"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

I just read the proposal. Much of the code retention argument
is the same as was raised and dismissed by the FCC in
the R&O for 98-143...howvever, there is a section
21 that I have no clue what they are talking about. It reads:

"21. Finally, it should be noted that by removing the Morse
radiotelegraphy requirements from the General Class and
Amateur Extra Class licenses, the Commission would be
creating the groundwork for a socially divisive caste system
within the Amateur Service - the 'no-codes' versus the
'know-codes'.

We've had hams who never passed a code test since 1991. Where have these
guys
been?

To some degree, this is already a fact in
some circles.

Oh?

Amateur radio, by its very nature, is a very
social pursuit. However, by removing telegraphy from the
requirements of the General Class and Amateur Extra
Class licenses as petitioned by some in the community,
the Commission is potentially embarking upon a mission
that is virtually guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare." End of Quoted material

Couldn't that same thing be said of almost anything? Multiple license
classes,
vabity calls, operating awards.....

What does dropping code testing for General or
Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare."

I have no idea. I had no part in writing the thing, just in analyzing it.

Why not ask the authors? A few of them are all over eham.net

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

I don't see how, since that hasn't been the case for Techs.

What am I missing here?

I'm not sure what they're getting at, either.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Here's AG4RQ's response to my questions:

K2UNK Question: What does dropping code testing for General
or Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a
very expensive enforcement nightmare."?

AQ5RQ Reply: Bill, the enforcememt nightmare would come
from instantly granting a quarter of a million or more
Techs HF privileges. We have intentional QRM on
the bands already. Add a quarter of a million Techs
to the bands, along with the resentment over this
whole code/no-code issue. What do you think will
happen?

K2UNK Question: Does RAF believe that if a General
or Advanced (K2UNK, mental goof, meant to say Extra)
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

AG4RQ Reply: Under the RAF proposal, the only Generals
and Extras (You said Advanced. I think you meant
Extra) would be those who passed a code test. We
want to keep licensing requirements for General and
Extra as is, with a 5 wpm code test.
----------------

Clearly section 21 is anything BUT clear as to what RAF
believes...IMHO.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK