It seems as though FCC doesn't understand the concept of "elasticity of demand" vis-a-vis the fee ruling. Generally, VEC competition has provided innovation - online testing, quick turnaround times. ARRL would likely not being doing remote sessions now without competitive pressure and I believe that the question pool needs more diversity that could come from additional VECs. The simple ability to collect fees is going to stress those who don't today - like Laurel. I'm sure they're concerned about adapting their current moneyless environment. I welcome more VECs - the more opportunities for people to take exams, the better off amateur radio will be. Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf* On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:35 PM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see a need to add more. I think that would just slow down the process with exam pools.
Perhaps we could get some input from Maria Somma on this?
Mark, HDX
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 9:09 AM 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*
*Washington, DC 20006*
*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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
