[CW] W5YI groups suggestions on ham radio licensing

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/30/2004 1:14:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, N7DC@cs.com writes:
> 
> The W5YI VEC group is the second largest group giving the tests.   At that, they are small potatoes, against the number of ARRL VEC testing sessions.    And yes, I do believe they are the ones that wrote the proposal, with ARRL and maybe a few others abstaining.  

This is all spelled out in the "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper by KL7CC. W5YI and 2 or 3 others wrote the proposal. 

>I dont know what it is with the ARRL and the absententions.  Certainly our ARRL representatives have the power to vote since they are going into these meetings, knowing what is suppose to be happening.  If they dont, then they shouldnt be there.   
> 
> The percentage of W5YI tests that have been queried, and even set aside during the past few years, should have told the ARRL something, but they apparently are willing to overlook a lot, in order to abdicate what should be their responsibility in giving the tests in the first place.   

The problem goes back to the beginnings of the VE system.

When FCC decided to get out of the business of giving tests, it seemed like a natural that ARRL would take over that function. But some folks (I think W5YI among them) protested, saying it would give ARRL a monopoly of some sort, stifle dissent, etc. In any aevent the main beef was that they didn't want to have to go through ARRL to take a license test.

So FCC made the rules such that almost anybody could set up a VEC. Of course most VEs simply signed up with ARRL, but other, independent VECs sprang up too. And of course their needed to be a coordinating body to make sure procedures were reasonably identical among VE sessions, so NCVEC was formed. And as a coordinating group it's done a pretty good job these past 20 years. In similar fashion, the QPC (Question Pool Committee) was created.

 
>  The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and to have any group pontificate as if they represented me, makes me very angry.  They respresent only themselves.  They are not an open membership group.  We as individuals did not elect or appoint them in any leadership at all, and they should butt out of indicating any such thing. That is one thing that needs to be made very clear when we respond to the FCC.

I agree 100%. The few folks who wrote that proposal (and the one before it) clearly have an agenda to turn NCVEC into something far different than a coordinating body for VECs. 
> 
> The very idea that a licensed amateur radio operator, including those holding the lowest grade of license, would not be allowed to build or repair his own equipment is completely contrary to amateur radio history and would not bode well for our service. 

The idea (with the "30 volt rule") are very bad for a host of reasons:

1) It's an insult to the intelligence of new hams
2) It's unenforceable
3) It limits the equipment choices of new hams unnecessarily.
4) It raises the cost of getting on the air.
5) It is illogical, in that a new ham can do all sorts of electrical work without any license at all (hollow-state receivers, house rewiring, even a power supply for the rig that runs on house current) but cannot use a rig that puts more than 30 volts on the finals.  
> 
> The adaption of rules allowing certain non-CW licensing is abhorent and bad
> enough, but now they want to do away with it entirely, thus again moving away from historical precedents for which 
> amateurs are known.  

Read the "21st Century" paper. All will be made clear about what they really want. It's not pretty.

73 de Jim, N2EY