"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
[snip] The FCC recently said "the
emphasis on Morse code proficiency
as a licensing requirement does not
comport with the basis and purpose
of the service." They came to that
conclusion after looking at modern
communications systems outside
Amateur Radio and the changes that
have occurred in communications
over the last fifty years. They noted
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." And they said
reducing the emphasis on telegraphy
proficiency as a licensing requirement
would "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."

That deemphasis has already occurred.
The no-code tech was instituted in the
late 1980s and the code for the higher
classes was dropped to only 5wpm in
2000. There is no need for further
deemphasis. (snip)


I disagree. The reasons stated for reducing code (changes over last 50
years, no system dependant on code in many years, and so on) could just as
easily be used to argue against a code test of any kind. In other words, how
are those facts changed by a 5 wpm test instead of a 13 wpm test?


(snip) Morse code/CW is unique and
cannot be covered by the written tests.
Actually (snip)


It is unique only in the level of emphasis placed on it. Without that
emphasis, there would be no unique test for it. Which brings us right back
where I started, pointing to what the FCC has said - "the emphasis on Morse
code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis
and purpose of the service."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/