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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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]

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.

Good...so far.

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

Then will we expect you to make that argument to the
FCC when you comment?

HECK NO, BILL!

The answer to that question could very well be "Gee, we *don't* get
anything
out of protecting hams from BPL - so we won't!".

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

Because hams *do* use it.

Yet hams do NOT need to pass a CW test to be
allowed to use morse.
If a "no-code" tech decides to operate
morse on VHF, they are free to do so without ever being
tested. If the ARRL proposal gets the nod, the same would
be true for Novice and Generals on HF also.

There are all sorts of things hams are allowed to do without being tested,
or
without being tested in depth. For example, a ham who passed the tests
before,
say, PSK-31 was invented is still allowed to use that mode without being
tested. But that does not mean no test is needed, or that the current
tests
should not have PSK-31 in them because the old tests didn't.

Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

And certainly not to any extent that one would expect
any ham to need to know code to read or operate
with nay of those other services. By the way...what
other services are you thinking of?

There is still some maritime Morse code use, and it is used for ID in some
applications.

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

[expletive deleted]

Jim, even I am not offended by "hell"
It was a joke, Bill ;-)

of it.

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

The retention of a 5 wpm test for Extra in light of no
code for all others makes even less sense.

I disagree. Morse code is the second most popular mode in amateur radio.
For
even the most privileged license to require no skill in its use makes no
sense.

Code isn't a lid filter,

*No* test is a perfect "lid filter".

No test is in any way a lid filter...as you note below.

You misunderstand what I wrote.

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.

I repeat...NO test is a lid filter.

If that's true, why have tests at all?

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

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

You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

Are you assuming all the 14.313 loonies had code medical
waivers?

Nope - but neither is it safe to assume that none of them did.

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.

Note that I wrote "perfect lid filter".

Shall we dump the rules and regs from those
written exams because they didn't do the job?

oh wait, that's what NCVEC is proposing for the entry level!

A point we agree on.

Exactly.


73 de Jim, N2EY


NONE of the tests were EVER intended to be "lid filters". They were a means
to require a certain basic knowledge to allow people into radio. Further
testing was intended to motivate people to expand their knowledge by
awarding privileges to those who did undertake the self-learning and
development.

This is why it is not necessary to have a direct tie between material tested
and privileges awarded. Instead you tie the most desireable priviliges not
to the type of material but to information and skills that they should have
but don't want to learn. This is the way society, in general, works.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE