"Bill Sohl" wrote in
ink.net:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news

Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say
IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a
person to use code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine
protocols...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics in voice
mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to
ever build anything?


Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they transmit.

however, we can greatly simplify the testing process and regulatory
burden by not allowing hams to build anything. I believe that there
are examples of this already in some countries.

If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the case now and has
always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.


Not so. Part 97 gives reasons

Cannot Part 97 be changed to simplify the process and ease the burden
and eliminate the barriers?

If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.

AND, the international treaty
still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated
mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge of radio,
etc.

There are ways around that. I believe that many countries, including
ours have worked their way around the rules.

I believe all it would take is issuance of a booklet, and a signed
affidavit that the prospective ham has read and understood it. This
would be akin to the old Morse sending test elimination.

I disagree, but again....
If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.

*Why* should there be any testing?

If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file your
comments with the FCC accordingly.

I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now,
Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of
elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the
testing requirements. If not, I am now.

OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however.

I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools
available to people who feel otherwise.

What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of
and for what use? You lost me on that last comment.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK




Although there are some licences that don't allow homebrew, none of them
allow full power, i.e. I don't think anywhere has banned homebrew
altogether. Of course, there are different ideas of what reduced power
means, i.e. 10w in the UK where full power is only 400w, versus 200w in
Canada where full power is 2,250w!

There may be more attempts to get a lower level licence in the US, maybe by
Fred Maia, but the FCC has made it pretty clear in recent comments IMHO
that they think the Tech is easy enough, so I don't think it will ever
happen. End of story.

73 de Alun, N3KIP