"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
Would you agree with this statement:

however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building
radios
should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur
radio
privileges ...

No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are
responsible
for their proper operation.

Do you think every ham understands how their radios work?

No. Do I think that every ham *should* have at least a basic,
fundmental idea of how their radios work? Hell yes. (that is
my personal view)

Do you think
the tests even begin to measure the things a ham needs to know to
determine if a radio is working properly?

They are certainly a step in the right direction ... but since this is
beyond the NCI Petition's scope and NCI's agenda, I don't
want to debate it in this context ...

[snip of written test related stuff as OT for this thread]

2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical
skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of"
....

No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are
facts
and
concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge"

No, it's proficiency that the test measures

That's a skill.

... proficiency in decoding Morse
in one's head at some specified speed.

5 wpm. Which is not "proficient" by any stretch of the imagination.

In your view ... 5 wpm proficiency was what the FCC determined
to be adequate to satisfy its obligations under the *old* ITU Radio
Regs. NOW the ITU Radio Regs don't require any Morse test
at all and the FCC is free to eliminate that unnecessary element that
they have ALREADY determined "does not comport with the purpose
of the ARS" and "serves no regulatory purpose."

And that's ALL it is according to
the FCC (see the "No Code Technician" decision from 1990 and the R&O
in 98-143 ... you'll see EXACTLY that in both documents).

Sure. But just because FCC says it does not make it true.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but it's what the FCC says that
COUNTS.

The Morse test which is Element 1 tests the skill of receiving Morse
code
at a very basic level.

Exactly, it measures a specific level of proficiency.

"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.

Yet they wouldn't include a sunset clause back in 2000

True ... they didn't include a sunset clause.

Which means they were not 100% convinced.

No, they stated that they would not presuppose the outcome of
a WRC and were uncertain when the matter would be considered
by a WRC ... they did NOT indicate any doubt or "waffling" on their
"does not comport with the purpose of the ARS" and "serves no
regulatory purpose determinations.

Otherwise why do the whole thing all over again?

and they're making all of us go through an NPRM cycle all over again.

How the FCC will handle this is yet to be determined ...

So far it looks like NPRM time. As more and more proposals/petitions
roll in, and old ones remain unresolved, the ARRL forecast of two
years begins to look reasonable.

We shall see ... hopefully the FCC will have the courage and wisdom
to save a LOT of their valuable, limited resources and spare the ham
community another two years of crap and just get it over with.

If FCC thinks there really is
"no regulatory purpose" to a code test, WHY are they dragging their
feet
and doing the whole circus AGAIN?

See my last sentence ... [refering to "How the FCC will handle this
is yet to be determined ..."]

We'll see. Not even 2 months since WRC-03, and the summer is not even
over yet. FCC could, upon review of the petitions, say "Yeah, we went
through this 3 years ago, nothing's changed, bye-bye Element 1".

It takes time for the government to do anything ... we're still in the
pre-dawn
stages of a regulatory day ... but that doesn't mean it's going to take 2
years
either ...

[snipped unrelated discussion of BPL]

Not unrelated at all. But I understand why you snipped it.

BPL is unrelated to the Morse test issue, but I *did* file Reply
Comments on BPL ... in fact, at the risk of being accused of
boasting a bit, I got a very gracious e-mail from someone high
up at ARRL HQ complimenting me on them and thanking me for
corroborating Ed Hare's field test observations ...

73,
Carl - wk3c