On 3 Aug 2005 03:15:45 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:

Well, well, well....................

After I posted my comments and recovered from laughing at Lennie's
predictably pessimistic and mistruthful diatribe, I started to look
over some of the other comments.

Then I decided to just cut to the chase and search by names for
the rest of you.

Other than myself and Lennie, I only found ONE other semi-regular
of this group had cared enough to comment: WA2ISE.

Missing? K0HB, W5TIT, N8UZE, W5DXP, K2UNK, N2EY, AA2QA, K3LT,
W3RV, KB9RQZ, N0IMD, WK3C, W1RFI, N3KIP, KC2HMZ, K8MN.

Soooooooooooo......

Where is everyone from BOTH sides of the aisle?

Funny you should mention it. I filed mine today, as follows:

BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL
************************************************** ************************

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:

Following are my comments relative to proceeding WT 05-235, In the
Matter of Amendment of Part of the Commission 's Rules To Implement
WRC-03 Regulations Applicable to Requirements for Operator Licenses in
the Amateur Radio Service.

There have been many arguments posed in favor of eliminating the
telegraphy requirement for an Amateur Radio license. I see no reason
for me to rehash all of them at this time. Simply stated, it is my
considered opinion that continuing to test for Morse proficiency as a
prerequisite for licensing in the Amateur radio service is not in the
public interest. Furthermore, the requirement serves no useful
regulatory purpose, and is not consistent with the goals for the
Amateur Radio Service as stated in the Basis And Purpose section of
the Commission's rules set forth in Part 97.

Therefore, I support the proposed rulemaking to the extent that it
would remove the telegraphy requirement for all license classes in the
Amateur Radio Service.

I would also like to comment on the matter of operator privileges to
be assigned to the various license classes in the event that the
telegraphy requirement is removed. In my opinion, the current written
examinations for the Novice, Technician, and Technician-Plus license
classes do not, in my opinion, insure sufficient knowledge to safely
operate an amateur station consistent with the privileges of the
General Class license. The material covered in the General Class
written examination simply is not covered in the exams for the Novice,
Technician, and Technician-Plus classes. Therefore, I concur with the
Commission's proposal to retain operator privileges for those classes
consistent with those currently in effect. I state this with the
realization that subject to the further modification of those
privileges that would result from the separate proceeding and NPRM
regarding the Phone Band Expansion, licensees holding those classes of
license stand to receive a significant gain in operating privileges. I
do not feel it is in the public interest to grant automatic upgrades
to higher license classes without requiring applicants for those
higher license classes to pass the appropriate written examinations. I
also do not see a need for adding any new classes of amateur radio
license. The reorganization of the Amateur Radio Service that took
effect in the year 2000 has already dealt properly with the number of
available license classes.

Finally, I agree with the Commission's proposal to refrain from
enacting any rules changes intended to more closely regulate the
content of the written examinations. Applicants who pass one or more
written examinations qualify for either a new license, or an upgrade
to a higher class of license. As noted by the Commission in the NPRM,
the purpose of the written examination is to insure that the applicant
can safely operate a station. The written examinations are not, and
were never intended to be, tests of an applicant's technical level or
operating skills, other than those necessary to safely operate an
amateur station while said applicant is developing his or her
technical and operating skills. In other words, passing the exam is
the beginning, not the end. Successful completion of the examination
causes the applicant to be granted a license, which bestows certain
privileges depending on the class of license that is granted. It is
what the applicant does with those privileges after they are granted
that demonstrates his or her technical level and operating skills. In
fact, it occurs to me that, if one were required to be an electronics
expert prior to obtaining an amateur license, then participation in
the Amateur Radio Service would not be a viable means of training
skilled operators and advancing the technical skills of those
operators. This would not be in keeping with the Basis And Purpose of
the Amateur Radio Service.

In closing, then, I find myself in complete agreement with the
proposed changes to the Commission's rules as stated in the NPRM. I
would like to express my appreciation to the Commission for it's
attention to this matter, and also, in no small part, for having
"gotten it right" so to speak. While I am sure that this proposed
rulemaking will generate considerable distress for some, I can say as
the current holder of a General Class Amateur License that the
Commission's proposed action on this matter is in the public interest
and is in keeping with the Basis And Purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service.

Thanks you for the opportunity to participate in the regulatory
process governing the Amateur Radio Service. I look forward to the
Commission's eventual Report & Order on this matter.

Sincerely,

John D. Kasupski, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

************************************************** *********************************
END QUOTED MATERIAL

If anybody is having trouble with the ECFS telling you the matter is
not open for commenting, be advised you cannot enter "WT05-235" in the
"Proceeding" field on the cover sheet. Just enter "05-235" without any
WT or FCC or anything else and it should work just fine.

73 de John Kasupski, Tonawanda, New York
Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), SWL/Scanner Monitoring (KNY2VS)
zIRC #monitor Admin