The AM Forum

Do you think this is a good idea?

Administration of Amateur Radio License Exams

Currently, there must be three VEs at an exam session and they must observe the examinee(s) throughout the entire examination. The VEs are responsible for the proper conduct and necessary supervision of each examination. The VEs must grade the examinee’s answers immediately upon completion of each examination. When the administering VEs determine that the examinee has passed the examination elements required for the operator license sought, they must certify that the examinee is qualified for the license grant and that they complied with the administering VE requirements.

“Questions regarding whether three VEs are necessary to administer an examination sometimes come before the Commission in the context of claims that three VEs are not available at a particular location or time that an examinee would like to take an examination, or that an examinee must travel a great distance to a location where three VEs are available,” the FCC stated in the NPRM. “This requirement can also cause VEs to incur travel expenses that amateur examinees may have to reimburse. We note that unavailability of examination opportunities compromises one of the bases and purposes of the Amateur Service rules: To expand the existing number of trained operators, technicians and electronics experts.”

Upon establishing the VE system in 1983, the FCC noted that “[t]he use of three examiners provides for cross-checking to assure the correctness of answers to examination questions, to assure proper completion of license applications, and to minimize the likelihood of any possible fraud or abuse.” Since the VE system was established, the FCC pointed out that procedures have been developed by the VEs and VECs “that have almost eliminated examination grading and application completion errors and that fraud or abuse has been minimal. The VECs have VE manuals that provide specific procedures to be followed in preparing for, conducting, and reporting the results of an examination session. It is by hewing to these procedures that fraud and errors are avoided. We tentatively conclude that the required number of administering VEs can now be reduced without jeopardizing the integrity of the amateur operator license examination system.”

In order to increase the availability of examination opportunities, the FCC is proposing to reduce the number of VEs required to administer an examination to two: “We believe that reducing the number of required VEs can increase the availability of examination opportunities (by enabling VEs to offer more frequent examination sessions, or examination sessions at more locations, or both), while not compromising the reasons the Commission decided that more than one VE is necessary. This in turn would reduce the difficulty and expense that some examinees and VEs experience in traveling to an amateur radio license examination session.”

Lot easier and cheaper to buy off two guys instead of three.  All that error checking and other safe guards is a real PITA for all the license dispensaries and lack of new tickets depresses vendor sales of little pieces of plastic holding rubber ducks.

Well, let's see, from my experience:

- My first exam was given by a local ham back in 1960 because I was more than 75 miles from an FCC office. He made me send and receive 13 wpm and graded the exam without any interference from me. I passed and got a Conditional-General license.

- My other licenses, Extra and First Class Radiotelephone were given at the FCC office, and I was required to pass all elements, including 20wpm, by myself.

- I gave one exam to a Novice applicant, and he passed.

All this was done prior to the VE program, so I cannot comment on the current procedures. It does seem to me, that if the VE's know each other, are likely members of the same club, etc, it would not matter if one or three witnessed the exam. At least having a second person to double-check for mistakes seems like a good idea.

I don't know how many people it takes to ensure integrity.

Jim

Yes

At our Bowling Green (KY) Hamfest a week ago, we had 7 VEs and two test-ees.  VE's don't seem to be in short supply.

 I think maintaining the requirement for 3 is a good idea.  With just two, we would see a higher level of fraud.  With the current dumbed-down and lower commitment requirements, the last thing we need is an easier-yet gateway permitting more know-nothings into our hobby..

Chris

You said: "With just two, we would see a higher level of fraud."
Why?? Are VE's fraud perpetrators?? Which three do you pick?

You said: "permitting more know-nothings into our hobby"
"know-nothings can memorize questions and answers and pass the test even if there were 10 VE's present

Fraud = more know-nothings.

Harder to "work a deal" with three than two.   

During my licensed 39 years,  I have seen evidence of at least a half-dozen hams who obtained their ticket by fraudulent means.

Let us not invite it.

Chris

Evidence or suspicion? Evidence is facts or items, means to me there is enough suspicion of wrongdoing to name people to the authorities.

I've only heard of one modern one, years ago. But in the past when travel was difficult there were more accounts of it, from the FCC by way of instructing someone to appear and re-test.

Can you get three VE's at the same place and time in some remote corner of Alaska or Montana?

Two are fine as a requirement; 3, 4, 5, 10, etc. more VE's present to lend support are fine too; they can pass the test results around and giggle at any wrong answers.

And, we're not inviting it; the FCC is proposing it. If one has issues with the proposal, they should file comments, when appropriate, with the FCC (see page 12 of the released NPRM).

Actually, this is probably a nowhere going thread other then for more "off-the-cuff" type comments. The VE issue of potential fraud, corruption, bad boy club members, constipation, WMD's, back room black-robed gangsters, insurance mafia, black heel marks, etc. should be addressed directly to the FCC in the filing comments. Back and forth ratter-tatter here does nothing and changes nothing.

Pete, Pete, get with it man...we're not talking about the pretense of memorizing here; that's so 1990s...we're talking cash and carry baby--pay a couple guys, out come the rubber stamps...Hello Bubba on 75 LSB

Same for if one likes the FCC's idea. They ought to tell the FCC so, and say why.

Ain't gonna happen. I remember a few years ago when the cw requirement was dropped. The entire "sky is falling" community came out kicking and screaming about how the the bands were going to get loaded up with chicken band echos and roger beeps. Didn't happen, did it?

i say drop the "in person" testing all together and make it an online affair. 1 ticket, 10 questions, 10 bucks, and done. Amateur radio desperately needs some new blood on the air. How many times can someone listen to the same conversation about which flavor of hemorrhoid cream works the best and where to get it in commercial sized tubes. Give us some new operators and we'll train 'em on the air. 

"Can you get three VE's at the same place and time in some remote corner of Alaska or Montana?"

We have been testing (with FCC approval) via Skype.  We enlist an official such as a police officer or school principal (just examples) to proctor the exam on the far end.  Then we have three VEs witness the exam via skype.  All examinees must be in view of the camera.  Then the VEs witness the tests being sealed into the return envelope.  It is returned to Anchorage for grading and such.  If the seal is broken, all exams in the envelope become invalid.  We have tested people very remote from Anchorage, off the road system.

I personally think three examiners is a wise move.  It is the safe move.  It seems prudent.

Nothing in ham radio has changed since the rule was established that would justify the weakening of the rule.  If anything, the need for three is stronger now than several decades ago.

This is my personal opinion only.

73, Jim, AL7FS

I like your idea.

5 bucks five questions= Tech ticket
10 bucks 10 questions= General
15 bucks 15 questions=Extra

PayPal only! 

I can say with my ear close to the ground that I never heard of any  cheating here in NYS or in N.E. I do remember the FCC going out and degrading some licenses at a very popular online license renewal site in the SW.

Funny business in the exam process isn't unheard of. Here's a ARRL page that discusses three separate incidents several years ago. http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter?issue=2000-02-11#w5yi (http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter?issue=2000-02-11#w5yi)

I've never seen any evidence of cheating at the exam sessions I've been to... the sessions I was at seemed to be very well run.  On the other hand I'll occasionally hear someone on the air and after a few minutes I'll think,  how the he** could this person have passed any of the exams , I can't even imagine them memorizing enough of the answers to score a passing grade.

I'd be fine with having the FCC do the exams again for anyone within reasonable distance of an FCC office who is healthy enough to travel.  There's no code or diagrams for them to check any longer so any bureaucrat could administer the exam so it wouldn't matter if the examiner was licensed or not.  The bureaucrat would probably be more adept at checking id's and it unlikely that the bureaucrat would be one of the guys "good buddies" from the superbowl.   ::)

Here is what I have noticed.  Ham radio is dieing off as a hobby.  It started it's first death throws back in the 1980's.  It is a total liability to the FCC due to the fact it generates very little revenue for them. Younger folks do 99% of their communicating via texting or other computerized methods.  There seems to be very few replacement members coming into the radio community.  The older generation is dieing off more rapidly based on the population of the baby boomer generation now coming of age.  Everybody notices that when you attend a hamfest you see very few younger folks in attendance.  The ones that are there seem to be there to provide the muscle in setting up the table and moving the stuff from the basement at home to the table at the fest.  Very few are licensed as hams.  If you ask them if they have a license they look back at you and just ask why bother getting involved in getting one. The FCC figures it's just a matter of time before they start auctioning our spectrum off to other industries and Christian broadcasters. 

I believe that integrity does not come in numbers and once again we must comply with what the FCC dictates.  Most likely in the next twenty years ham radio will be a thing of the past.

Back in the mid 1980s, there were approximately 450,000 amateurs in the US. Now we're at approx. 707,000 licensees. http://ah0a.org/FCC/Graphs.html What's dying off other then old people?

You said: "Everybody notices that when you attend a hamfest you see very few younger folks in attendance"
It's the few times old hams get out to see people. Maybe younger hams have no interest in digging through someone's old junk, questionable equipment operation, and the pain of wandering through aisle after aisle of viewing older then dirt stuff. Maybe they like buying new or buying online. Maybe hamfests are what's really dying off.

You have to have a license to talk on the radio? I thought you just had to put some letters and numbers together and start talking? Or that all the money you pay to get into ham fest took care of that! Considering what it cost to get into Timonium or Dayton would have thought that was enough, now you say I got to send money to something called the FCC?

Instead of back room payoffs to VEs there should be established license sponsors.

They would be bonded and could have the power to appoint new licensees.

The new licensees would pay a fee to the sponsor. The sponsor alone would be responsible for testing/compliance.   

If the new licensee gets in some kind of trouble the sponsor would be required to pay any and all fines.

This system would be more in line with how the world works and tick off many old farts.

Old farts need something to complain about so they can feel special.

While were are dreaming let's also require anyone above the basic license to be retested every 5 years. This would bee a great help to online discussion forums as long time licensees will need to spend time studying instead of complaining. Informal questioning of many amateurs shows we couldn't pass the regulation part of current exams without brushing up.

Have a nice day.

Wow.....from three examiners to two.....that's some scary stuff!  I mean, what's next - cat juggling?? :o

Any day that they're still giving amateur radio exams and amateur radio still exists is a good day in my book. Along the lines of spending another day above the ground and all that.

Cat juggling, though....we need to stop this.
 

Dave, I like the way you think. It goes beyond pissing & moaning to actual action, what a concept. Especially the last part. When you are seen more than heard in amateur radio, it's time for a re-test.

Which means I'd better shut up, haven't been on a lot lately. Broken radios and other duties.

Don't (re)test me, bro! :-X

You would be eligible for a special test waiver.
Help clean my garage.
Absolute power corrupts.

This thread is getting a bit silly, isn't it?  Are there any thoughtful responses out there? 

Joking around can be fun but this is my lifetime hobby and I find myself a little disappointed in the way this is being discussed.  If many current hams don't take serious topics as important, then we definitely need three examiners.

And yes, I know folks are just goofing around for fun but can't we tighten up the thread just a little bit?

Thanks.

73, Jim Larsen, AL7FS
Anchorage, Alaska

As I said almost 4 days ago: "Actually, this is probably a nowhere going thread other then for more "off-the-cuff" type comments. The VE issue of potential fraud, corruption, bad boy club members, constipation, WMD's, back room black-robed gangsters, insurance mafia, black heel marks, etc. should be addressed directly to the FCC in the filing comments. Back and forth ratter-tatter here does nothing and changes nothing."

And, if you think your "lifetime hobby" is going to impacted by going from 3 to 2 VE's, there needs to be a check for reality. I doubt the world of amateur radio is going to change moving from 3 to 2 VE's. When I took my Advanced test, I had only one examiner.

I always thought cat juggling was just a rich man's sport.

(http://www.toddslater.net/poster_images/1111-stevemartinpostertoddslatercatjuggling_thumb.JPG)

"  I always thought cat juggling was just a rich man's sport. "

I thought so too, untill ......

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TEDR4b2b7hbbnm/the_jerk_1979_cat_juggling/

When will we ever learn.


klc

I see you're a fairly infrequent participant here Jim, so I'll first say that I'm sorry if my response gave you some idea that we don't take important issues pertaining to our hobby with the proper amount of consideration. We do. This just isn't one of them, in my opinion. Over the years we've always had a few members who enjoy posting things in such a way as to create a controversy where there isn't one, present a conspiracy that doesn't exist, and so on. Old age, retirement, too much free time, boredom - who knows.

The possible(probable) implication being, the VE program is a bad thing, corruption galore, CBers will take over and destroy amateur radio without the CW requirement, the sky is falling, etc etc.

As Pete alluded to, this is not a new topic or discussion, we've had the same or similar on here many times throughout the years. It goes nowhere and changes nothing. It's a chance to bash the ARRL, newbies to ham radio, and so on. As Dave said, some people just like to complain, stir the pot, but do nothing to change or improve the situation by action.

I'm sure that the original poster takes the comments as being worth exactly what he paid for them. Don has been with us for many years, is second to none in technical discussions, and has made plenty of similarly-cheeky responses in these types of threads.

No harm, no foul. It's a hobby, after all. Though not a free-for-all, the QSO section is a bit looser than the Tech or other sections just for this reason.
 

Pete and Todd, thank you for your responses.  I hope you actually understood I was not taking a stand for 2 or 3 but rather that a serious discussion was more interesting to me.  I apologize for my "knee-jerk" response to the flippant or non-related posts.

My original post suggested that there may be ways that three examiners can work out.  We have not found three to be much of a burden.  I would be interested to hear of other VECs and their issues with examiners. 

I confess I don't read the QSO forum much but I am on the AM Forum daily for other technical topics.  I just don't post unless I have something to say.

73,
Jim Larsen, AL7FS
http://www.AL7FS.us/
Anchorage, Alaska

Well Jim, you're wise for hanging around the best part of 'fone - the Tech section - over the QSO section. That's where the meat of it is. I'm endlessly impressed by the depth and breadth of knowledge available on this site to the new or old AMer who is active and needs some answers. Beyond the impossible ("I need an antenna that will run legal limit on 75m but only 3 feet long, 5 feet off the ground and invisible"), I've never seen a question go unanswered.

Glad to see you on here, wonder if you ever work Brian/W1LYD? In the Skagway area IIRC. He's an old buddy from VT. His entire family from mom (now in her 90s) to younger brother are hams. He has his dad's old call, used to be N1HUT.

Why all the pissing, moaning and silly replies regarding this thread? Indeed if one is passionate enough about the issue, one should submit comments to the FCC via the ECFS. But hashing over the issue and sharing opinions with other hams prior to composing a submission, and not just shooting from the hip with a poorly thought-out response, is likely to result in comments that are more convincing to the FCC.

Few hams were likely even aware of everything that is being proposed in this NPRM until the item was specifically pointed out. Isn't that one of the fundamental purposes of this Forum, to promote awareness within the AM community of petitions and rulemaking proposals that might possibly in some way or another affect our hobby, and to facilitate discussion pro- and con-?  If discussions are to be limited to "non-controversial" HI HI FB OM drivel, then what's the point?

Many licensees are communicator types.

Why not just make it easy for them?

All this soldering and replacing parts business just gets in the way.

The license sponsor can also offer discounts from the local tech. Everyone needs a tech.

I'm just the messenger.

That's a tough call. My personal opinion is that three VE's is a good policy, but I can't provide hard evidence that using only two would lead to errors in test sessions.

I've been at exam sessions, as a VE, when the team leader tried to convince me that a certain question should be deleted from the applicant's test because it was ambiguous. I had to make a choice to insist that the question be counted, since it had not been deleted from the examination question pool by the VEC.

My decision meant that the applicant failed the exam.

This is a question about Human Nature, not the law. It's only human to say "Jeez, the guy drove Forty-Two miles to get here and it's snowing, let's give him a break". It's also human to say "You must meet the requirement of the rule book I promised to enforce".

The question is really "Which side of my human nature do I listen to"?

I think three VE's makes the process less prone to bias.

73,

Bill, W1AC

I'd bet it has a lot to do with how you presented it, Don. That and your past record of questionable topics in this section.  

Rather than it being a 'sky is falling, oh on, No Code Techs and CBers are taking over' take, perhaps it's a a change that would allow small or isolated areas without three or more VEs to provide testing.

Anytime I ever took a test there were always far more VEs there than needed. The possibility for corruption exists anywhere there's an opportunity for it. Discussing it here won't stop it, you need to spend some time back in the classroom with the kids before they get warped. Good luck.


Clearly this topic and the varied responses in it are proof that there is no danger of H-I OM-itis setting in anytime soon. As I said, it has more to do with creating controversies where there really aren't any than discussing them. The old 'tempest in a teapot' and so on. If it was as bad as you're implying, I'm sure the topic would've been dumped early on. It wasn't, and it drew the types of responses we expected. Hence the 'here we go again' attitude from some of us.

If you want to discuss a topic, throw it out there as a topic. If you want to preface it by saying 'Do you think this is a good idea?' or 'Is this the end of amateur radio?' or similar to stir things up, you'll draw the types of replies you got. Then again, you already know this.

I'm a VE.  If I'm not mistaken the instances of exam fraud system-wide have been low. That being said, I personally believe that the potential for fraud would increase as the number of examiners decrease.

It seems to me that the FCC should continue the requirement for 3 examiners for a test session, but give VE coordinators the discretion to allow just 2 examiners to conduct a test session where the local club or exam team demonstrates that assembling 3 examiners has been difficult or impossible, eg distant or remote locations.

73,
Brad K4RT

Then, precisely, how do you suggest I should have presented it?  It was presented as simply as possible: a clearly defined factual statement in the title, and then the pertinent paragraph was quoted verbatim from the NPRM with no attempt to spin the facts, taking no side in the matter. The question was left up in the air, tossed to the reader to decide if (s)he thinks it would be a good idea or not. Not expecting unanimous agreement, I anticipated nothing more than pro- and con- discussion, backed up with reasons explaining why one would be for or against the idea. What is "questionable" about that?

FYI, I say keep the 3 VEs; I have never heard of a case where a volunteer exam session was cancelled because 3 examiners could not be rounded up.  Not to say it hasn't happened, but it has never become enough of an issue to be mentioned in any amateur radio forum or publication as far as I know, let alone even be discussed in ham radio circles, until the FCC released this NPRM. With the initial post, I was not sure that I would be concerned enough to submit comments to the FCC, but if I do, I will probably draw some ideas from the few serious replies posted in this thread, and some of what has been mentioned here has in fact increased the likelihood that I will submit.

Zzzzzzzzzz

Ihad only one examiner for my pilot's written exam and check flights.Not three, not even two.
There was only one proctor when I took my college entrance exams.

Why is Ham Radio so much more sancrosanct?

Bill

I say do away with VEs altogether, and just have one or two people to proctor the exam, sign the actual answer sheet to verify that the examinee didn't cheat, then put it into an envelope and send it to the FCC. Then they run it through a scanner that automatically grades it. That's how almost all of the standardized school tests are graded, by machine, so why can't the FCC do it too? If they passed, license gets processed and goes out in the mail.

When I was first licensed in 1966, I was living so far out in the sticks that we didn't get the Grand Ol' Opry 'til Thursday. My written exams (I got my Novice and Tech at the same time) and my code test were administered by my Elmer/next door neighbor. Only one examiner.

I'm a VE, and I've never seen any examinee cheat, nor have I nor any VE in our group ever been approached to falsify an exam in any way. I don't believe that lowering the number of VEs from 3 to 2 will increase the amount of cheating. If it does, we need VEs with better morals and ethics. Our VE group has agreed that if we ever catch an examinee cheating, we will immediately terminate the exam and will never test that person again. No matter what.

We don't usually have any shortage of VEs, but on occasion we'll go to someone's home or place of work if they can't make a club meeting where we test every month. Sometimes it'd be handy to only need two VEs in that situation, but I'm not gonna campaign for it either way. It's not going to spell the apocalyptic death of amateur radio however it turns out.

Personally, if I'm going to campaign for anything in amateur radio, it'll be to outlaw one-day "ham crams" and force the teaching of "how to be good amateur radio operator" in addition to the material on the test.

The proposal has now then published in the Federal Register, dated 10/24/12. You have 61 days to file any comments.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/24/2012-26201/amateur-service-rules

To links where to file comments, click ADDRESSES in the Table of Contents.

Thanks for the heads-up.  I am down in Iowa helping my Mom and not in touch with filings from here.

Jim, AL7FS

Stevereno,
Loved your care-o-meter.  Say, what does it take to get to PI care on your scale?  I see it's in the upper reaches.  What happens when you get to 2 PI?  
Your anointed as  "One Whole" ?  
Urk,  ;D

Also meant to say, going to two VE's helps to insure that at least two extra class examiners show up to administer an extra class exam.  Back when I was an advanced I couldn't grade an applicant's test for extra.  But really, think about back in the "conditional" class days. ho hum. Can't be any worse or better depending on your outlook of human nature, (already pretty much explored here.)

Belongs in another topic, but I've heard several hams say that they stay in Advanced class so that everyone will know how hard they worked for 13 wpm in front of a "real" examiner.
QRZ.com gives previous calls and previous license grade in a lot of cases, so why not upgrade to extra? Good way to re-visit old or long forgotten skills.  Hey, you get to test others for highest license too, and that is on topic.

Hello: I have been a VE for a lot of years, our group have followed the rules VERY carefully. I may try to send the FCC my comments on this, I belive that 2 VE's and a tester can be (buddys buddys). 3 VE's and a tester keeps it all legal.

Thanks DON for making me aware of the possible problem.

John W9BFO

It looks like the FCC's proposal springs from anecdotal complaints from people inconvenienced by the prevailing rule requiring three examiners.

But the agency provides NO information to establish the quantity of complaints, the number of people affected, and whether there's a chronic or considerable shortage among exam schedules across the country.

The FCC typically asks questions like this when a Petition is filed -- has the petitioner established the need for a change in the Rules?

It's nice that in the past 30 years "fraud or abuse has been minimal."  This helps validate the agency's shift toward a VE system in 1983.

But the other side of their current proposal is the purported benefit. Not only did they fail to establish the magnitude of the problem, but I don't see any quantification as to how the exam schedule would be enhanced.

Sure, that's the way it is with a volunteer system of examination -- you can create the environment and let the participants make the most of it.

Here, the environment has been stable for nearly 30 years, and the "problem" does not seem to warrant the change proposed.

When the FCC asserts:
"We tentatively conclude that the required number of administering VEs can now be reduced without jeopardizing the integrity of the amateur operator license examination system"

I am reminded of what the State Department security guy recently said about the U.S. protection force in Libya. It applies in this far-less important context of hobby radio, and may illustrate the risk of finding out too late what the impact may be.

 "How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?"

HUH! That's quite a message.


(http://www.timemanage.com/teaching%20project%20mgt%20is%20like%20being%20on%20thin%20ice%20-%20fred.jpg)

If the current day tests are so easy that any idiot can pass them, why the concern over cheating?  ;)

When the meter goes to Pi, things are irrational.

Not to mention already zipping through "e" and an infinite number of other irrational numbers on your analog metros finos.

"..I was singing on the moon one day."
  on my way to irrationality they say..."

Pi and j are having an argument. j says, "You are irrational." Pi says, "Get real."

Geek humor at its worst.

Wrong.
The ARRL had nothing to do with it.
ARRL Letter 7/22/2005:
"...The FCC has proposed dropping the 5 WPM Morse code element as a requirement to obtain an Amateur Radio license of any class...To support dropping the code requirement, the FCC cited changes in Article 25 of the international Radio Regulations adopted at World Radiocommunication Conference 2003. WRC-03 deleted the Morse testing requirement for amateur applicants seeking HF privileges and left it up to individual countries to determine whether or not they want to mandate Morse testing. Several countries already have dropped their Morse requirements for HF access.

ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, said he was not surprised to see the FCC propose scrapping the code altogether, although the League and others had called for retaining the 5 WPM requirement for Amateur Extra class applicants. Sumner also expressed dismay that the FCC turned away proposals from the League and other petitioners to create a new entry-level Amateur Radio license class..."

Aww Pete, there you go again, always clouding the issue with cold hard facts.     ;D

Come to think of it, I received my last issue of QST in the mail just before Sandy hit so I'm wondering if the hurricane could have actually been the ARRL's fault too?     ;)

Glad too see you're back.


Sam

and:

always follow the money to find the facts.

Duh! The proposal was generated and pushed by the FCC. Go read the comments to the FCC. Speculation here ("I bet") is meaningless.

I guess you missed this the first time around: "To support dropping the code requirement, the FCC cited changes in Article 25 of the international Radio Regulations adopted at World Radiocommunication Conference 2003. WRC-03 deleted the Morse testing requirement for amateur applicants seeking HF privileges and left it up to individual countries to determine whether or not they want to mandate Morse testing."

And, see FCC Headlines from 2006, paragraph 3: http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/contacts/headlines/MorseCodeElim.pdf

Of course, the misinformed radio conspiracists would argue that the ARRL was behind it all just to sell more books and advertising. Nothing more then the silly ARRL back room, black robe, gangster theories. Next, we'll hear that the ARRL is causing global warming and warts.

Quote: "To support dropping the code requirement, the FCC cited changes in Article 25 of the international Radio Regulations adopted at World Radiocommunication Conference 2003. WRC-03 deleted the Morse testing requirement for amateur applicants seeking HF privileges and left it up to individual countries to determine whether or not they want to mandate Morse testing."

If I remember correctly, what happened is that ARRL supported dropping the code exam requirement at a pre WRC-03 meeting (I think the pre meeting was held somewhere in Latin America), which passed. The no code exam recommendation went to WRC-03 and ultimately was approved. Then one or more petitioners here in U.S.A. other than ARRL petitioned FCC to drop the code exam requirement citing the elimination of the requirement internationally.  One theory, and I think there is something to it, is that is how ARRL wanted it to play out so that it wasn't overtly involved in the FCC rulemaking because it wanted to avoid ticking off its members who were code exam requirement supporters.

As far as licensing and VE exams are concerned, any changes that could potentially impact examination integrity should be studied very carefully before any changes are made. FCC may or may not study it carefully. My understanding is that for rulemaking considered to be a low priority such as ham radio (compared eg to to higher priority/higher profile rulemaking in the telecommunications/commercial context), the Commission will have law student interns review comments and tally up viewpoints for and against and then write up a draft decision that generally favors the majority view provided it doesn't conflict with law/regs. That draft is then forwarded to mid-level counsel for review of the language, legal citations and applicable law. At this point, barring any substantive changes, the draft that comes from mid level counsel is close to being in final form of a decision that the Commission will publish.  Note that through this entire process, the people at FCC involved are only remotely familiar with ham radio and the true impact(s) of the Commission's final decision, and often, their perspective may, at times, be colored by the FCC's desire to reduce administrative burdens/costs on FCC. About the only time the real world effects of what the FCC is doing is brought to Commission staff's attention is when ARRL counsel submits comments or has a sit down meeting with FCC staff in Washington, and ARRL counsel will be pushing ARRL's agenda in the matter, which may or may not jive with what is in the best interests of the amateur service depending on your viewpoint.

73,
Brad

Alas, we now know the answer!

I say go back to the old way. No VE's. You take the exams at the FCC.  And, make the tests hard.  :D

the dumbing down of everything... :'(

Yep, the world is a bad place. Knuckle draggers are everywhere.  8)

Yes and the real world doesn't have moderators.