Subject: Let's debate: Should Amateur Radio be made a free for all?
From: (N2EY)
Date: 5/10/2004 7:16 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Despite supporting Code testing, I am also of the mind that once the
majority has spoken, it's time to move on.

Which majority?

What happened at WRC-2003 was *not* the abolition of code testing.
Instead, the treaty was modified so that each country decides for
itself what its code testing requirement will be. A country can have
no code testing, some code testing, or universal code testing for an
amateur license, and still be in accordance with the treaty.

This may seem a semantic point but it's not. A sizable number of
countries insisted on the wording that was finally adopted.

Therein lies your majority, Jim.

And let's not kid ourselves...there's been a growing number of people,
wether they commented directly to the FCC or not, that is in favor of doing
away with Code testing.

Again...I don't agree with it, but it's out there and unless there's some
epiphany at FCC, it will become the law of the land in some time, if not "due"
time. I just hope we (you, I, other Code test/use supporters) can move in some
constructive way to minimize the damage.

They could have pre-empted all this by stating something to the effect
of
"based upon recent previous commnets on the subject, we are suspending the
requirement for Element 1 for access to HF licensure"....But
noooooooooooo...

The majority of comments to 98-143 *supported* code testing. In fact,
the majority of comments to 98-143 supported *at least* 2 code test
speeds. Based on the majority of those comments, we'd still have at
least 12-13 wpm.

Look at the comments on the various petitions since July - what is the
majority saying?

I agree. But the FCC has almost always been a left-leaning agency, and
will continue to be so. I have no doubt that they will act to lose the code
tests. Thier previous comments have already set the tone for what they plan on
doing, comments to the contrary.

Thirdly, I think that when the dust settles they will just do what they
were going to do anyway. Eliminate Element 1.

Maybe. Or maybe not. If a resounding majority say they want Element 1,
things might go differently.

I see one of four things happening.

First of all is nothing. But the FCC never does "nothing", even when it's
the best course of action in the first place.

Secondly is to completely drop Code testing for all levels of licensure.
I am hoping-against-hope that they DON'T do this, but I am afraid that it is
EXACTLY what they will do.

Third is to drop the Code test for the General and leaving in the Code
test for the Extra. This is what I hope will happen.

Lastly is creating a new, Code-free HF license between the Technician
Plus-level folks and the General. However I can't see the FCC creating a NEW
license when they just went through all the hoop-laa of paring it down to
three. If they did this, I'd give the present Code-tested Generals access to
the Advanced Class sub-bands and let the new folks have the current General
allocations, minus the WARC bands and 160 meters.

Why? Why not..?!?!

There's been what...a half dozen petitions in the last five or six years
asking for the same thing and the FCC keeps thumbing thier noses at it...I
don't understand why since the Novice license hasn't generated much interest
since 1987

Whole bunch of reasons. One is the "nobody loses" thing - where do the
Novices and Tech Pluses go if the "Novice bands" become 'phone?

The question should be "where are they now?"...Access them to the General
class non-phone bands on the same bands they have allocations on
now....3525-3750, 7025-7150, 21025 to 21200 and 28000 to 28.300.

Another is the basic reason we have subbands-by-mode in the first
place. If the US phone subbands are widened, there's less room for CW
and the data modes. It amounts to rewarding the use of
spectrum-inefficient modes, and penalizing the use of
spectrum-efficient modes. And the DX 'phones will move still further
down the band to get away from the US QRM.

I agree.

73

Steve, K4YZ