N2EY wrote:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:



Carl R. Stevenson wrote:





I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't think
it has a snowball's chance in



[expletive deleted]


Okay, didn't think that word was that expletive. The FCC allows it.
And heard it
in church today....



of getting approved by the FCC.





One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code
for extras.



That's the key question these days for any license requirement these days. You
make an excellent point.

The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does FCC get
out of protecting hams from BPL interference?"

Was going to say "less heat from congressmen", but the BPL lobby will
take care of that....




As the
treaty requirement is now gone, and no other service uses it, why
bother.



Because hams *do* use it. Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

If a ham decides to use it, he can then learn it. Perhaps some of the
old novice subbands
can be informally reserved for fumbling beginners to QSO with elmers
willing to train
them. They may need to use phone on another frequency to assist the
learning process.
Shouldn't be a problem as long as one doesn't talk *and* send code at
the same exact
time (there's a rule saying not to use more than one slice of bandwidth
(frequency) at a time).
Split band and split mode is okay.




The FCC isn't
in the business of giving out gold stars for the



[expletive deleted]



of it.



Not about "gold stars". About qualifications. Of course there's differences of
opinion on what qualified means.

Also what qualifications are really needed for the license. As if I
need more knowledge to
operate on 14.155 vs 14.277MHz.... Knowledge of rules, electrical and
RF safety, how
to identify and resolve RFI problems (which includes transmitter and
receiver theory), knowing
what constitutes intentional interference vs accidental QRM, what
"Pecuniary interest" means
and that that rule actually protects the ham bands from being invaded by
business users....

VHF and above users have limited range, and thus cannot cause global
disruption. HF
users can. So maybe that's an argument to restrict novices to VHF and
above, or low
power HF.

As the FCC allows us to take the covers off our transmitters, and lets
us homebrew
them as well, we should be expected to pass a test to demonstrate basic
knowledge
of how this stuff works, and what sort of problems can be caused by mis
designed or
mis adjusted equipment.




Code isn't a lid filter,



*No* test is a perfect "lid filter". Particularly not a test given one time.
There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through much
more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not filtered out by
those testing and education systems.



as witness
14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there.



You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

Remember this:

All those folks on 14.313, 3950, W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams that
included the rules and regulations. Most of them passed multiple written exams,
yet they broke the rules anyway. So obviously those written tests aren't a
perfect lid filter either. Shall we dump the rules and regs from those written
exams because they didn't do the job?

Those clowns knew full well that they were breaking rules. "Oh, you
mean I can't use expletives,
maliciously interfere, and not ID?" I don't know the answer as to how
to construct a lid filter
in the license testing process. But the FCC said itself that things did
not degrade after restructuring
(5wpm generals and extras set loose on HF). Once everyone learned to
fix their newbie type errors.