I would be cautious about adopting a stance against additional VECs. It would imply that the ARRL wants to keep its lock on the market. I hate to say it but Laurel and others (yes there are others) who offer free or lower cost exams puts the ARRL in a bad light because it’s assumed that we are greedy. What I predict will happen is that the new upstart VECs will probably be free or closer to free than we are then there will be those questioning the need for the ARRL VEC (I already see those comments). The bigger problem is that we are among (actually we ARE) the worst in turnaround time for new licenses and upgrades to the point where hams or prospective hams who know better will actively seek out a non ARRL VE session. We’ve been talking about getting online submission off the ground for years now, and I’ve been told that it’s in effect to some degree but no details further than that. I’ve been told that we allow teams to scan PDFs and then email them. Meanwhile Laurel somehow gets licenses processed in a few hours or the next day. What do they use? Why aren’t we the leaders in this? This is why I believe that others are asking for more VECs, because we have largely been left behind. I don’t want us to be behind anymore. We shouldn’t be afraid of competition. We need to welcome it and out-innovate them. 73 Ria N2RJ On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:09 PM david davidsiddall-law.com < david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote:
ODV,
This morning the FCC opened a comment period to consider whether it should open a window to accept requests for up to five more Volunteer Exam Coordinators (VECs) in the amateur service. The complete notice is here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/wtb-seeks-input-expanding-number-amateur-operat... .
Availability of amateur examinations have been of concern to the Commissioners, as I noted in my July Board report (@ p.3). In April they issued a notice just setting out that examinations are conducted by volunteers. Inquiries have continued, including from Congressional offices receiving questions from their constituents. There also have been some other events that have continued to bring amateur examinations to the Commission’s attention.
It turns out that there has not been a window for new VECs since the original applications and appointments in 1984. Every year the FCC has been receiving 2 or 3 requests from amateurs and has been dismissing each one as “not needed at this time.” While I would have preferred that the staff use their limited time and resources to act on the stalled amateur rulemakings, this Notice was by informal direction of the Commissioners, who have received multiple communications over the past year from individuals and amateurs asking about amateur examinations as well as Congressional correspondence as noted above.
The key information from the Notice is copied below.
The Commission has long maintained 14 VECs and now seeks to consider whether they continue to serve the evolving needs of the amateur community or whether there are unmet needs that warrant considering expanding the number of VECs. Are the existing 14 VECs sufficient to coordinate the efforts of volunteer examiners in preparing and administering examinations for amateur radio operator licenses, or are additional VECs needed to support the amateur community? What needs are currently being met, and which needs, if any, are currently unmet? If the Commission were to allow additional VECs, how many additional VECs are needed to satisfy the existing amateur service operator license examination needs? We note, however, that the Commission is unlikely to add more than five additional VECs. Given VECs use a collaborative process to create the question pool and operating protocols for how volunteer examiners administer exams, would additional VECs enhance or hinder this collaborative process? Finally, we seek comment on how increasing the number of VECs will address the unmet needs, if any, of the amateur community, as well as on what obstacles or complications could be created by increasing the number of VECs?
Of course the ARRL will submit comments in this proceeding. I have been in discussions with the FCC staff on this general subject over the past months and some aspects of the notice reflects these discussions, although as I said above, I personally believe that there are more important amateur issues on the rulemaking side that the Commission should deal with right now “and I have told them so.”
Feel free to direct any questions or comments my way.
73,
Dave
*David R. Siddall*
*Managing Partner*
*DS Law, PLLC*
*1629 K St. NW, Ste 300 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1629+K+St.+NW,+Ste+300+%0D%0A+Washington,+DC+20006?entry=gmail&source=g>*
*Washington, DC 20006 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1629+K+St.+NW,+Ste+300+%0D%0A+Washington,+DC+20006?entry=gmail&source=g>*
*direct: +1 202 559 4690*
[image: Default Line]
*Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited.* This e-mail is intended solely for the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, it is prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this email and its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and physical copies of the e-mail message and its attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of attorney-client or any other privilege. Thank you. _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
