Mike Coslo wrote in message .net...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

Carl, It isn't about you. You know a bit about politics it is obvious.
But you are falling prey to a common malady among politicians.

It isn't about you. You don't support the watering down of the writtens.
That's great, and I agree and support you in that effort 100 percent. I
also support you in your BPL efforts. 100 percent again.

But there are people out there who agree with part of your premise about
the CW test, but not all of it. They don't think that removing the CW
Morse test is enough. They want more. (or less if you wish to look at it
that way) Right now, things are going their way. Maybe not for your
reasons, but they like what they see happening.

The political spectrum is filled with all kinds of people, and what
happens in amateur radio and the world depend on which way the currents
are running. Right now, the currents are simply not running toward a
more technically inclined ARS.

Want to get the Present FCC administration's ears to perk up? Phrase it
in "regulatory" terms. Talk a bit about how modern radio's don't require
the level of regulation that used to be needed for proper operation. I'd
bet that would get them listening. I'm glad you support the continued
testing of ARS candidates. You may need to lend your good name to some
pretty robust efforts to retain the tests soon.

Mike,

Thank you for expressing my concerns much better than I could.

Have you read the NCVEC position paper by KL7CC? It's not just about
code testing. It already proposes a drastically easier entry level
license.

Of course *most* hams will not support reductions in written testing.
But will we have a choice if somebody makes a case in, as you say,
*regulatory* terms?

Here's a scenario for ya. Suppose:

At some point in the near future, FCC just dumps Element 1.

There's a surge in upgrades and new hams. Maybe we reach 700,000 - and
maybe we don't.

Then the growth and upgrade numbers drop back to about what they were
before. Maybe they're a little better, but not a lot.

Some folks say it's all due to that $%#^& code test and those %$&*!
old timers, but after a few years the code test is but a memory and
the old timers are fewer every day.

Then some folks - maybe NCVEC - makes noises about the failure rates
of the *writtens*, the burden of taking and administering the tests,
etc. They point out how few hams use homebrew, how few technical (as
opposed to operating) violations occur in the ARS, and question the
"regulatory purpose" of all those writtens.

And the one 'killer' argument they bring to the table is that Techs
have had full power and mode privs above 30 MHz for years and years
with very few technical problems - so what is the regulatory purpose
of much more written testing for full privs below 30 MHz? Sure, some
regs, some propagation - but why all the rest of the stuff?

How will we counter that argument?

Nobody has yet come up with an answer. And as you point out, there
*are* folks who want more - or less.

73 de Jim, N2EY