Only if morse code is "so valuable" as some claim it to be here, then it
should be a problem eh? If it is so damned valuable, all radio services
should have to learn it.

(And believe it or not, it happens alot more often than 1 in 10,000,000.)



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
So you recommend that all firefighters and policemen be required
to learn code for that one in 10 million incidences where this
might happen?

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 14 Jul 2003 07:33:25 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Elimination of the code requirement may actually cause a loss in the ham
ranks, if not in numbers at least in activity. The elimination will
probably coincide with the early part of the bottom of the current sunspot
cycle. People will upgrade and quite a few will be so disappointed at the
poor activity that they will become quite inactive on HF and this
disappointment could spill over and affect their activity on VHF/UHF.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

A very cogent observation, Dee. The irony is, at the low side of a
solar cycle, when the geomagnetic activity subsides along with the
solar flux, the use of CW permits communication even though there
isn't good enough propagation to pursue reliable SSB operation.
Therefore, the one thing that could keep them active on-the-air --
knowledge of the Morse code, won't be within their capability because
they had no incentive to learn it.

I think it's worth mentioning here that the solar flares that cause
the geomagnetic storms that degrade HF propagation also trigger a
significant increase in auroral activity in the higher latitudes. This
provides an opportunity for ops on six meters. I've observed the
phenomenon before. Your're in New York. You point your beam north and
you start hearing somebody in Florida. You figure you're hearing him
off the back of the beam and turn it south to bring up the signal,
only to have it disappear.

Much of this activity happens on CW. Voice signals get distorted a lot
due to the effects of all the ionization in the aurora itself.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

John, though 6M is worth mentioning, it isn't HF and these guys don't
care. Its all about using fast CW on HF (to them). Brian

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 14 Jul 2003 12:28:05 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

Did they never hear of the saying 'you'll catch more files with honey than
with vinegar' ?

Bingo.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

DICK probably emulates a different fly bait. I've seen piles of dung
being buzzed by flies. Lots of flies.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

If BPL is fired up you have no HF SPECTRUM.

Particularly if you're strictly a phone operator. Those of us who are
code-proficient will most likely be able to keep communicating
in CW with our 250 Hz notch filters engaged!

Larry, why do you believe that a *notch* filter at 250 Hz will help
to deal with wideband noise?

Carl - wk3c.

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

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.


And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

Don't read Bill's comments above as "NCI Policy" or "NCI Goals/Agenda" ...
that's
simply not the case.

Bill's just stating the obvious. (And since what CW fans refer to as "the
CW
bands" are actually the "non-SSB/phone, CW/narrowband digital modes bands,"
the occupancy thereof that Bill refers to need not be solely CW users, but
users
of other digital modes as well.

Collectively, they (CW and digital users) need to "use it or lose it" in a
long-term,
practical sense (even ARRL says "use it or lose it" ... see Dave Sumner's
recent
column on the new channels near 5 MHz). That, I am sure, is what Bill meant
when he said "The burden will be on the users of non-phone modes."

HOWEVER, phone band expansion is NOT an NCI agenda ... the ARRL has,
though, asked the FCC in the past to expand the phone bands by "refarming"
the Novice bands ... and, if the FCC were to see that roughly half of our HF
bands were grossly underutilized, they might, of their own volition, decide
to
do some "refarming" in the form of phone band expansion.

As I have said over and over, I would NOT favor/support phone band expansion
at the expense of the CW/digital portions of the bands.

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


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

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden will be on the
users of non-phone modes.


And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

Don't read Bill's comments above as "NCI Policy" or "NCI Goals/Agenda"
... that's
simply not the case.

Bill's just stating the obvious. (And since what CW fans refer to as
"the CW
bands" are actually the "non-SSB/phone, CW/narrowband digital modes
bands," the occupancy thereof that Bill refers to need not be solely
CW users, but users
of other digital modes as well.

Collectively, they (CW and digital users) need to "use it or lose it"
in a long-term,
practical sense (even ARRL says "use it or lose it" ... see Dave
Sumner's recent
column on the new channels near 5 MHz). That, I am sure, is what Bill
meant when he said "The burden will be on the users of non-phone
modes."

HOWEVER, phone band expansion is NOT an NCI agenda ... the ARRL has,
though, asked the FCC in the past to expand the phone bands by
"refarming" the Novice bands ... and, if the FCC were to see that
roughly half of our HF bands were grossly underutilized, they might, of
their own volition, decide to
do some "refarming" in the form of phone band expansion.

As I have said over and over, I would NOT favor/support phone band
expansion at the expense of the CW/digital portions of the bands.

Carl - wk3c


I would, though, but I have no connection with NCI

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip)


Kim, I don't know what is going on with your newsgroup messages.
Many
of
your messages are listed as no longer on my server very shortly after
you
post them (sometimes just one or two hours later). The messages are
listed
in my message list of this newsgroup, but I get an error ("message no
longer
on server") when I try to read them. For everyone else, I can read
messages
they posted many days ago.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know what is happening in case you
post
a
reply to one of my messages and don't get a response. It's not that
I'm
trying to ignore you - I just can't read or reply to your quickly
disappearing messages (I caught and replied to this one before it
disappeared)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


I had my witches coven put a curse on her.

Dan/W4NTI



That would be witch's...

Kim W5TIT



Not so in Alabama....we talk with a slur and a drawl. Something you Texans
can't quite get...you know with all that blue coat activity during the war
for Southern independence...hi.

Dan/W4NTI

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test,
Carl?
;-)

That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.

Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.

Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse ...

Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".

OK ... "Better" in terms of weak signal performance, data throughput,
and reliability (robustness in the face of channel impariments and lack
of operator error in decoding).

Does that satisfy you?

Not really. How about this:

"There exist some 'digital' modes other than OOK Morse which
outperform OOK Morse in various performance measures such as (but not
limited to) weak signal performance, data throughput, robustness in
the face of certain channel impairments, and lack of decoding error,
though not necessarily all at the same time. OOK Morse will outperform
all other 'digital' modes now in use in equipment simplicity and
adaptability to human operator encoding and decoding by non-visual
means. OOK Morse will also outperform some other 'digital' modes in
various performance measures such as (but not limited to) weak signal
performance, data throughput, robustness in the face of certain
channel impairments, and operator-detected data errors."

IOW, it all depends on what criteria you use for "better". Morse is
better for some things, while other 'digital' modes are better for
other things. Or perhaps we should say that Morse is better in some
way, while other 'digital' modes are better in other ways.

For example, look at PSK-31. Uses very little bandwidth, has some
error detection/correction, very good weak-signal performance in the
face of Gaussian noise. OTOH, it requires a very stable transmitter
and receiver, and is usually implemented by means of a
soundcard-equipped PC, greatly increasing equipment power consumption
and complexity. PSK-31 is also susceptible to phase distortion and
noise, both in the equipment and the transmission channel. (This is
one reason why it is sometimes possible to 'hear' a PSK-31 signal but
the decoder cannot decode the received signal).

Other 'digital' modes have their own strengths and weaknesses.

that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...

Yet you wrote:

"there is nothing "magical" about Morse and the insistence on using
"wetware" instead of software to do the decoding is an anomaly of ham
radio."

There is nothing "magical" about Morse ...

Sure there is - it's fun for hundreds of thousands of hams all over
the world. But of course that fact alone is no reason to have test for
it.

You're missing some of the main motivations of most radio amateurs,
Carl - they see radio as fun, as an end in itself, as "magic". That
"magic" is not limited to Morse code, of course. But take away the
"magic" and you take away the motivation for most hams.

Maybe "There is nothing "magical" about Morse" for YOU, but for
others, there is.

with the exception of the
(mis)use of the term "magical" in the nostalgia sense. (That doesn't
mean it's "bad" ... just that it has no magical, mystical properties ...
nor does any other mode, for that matter, it's just a matter of physics.)

You're missing the motivational forest for the reductionist trees,
Carl.

Consider an analogy - why do people bother to learn how to play
musical instruments anymore, and pay serious sums of money for
instruments and lessons, when almost any music and instrument can be
synthesized much more easily? Why do orchestras still exist, and why
do people go to concerts, when so many excellent recordings exist,
more are being produced every day, sound reproduction quality is
excellent and the whole thing can be synthesized by feeding the sheet
music into a computer anyway?

The answer is simple - people want to experience the "magic" of live
perfomance by human beings.

Or consider this: Why are there so many different type fonts? It's
understandable that there be different sizes of type in, say, a
newspaper, but why does ever wordprocessor allow such a wide range of
choices of what the letters and numbers look like? Does the meaning of
a word change if it's printed in Arial Bold instead of Times New
Roman?

and

"This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to
things
that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc."

I maintain that the statement is true.

It's your opinion, nothing more. Is the marathon "stagnated and
backward" because it's done "the hard way"? After all, it would be so
much easier on roller skates. How about swimming - why won't they
allow the use of flippers in swimming competitions?

If you say those things aren't "technical", just look at Indy-car
racing. All sorts of limitations on what can be entered into
competition on that circuit.

Note I said "so many hams" ... not ALL hams.

I did. "so many hams" implies that there are a lot of them.

only that I am disseminating some facts that the more
"hard-core" Morse enthusiasts don't like disseminated because they fly
in
the face of the "Morse Myths" (like "Morse will get through were nothing
else will.")

There you go again. I'm about as hard-core a Morse enthusiast as you
will ever come across, yet have you ever seen me write "Morse will get
through were nothing else will" ? I don't think so.

I know you're a hard-core Morse enthusiast, but you're not as narrow-minded
about it as SOME (I did limit the comment to SOME) ... and I don't see you
as having a "religious zeal" or "I'm superior" attitude ... to your credit.

Then I'm a living disproof of your statement.

Yes. When you describe someone's choise of mode as "the hard way" and
"ridiculous!!!!!", it becomes difficult to accept that you don't
"mind/care/object to others CHOOSING to use OOK Morse ..."

Take me at my word ... I was talking about fanatical attitudes, not the
norm.

Who defines what is 'fanatical'? Many would say that the insistence on
total removal of code testing is 'fanatical', given the extremely
basic nature of Element 1 and the many training methods now available.

And the fact is that you were ridiculing others' choice of mode for a
particular use, while not being able to demonstrate a 'better' way.

[more on EME when I have something to report ... this summer is
intended for some serious antenna work ... winter should bring some
progress on other projects that work demands have kept me from
longer than I had hoped]

OK, fine. Let us know when you have something working. Please note
that the challenge is to develop a system that is easy and inexpensive
for most hams to implement. For example, it should not take 'serious
antenna work' for such a system. A single Yagi or small dish on a
polar mount with an inexpensive rotator/indicator is what's needed,
with all parts readily available. Just a suggestion if you want the
system to ever be widely accepted.

(I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done" are
the
ONLY ways that things can/should be done.)

Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".

1) I believe I am right. YMMV

But you INSIST on your way (no code test of any kind for any amateur
license anywhere) as the only way.

2) I am not at all convinced that "the majority wants" something other
than what I am advocating.

Look at the comments to 98-143. The MAJORITY of those who bothered to
comment wanted two or more code test speeds, and no "sunset clause".
That is very, very different from what you advocate.

There hasn't been an effective poll or survey of what the amateur
community wants in the code-test area in many, many years. So nobody
really knows. But when it mattered, the majority of those who
expressed an opinion disagreed with you.

I think FCC knows this and will bypass any NPRM, NOI or other
rulemaking method that allows public commentary, and will simply dump
Element 1 by MO&O as soon as they can do so legally. One little
sentence, something like 'Credit for Element 1 is hereby granted to
all applicants for and holders of an amateur radio license of any
class'. Poof, bye bye code test, game over, thank you for playing.

What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better
ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real
ham" and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints)

That's because your statement is too general. You don't define what
you mean by "better" in any way. And you don't seem to accept that
Morse is better in some ways, while other modes are better in other
ways.

I've attempted to define "better" better above :-)

Your new definition is somewhat better but still far too general. And
you still don't mention the fact that Morse is better in some ways,
while other modes are better in other ways.

Good luck with the EME system.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Now let's look at that phrase "pool of trained radio operators" Dee. The
vagueness of that can create some issues, such as what type of training???

To clarify any "vagueness" that may exist in some folks' minds ...

******
From the FCC's Report and Order in WT Docket No. 98-143:

(at para. 30)
"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."

(and at para. 31)
"
We also find unconvincing the argument that telegraphy proficiency is one
way to keep amateur

radio operators ready to be of service in an emergency. In this regard, we
note that most

emergency communication today is performed using either voice, data, or
video modes. 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."

******

So, you can see, in the FCC's own words, in their view, the "trained pool of
operators"
thing has essentially nothing to do with Morse, but, rather, with technical
and operating
skills in the modes that are PREDOMINANTLY used in comtemporary emergency
communications.

Being able to handle message traffic, would be an extremely important
detail
in training IMHO.

Much message traffic is handled via voice or digital modes ... those that
still
pass NTS traffic (or emergency traffic, for that matter) in CW almost
invariably
do so as a matter of personal preference, NOT out of necessity.

How many people can formulate a formal messagegram??
Even though I am one of those low-life codefree techs, I still can.

So can I ... but I have found that in real-world emergency communications
there is little demand for formal radiograms ...

Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do
the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test,
Carl?
;-)

That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.

Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.

Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than
OOK
Morse ...

Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".

OK ... "Better" in terms of weak signal performance, data throughput,
and reliability (robustness in the face of channel impariments and lack
of operator error in decoding).

Does that satisfy you?

Not really. How about this:

"There exist some 'digital' modes other than OOK Morse which
outperform OOK Morse in various performance measures such as (but not
limited to) weak signal performance, data throughput, robustness in
the face of certain channel impairments, and lack of decoding error,
though not necessarily all at the same time.

For some digital modes, I would leave out the "though not necessarily all at
the same time" qualifier.

OOK Morse will outperform
all other 'digital' modes now in use in equipment simplicity

So what? Equipment simplicity is a non-starter ... with today's
level of integration, with gates so cheap, there is NO logical
reason to insist that a 1 transistor TX is "better" than a TX with
an IC or several ICs in it ... and the TX is invariably simpler than
the RX ... the RX for FSK, for example can be as simple as
one for OOK CW (maybe simpler).

and
adaptability to human operator encoding and decoding by non-visual
means.

Again, so what? The "human error factor" is, I am quite sure
larger than the probability of a well-coded digital signal being
decoded in error ... and many FEC schemes will "flag" a
decoding error if the coding can't correct it ...

To me, this goes PURELY to the "I like to do it myself." personal
preference for Morse ... I don't deny anyone's right to choose that
preference, but I simply don't see it as bolstering some sort of
"advantage" for Morse.

OOK Morse will also outperform some other 'digital' modes in
various performance measures such as (but not limited to) weak signal
performance, data throughput, robustness in the face of certain
channel impairments,

Which ones will it outperform? As has been elaborated, even simple
BFSK, at the same information transfer rates, has about a 9 dB weak
signal advantage over OOK Morse (technical fact based in the math
and physics of modulation theory ...) Additionally, as I have pointed
out, at the same data rate as, say a 13-20 wpm Morse signal, a human
operator could learn to decode the FSK tone shifts by ear (some have
reportedly done it, but I don't have references to examples).

and operator-detected data errors."

I'll put my money on a good FEC system over a human operator
in bad signal conditions any day ... I've seen HF modems that were
so robust you could unhook the antenna cable for 20-30 seconds
and the system would not drop a single character ... that's how much
coding and interleaving was being employed. And, again, with today's
level of integration, such a device takes an IC or two ... what's the
big deal about that?

IOW, it all depends on what criteria you use for "better". Morse is
better for some things, while other 'digital' modes are better for
other things. Or perhaps we should say that Morse is better in some
way, while other 'digital' modes are better in other ways.

For example, look at PSK-31. Uses very little bandwidth, has some
error detection/correction, very good weak-signal performance in the
face of Gaussian noise. OTOH, it requires a very stable transmitter
and receiver, and is usually implemented by means of a
soundcard-equipped PC, greatly increasing equipment power consumption
and complexity.

Again, I don't buy the arguments about "complexity" ... because of the
low cost of high integration and the inherent reliablilty of such gear.
Power consumption is something that one plans for in one's emergency
preparedness planning ... all of my gear runs from 12VDC and I have
substantial batteries (and the means to charge them for a LONG time
without mains power). I plan to install a propane powered generator
here at the house as well, eventually. With the 1000 gallon propane
tank, and two vehicles as well, I figure I could keep my station batteries,
the notebook computers, etc. charged for months.

PSK-31 is also susceptible to phase distortion and
noise, both in the equipment and the transmission channel. (This is
one reason why it is sometimes possible to 'hear' a PSK-31 signal but
the decoder cannot decode the received signal).

PSK-31 has some interesting attributes, but, with all due respect to its
inventor, it is certainly not the "be all and end all" of digital
communications.
(nor do I belive the inventor ever intended it to be ...)

Other 'digital' modes have their own strengths and weaknesses.

that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...

Yet you wrote:

"there is nothing "magical" about Morse and the insistence on using
"wetware" instead of software to do the decoding is an anomaly of ham
radio."

There is nothing "magical" about Morse ...

Sure there is - it's fun for hundreds of thousands of hams all over
the world. But of course that fact alone is no reason to have test for
it.

You're using "magical" like Disneyworld uses it ... as a way of saying
that something is entertaining, fun, and has its own "draw" for some
people.

I'm talking about "magical" in the sense of "having special powers to
do things beyond the ordinary." There is nothing "magical" about Morse
in that sense.

You're missing some of the main motivations of most radio amateurs,
Carl - they see radio as fun, as an end in itself, as "magic". That
"magic" is not limited to Morse code, of course. But take away the
"magic" and you take away the motivation for most hams.

Maybe "There is nothing "magical" about Morse" for YOU, but for
others, there is.

See above ...

with the exception of the
(mis)use of the term "magical" in the nostalgia sense. (That doesn't
mean it's "bad" ... just that it has no magical, mystical properties ...
nor does any other mode, for that matter, it's just a matter of
physics.)

You're missing the motivational forest for the reductionist trees,
Carl.

No, I'm being REALISTIC that there is nothing magical (in the
practical sense) about Morse. (That STILL doesn't mean that
I have any desire to eliminate its use ... I DON'T. I just want
it to be viewed for what it really is ... one mode, whose value
is primarily entertainment/nostalgia and which doesn't deserve
a separate pass/fail test that keeps one from getting an HF license.

[snipped repetitive argments about what constitutes "magic"
and what doesn't]

[more on EME when I have something to report ... this summer is
intended for some serious antenna work ... winter should bring some
progress on other projects that work demands have kept me from
longer than I had hoped]

OK, fine. Let us know when you have something working. Please note
that the challenge is to develop a system that is easy and inexpensive
for most hams to implement. For example, it should not take 'serious
antenna work' for such a system. A single Yagi or small dish on a
polar mount with an inexpensive rotator/indicator is what's needed,
with all parts readily available. Just a suggestion if you want the
system to ever be widely accepted.

I believe that I have a good grasp of what would be required for
an EME system to gain widespread use ... when I spoke of serious
antenna work above, I was talking about the task of installing at
least one (and preferably two) tower(s) and multiple antenna systems
before winter precludes further work (this is going to be hard, based
on my work travel committments, but I'm REALLY going to work
hard on getting at least one tower and associated antennas up.

(I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done"
are
the
ONLY ways that things can/should be done.)

Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".

1) I believe I am right. YMMV

But you INSIST on your way (no code test of any kind for any amateur
license anywhere) as the only way.

2) I am not at all convinced that "the majority wants" something other
than what I am advocating.

Look at the comments to 98-143. The MAJORITY of those who bothered to
comment wanted two or more code test speeds, and no "sunset clause".
That is very, very different from what you advocate.

There hasn't been an effective poll or survey of what the amateur
community wants in the code-test area in many, many years. So nobody
really knows. But when it mattered, the majority of those who
expressed an opinion disagreed with you.

The call was pretty close ... and I am confident that with the
continuing influx of no-code techs and the large number of
folks who have been able to upgrade without jumping through
the unnecessary 13/20 wpm code "hoop," that the tide has
inevitably swung well in the direction that I advocate.
(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.)

Carl - wk3c