 1963 proposal
not include any additional code testing for full privileges?

Excuse me for interrupting your misdirection diatribe but
the POLICY subject concerns the 2005 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking FCC 05-143. Note the current year.

The discussion was about the past, Len. Note the context.

And why did ARRL oppose FCC's 16 wpm code test proposal
and "Amateur First Grade" license class in 1965?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you don't stop misdirecting, do you? :-)

Hello? 1965 is FORTY YEARS AGO!

The discussion was about the creation of the Extra license.

Pointing out that you are not a radio amateur is not the same thing
as saying you are not allowed to "discuss" or comment.

Tsk. You contradict yourself.

How?

My old Johnson Viking Messenger CB radio still works, is still
operating within FCC regulations.

How do you know?

By actual measurement using calibrated test equipment. :-)

So you don't really know.

Tsk, I have working experience in metrology, two years worth.

Yes, you kept changing jobs...

Not true! Most of my "working receivers" are general coverage.
I also have several transceivers. You're not qualified to operate
any of them, Len.

I am not AUTHORIZED to transmit RF energy IN amateur-only bands
or frequencies beyond the maximum level as stated in Part 15,
Title 47 C.F.R.

That's a good thing.

I have qualified to operate, test, maintain a great number of
different receivers, transmitters, transceivers, electronic
equipment of many kinds in the last half century.

But not an amateur radio station.

All one
needs is an operating instruction manual, schematics, and an
explanation of all the unmarked controls and conenctors are.

And the required license and operating skills.

Actually, I have co-owned a PLMRS base transceiver and mobile
transceivers which radio amateurs were NOT AUTHORIZED to
operate! :-)

But you have never been qualified to operate and amateur radio station.

Actually, those electromechanical teletypewriters with 100
WPM throughput are still in use in a few places...

Where?

As TDDs (Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).

Not so many anymore.

As I/O
devices for old-time computer hobbyists.

Museum pieces.

Still used in a few
businesses...who are too cheap to invest in electronic
terminals. :-)

Those are places I know about. There may be a few others. It
isn't a hot topic to me.

So it's a nearly-dead technology.

Teletype Corporation went
defunct some years ago...they couldn't produce a product
inexpensive enough to handle written communications needs.
Even TDDs have dropped electromechanical teletypewriters in
favor of smaller, easier to use solid-state terminals.

So they're all dead or dying technologies, while Morse Code lives on
and flourishes.

"Flourishes?" You have flour in your eye. :-)

Right NOW, there are hundreds of thousands of data terminals IN
USE in the world, doing throughput at rates of 1200 BPS to 56 KBPS
and faster, short-range to long-range, wired and wireless. DATA.
Alphanumeric characters. Most with display screens, some with
peripheral hard-copy printers for text on real paper with ink or
toner.

But not 100 wpm teleprinters.

ElectroMECHANICAL teletypewriters went defunct as new products
because the mechanics of them didn't allow such high throughput.
The last holdouts are the "chain printers" used in Information
Technologies' activities, everything from wide printouts to
mass check-writing. Those are being replaced with xerographic
or ink-jet printing devices.

Manual morse code "lives on" ONLY in AMATEUR radio.

By the choice of radio amateurs.

Why are you so against choice, Len?

The maritime
world has largely given up on manual morse code for long-distance
HF communications.

Where are the landline manual morse code telegraphy
communications stations now? Where are the manual morse code
communications stations in the military of the United States?

Same place as the 100 wpm teleprinters.

Let's brush away some of your "flour." If morse code
communications is "flourishing" in the "amateur bands," why
is it only Number TWO in popularity? Once it was the ONLY
way to communicated.

"only way to communicated"??

That ended in 1900.

How can morsemanship be "flourishing"
when it is declining in popularity?

How do you know it's declining?

I don't recall anyone ever saying that an amateur radio license was
anything other than a qualification to operate an amateur radio
station.

"Qualification?" It isn't an AUTHORIZATION?

It's both. You have neither.

Oh, my, I've actually OPERATED amateur radio transmitters and
have never had an amateur license!

No, you haven't. Not legally, anyway.

Operated: Set the controls,
turned it on, tuned it up, reset some controls according to
instructions in the manual, applied various modulation input,
measured the RF output in terms of power, frequency, index of
modulation, percentage distortion of modulation input, harmonic
content, incidental RF radiation from the equipment other than
the output connection, lots of things.

But not legally. Not as control operator. You're neither qualified nor
authorized.

Oh, yes, and OPERATED a morse code key turning the transmitter
on and off! That actually only to test the key connection
wiring...the rise/fall time of the RF envelope was measured
using an astable multivibrator circuit driving a mercury-
wetted contact relay that was connected to the keyer input.

Into a dummy load, right?

I have legally and successfully OPERATED communications radios

But not amateur radio.

from many places on land, aloft while flying in various places,
from a Coast Guard vessel on water, a commercial ferry on water,
and from a private sailing craft...all doing real, live
communications.

So you used a cell phone...

Also in a bunch of other applications like high-end audio equipment.

Yes, by some purists who like the vacuum tube amplifier
DISTORTION effects when the amplifier input is overdriven.

No.

European electronics hobbyists - a very few - are very much
"into" Nixie and Nixie-like numeric displays and some are
going all-out into making digital systems using tubes. Hans
Summers, G0UPL, has collected a great number of specialized
tubes with the intent on duplicating a radio clock that
synchronizes automatically with the Rugby standard station
on 60 KHz. He already did that in solid-state as a college
project. All described on his large website www.hanssummers.
com.

Yep. I have had a QSO with Hans on 80 CW. You haven't.

Tsk, tsk. I entered electronics and radio in the vacuum tube
era and learned how to design circuits using tubes. Had to
put aside everything but the basics of those circuits in order
to work with transistors, then ICs. Took lots of learning
AND relearning to do all that and I did it on my own time.

The Army never gave you any training, Len?

Half a year at Fort Monmouth Signal School on basic radar, then
microwave radio relay. The rest was ON THE JOB...operating and
maintaining HF transmitters, VHF and UHF receivers and
transmitters, wireline voice and teletypewriter carrier equipment,
inside plant telephone equipment. It was a case of "Here's the
manuals, there's the equipment, DO IT." :-)

And Sarge was there to help you...

I was a soldier, a signalman. I got my Honorable Discharge
in 1960 after serving MY country in the U.S. Army.

What have YOU done to equal that?

Len, you've done things I haven't. I've done things you haven't.

But you've made it clear that nothing can equal or surpass
what you've done, if you disagree with the person who
did it. You'll call someone with much more military service than you
names if they disagree, and claim their service did not exist.

Typical of you.

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 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

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"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 same 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

I have no problem with that since, per your point 2,
the applicant doesn't retest the same version of the
test already taken at that VE session.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK