RadioBanter - View Single Post

September 30th 03, 03:10 PM

On 28 Sep 2003 04:19:08 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Dwight:

You've spent the last couple of weeks attempting to re-attach some
kind of significance to the fact that "other" radio services no longer
"use code" (Morse code assumed). The only thing that has "lost touch
with reality" around here would seem to be your own brain.

Well, then allow me:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to
provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental
purpose as expressed in the following principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur
service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial
communication service, particularly with respect to
providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven
ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service
through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the
communications and technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur
radio service of trained operators, technicians, and
electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique
ability to enhance international goodwill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "reality" is that this text is quoted from the FCC rules that
govern amateur radio wherever the FCC regulates amateur radio, which
last time I checked includes where you and I live. That's a "fact" you
can look up on the Internet if you think I quoted Part 97 incorrectly,
or dispute if you've recently moved to, oh, I dunno, Saudia Arabia
maybe. Now, then...

The FCC R&O on the last round of restructuring said the following (and
you can also look this up on the Internet if you think I'm misquoting
the FCC's R&O):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Based on our review of the record, we are not persuaded by the
arguments of those commenters opposing reduction or elimination of the
emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a license requirement in the
amateur service.

snippage

We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a
technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a
licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of
the service. We note, moreover, that the design of modern
communications systems, including personal communication services,
satellite, fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are
based on digital communication technologies. We also note that no
communication system has been designed in many years that depends on
hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code
by ear. In contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be
automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred in
communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the
emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will
allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract
technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country,
and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas
where the United States needs expertise.

snippage

We also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide
emergency communication do so, according to the amateur radio press,
using voice or digital modes of communication, in part, because
information can be exchanged much faster using these other modes of
communication. Further, we note that in traditional emergency
services, such as police, fire, and rescue, there is no requirement
that emergency service personnel hold amateur radio licenses or any
other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is not a significant factor in
determining an individual's ability to provide or be prepared to
provide emergency communications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I repeat what I posted earlier this evening in response to a post from
aomeone else in this NG: The writing is already on the FCC's wall for
elimination of the code test. The petitions (seven of them, I believe)
for rulemaking have been filed with FCC (including one by the NCVEC
whose input seems to have had considerable influence on FCC's
decisions with respect to the last restructuring) to eliminate the
code test.

So rather than wonder why Dwight is attaching significance to all of
this, I have to wonder why you and other PCTAs are trying to ignore
the "fact" that FCC did not buy your arguments about this the *last*
time around. What makes you think the same arguments are going to do
persuade FCC *this* time around?

In fact, it looks to me as if the code test has one foot out the door
and the other on a banana peel, whether you or I or anyone else likes
it or not, so this entire debate in rrap is rather pointless. Let's
find something worthwhile to discuss in this NG...like for example,
how do we refarm the subbands once there's no longer any need for 'em?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York