"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
news

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the future
of
ham radio.

The FCC is the expert agency on radiocommuncations matters.

They are the expert agency on regulating the radiocommunications matters.
It is not their function to be an expert on what is good for a service.
They accept input from all radio services and balance them. Afterall what
is good for say commericial radio might be detrimental towards ham radio
and
vice versa.

In which case they balance the good of both services based
on the needs of the situation.


Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio.

Many of the staff, including at least some of those in WTB who
administer Part 97, are long-time Extras (some even operate Morse
as their primary, preferred mode ... but they seem to be smart enough
to realize that jamming it down everyone's throats isn't good for the
future
of ham radio)


Their reasons for wanting to drop it may have nothing to do with the good
of
the future of ham radio. While they have stated that they see no reason
to
keep it, they did not say that dropping it would be good for ham radio.

Nor did anyone filing comments provide even ONE
argument that rationally suggested dropping code
would be detriminental to ham radio.

They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio
services
so that they can coexist.

That is a simple statement of fact.

There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide what is good for
it.

"There" (try "their") purpose is to administer ham radio in accordance
with
some fundmental principles about what the basis and purpose of the
amateur
radio service exists for ... see Part 97.1 of the FCC's rules and
Article
25
(newly revised, effective July 05, 2003) of the ITU Radio Regulations.


Sometimes my typing gets ahead of my thoughts. I seldom make such errors
as
you should know by reading my posts and thus there is no reason for you to
point it out other than to divert attention from the main topic of
discussion.

As stated their purpose is to ADMINISTER ham radio, not necessarily to
encourage its growth.

That is your opinion, not fact.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK