"Dee Flint" wrote in
:
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:1109760226.362991.253290
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
Making a requirement optional is indistinguishable from abolishing it.
It's
just a different form of words used to keep some countries happy.
Abolishing the requirement would have meant that all countries would
have had to drop code testing. That is not what the ITU did.
Not so. Abolition of a requirement doesn't stop any member state from
retaining it, so I repeat, there is no difference between abolishing a
requirement and making it optional. An optional requirement is not a
requirement, and thence a nullity.
[snip]
I think they have beleived that since the '70s, but have hung onto the
code test under pressure from some hams, including the League. The
question is not whether their minds have changed (I beleive they
haven't) but whether they beleive they can get rid of the pesky code
test without upsetting too many hams. At this point in time I think
they can, but it depends on one's definition of 'too many'.
In what ways is the code test a nuisance to the FCC?
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE