"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Bill:

Nice try, but not quite the same thing. A prospective ham not wanting
to
learn and/or use the Morse code is like a prospective golfer not
wanting
to learn how to putt, because all he wants to do is drive golf balls
for
distance. Well, even I can drive a bucket balls at the range to kill
an
afternoon, but I'd never call myself a "golfer."

Morse/CW is an essential communications skill for anyone who is going
to consider him/herself to be an effective amateur radio operator.

So you will claim tillhell freezes over I assume. Only
problem is, your claim failed at the only place that
counts...the FCC.

Bill:

Of course it did.

It did...then why do you next state...
The FCC is a government bureaucracy that serves
mainly commercial interests. Amateur Radio just isn't important enough
to them to be bothered to expend the resources necessary to maintain
high licensing standards as the had in the past. No mystery there.

Sure seems that it didn't hold sway at all with the FCC.

This
is the one skill which gives them the ability to keep on communicating
under adverse conditions that put an end to communication using less
robust or more equipment and electrical capacity-dependent modes. It
gives us the ultimate in emergency backup communications capability,
which is ever-so important and politically-correct for hams these days.

So how come the other services abondoned morse as such a
valuable back-up?

Again, follow the money and you'll learn the truth. The cost of hiring,
training, and providing pay and benefits to CW-proficient radio operators
is the key factor in play here. But you already knew that.

Of course, and the cost of having thousands of hams learn
morse isn't born out by any need whatsoever...as the FCC
has already determined in 98-143. Rather, the PCTA folks
failed to make sufficient justification to the FCC that
hams MUST know morse.

Moreover,
these "other services" you're talking about use high-powered satellite-
based technology which is designed for their specific purposes. But
you already knew that, as well. When you make apples-to-oranges
comparisons between the all-volunteer Amateur Radio Service and
publicly- or commercially-funded communications services, your argument
falls flat on it's face. And if you didn't already know that, you're just
as
deluded as any other NCTA.

Well it seems to me the only folks that are living
in fantasy land are the PCTAs. Not ONE of the
PCTA arguments was "accepted" by the FCC as
sufficient reason to retain code testing. Rather, the
ONLY reason the FCC even kept 5 wpm was the
former ITU treaty...now that's gone too.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK