Leo wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:56:55 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.com...

wrote:

snip

Y'know, the only reason that we Canadians were able to keep Morse
testing around (as an option) was because our regulatory authority
agreed that it would be valuable for the purpose of reciprocity
agreements with countries that have decided (or will!) to keep Code
testing as a mandatory requirement for their Amateur licensees.

It's a valid point - without a Morse-qualified licence, one may not be
permitted to operate HF in a foreign country that requires Morse for
access should one choose to travel there.

Yet that has not become an issue for any country yet. Indeed,
by the nature of agreements, it has not been an issue with CEPT
reciprocation even before WRC-2003 deleted morse as a requirement
for HF licensing.


Perhaps not - but the possibility of interfering with existing
reciprocity agrements was taken into account in their decision - a
quote from the Gazette Notice (the equivalent to the FCC R&O)
follows:



Notice No. DGRB-003-05 – Revisions to Amateur Radio Operator
Requirements Relating to Morse code


portion removed


Assessment of the RAC Proposal and Consultation

Prior to analyzing the elements of the RAC proposal, the Department
first assessed the validity of the following three factors presented
by the RAC as fundamental arguments:

There must be an awareness of the impact of this action (i.e.
elimination of the Morse code requirements) upon existing reciprocal
agreements and other arrangements which permit Canadian radio amateurs
to operate in other countries and foreign radio amateurs to operate in
Canada.


The Morse code examination must continue to be available in Canada for
the benefit of radio amateurs who may require such a qualification for
operation in another country, and for those who wish to acquire skill
in the use of Morse code.

I always thought Canadians were pretty smart folk! Then again, I
believe that they don't believe in faith based regulation.

Operation in the HF bands requires special knowledge and skills not
necessary for most operations in the bands above 30 MHz.

Kinda. If we can make Ham radio similar to CB, that is channelized
operation, (which will help with digital voice too) prohibitions on
homebrewing equipment, requirements for commercially built equipment
from antenna to rig, operations on HF need no special qualifications.


This
difference should be reflected in the examination arrangements.
Industry Canada has accepted the validity of these three factors, and
consequently, they were taken as the basis from which the specific
recommendations were assessed.

.....etc



The first two facctors listed are what I referre to in my original
post.


Reciprocity has always been
an important part of the worldwide Amateur community.....therefore, we
would have lost something tangible that we already had should this
scenario have played out!

It sure makes a non-emotional, fact-based arguement - which worked
quite well up here. I wonder, if enough people presented this
reasoning to the FCC in their comments, if they might be willing to
buy in to it?

Might be worth a try....?

But as of today, and I'll defer to you to provide an example,
I am unaware of the issue being raised in any request
by any ham for reciprocal licensing.


Neither am I - however, the Canadian government was concerned that it
may become an issue in future - concerned enough that Morse testing
remains as an option here today!

It is the law of untended consequences. Reciprocal licenses are an
issue. Probably isn't important to a lot of Hams, but that doesn't mean
it isn't important.

- Mike KB3EIA -