You must have been upset too when states eliminated mandatory
testing on manual gearbox autos and allowed testing to be done
using any car.

Not me, just the folks filing their insurance claims and/or licking their
wounds after someone who didn't know how to negotiate the clutch AND the
brake pedal simultaneously rear-ended them at a red light.


....and, just as in CW... if people get on a cw band without learning cw,
they
will have a hard time navigating around and knowing what's going on. Those
who don't want to, though, won't have any problem.... just as only those who
tried to use a manual transmission but were only tested for an automatic
had problems. Stick with what you learned.

There was no reason to force anybody to learn how to drive a standard
if they were going to drive an automatic.

Again I repeat; i'd have no problem with requiring a cw test if you wanted
to
use cw on the cw portion of the band. But, that's out of the question, isn't
it?
we're going to stay in the past and not keep up with progress and force even
people who will forever plan to use automatic transmissions to learn how to
run a standard.

Clint
KB5ZHT, living in reality and modern times.

"shephed" wrote


If you are a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, then never mind, it's a Ham
Radio thing. You would not understand.


Hey, gutless anonymous twit, I have several "First Place ARRL CW
Sweepstakes" certificates with my name on them, I don't breed with my
mouth, and I'm a member of NCI.

Damn, doncha just hate it when somebody spoils your troll?

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC # 291
FISTS # 7419
NCI # 4304

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

Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion...
especially in light of the entire international community endorsing
the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement?

Well, I wouldn't condider it a lock. The FCC was recently spanked by
both the Supremes and the Senate. They may be reluctant to send anything
new along for a while.
In addition, the US has shown a reluctance to go along with what the
rest of the world is thinking.

The US already endorsed ending mandatory morse when we voted to
do so at the WRC confernece. Seems pretty self evident
to me.

Finally, we haven't ratified all that many treaties lately have we?

We don't have to ratify the treaty at all. The OLD treaty is
dead and buried...there is, as of 7/5/03, no ITU mandated
morse requirement even if the USA never ratifies the new
treaty.

So while it might happen, I'm not going to do any betting on it.

It will happen, the only thing at issue is the timing.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Mike Coslo wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:

Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion...
especially in light of the entire international community endorsing
the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement?

Well, I wouldn't condider it a lock. The FCC was recently
spanked by
both the Supremes and the Senate. They may be reluctant to send anything
new along for a while.

In addition, the US has shown a reluctance to go along with what the
rest of the world is thinking.

Finally, we haven't ratified all that many treaties lately have we?

So while it might happen, I'm not going to do any betting on it.

Then when the retired head of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of the
FCC
states in his comments to the NCVAEC petition, the writing of which he was
a
party, that it simply is an oxymoron that an Extra Class ham should
be allowed to *not* be proficient in Morse when he is considered an expert
at
ham radio, you might take that as some sort of a clue to thinking in high
places...

The guy's retired and no longer a member of any "high places".
See also the latest from IARU.

IARU Says "Remove Code", Excerpted from ARRL Letter

"The focus was on the future when the International Amateur Radio Union
Administrative Council met September 6-7 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

In the aftermath of WRC-03, the council urged IARU member-societies to call
to
the attention of their administrations "the desirability of adopting
specific
changes in their domestic regulations for the amateur and amateur-satellite
services, so that they will be consistent with the revised Article 25 of the
international Radio Regulations." In that vein, the IARU governing body
called
for the removal of Morse code as an examination requirement to operate on
HF.
The council reiterated its stance first taken in 2001 that Morse code
proficiency "as a qualifying criterion for an HF amateur license is no
longer
relevant to the healthy future of amateur Radio."

"IARU policy is to support the removal of Morse code testing as a
requirement
for an amateur license to operate on frequencies below 30 MHz," the IARU
Administrative Council resolved. At the same time, the council's resolution
recognized Morse code as "an effective and efficient mode of communication
used
by many thousands of radio amateurs." It also took into account
ITU-Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) Recommendation M.1544, which sets down
the
minimum qualifications of radio amateurs.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Clint wrote:

Has anyone come up with that WOW argument that will justify
the need for morse testing? So far, nothing new has been
offered by PCTAs at all.
Bill K2UNK

well, no..... all the arguments being given to keep the code testing
are easily broken down into thier base, most center-core reason...

"I HAD TO DO IT, SO THEY SHOULD HAVE TO!!!!!"

And that just falls flat on its face.

Clint yoiu'e been reading way too much NCI propaganda for far too long.
So long in fact that YOU have fell flat on your face, or maybe the other
end.
I am capable of passing any sort of radio traffic by way of
radiotelgraphy, which I learned as a requirement of my licensure as a
ham radio operator. There is no reason for you to be exempted from the
same.

That argument/claim found no favor in the past. The reality is that
neither the FCC nor almost every emergency preparedness
organization/operation has no desire or need for morse in
their plans. Individual hams may make the claim, but they
aren't executing the claim in the vast universe of RACES, ARES
and other amateur emergency operations.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion...

Maybe - maybe not. Right now there are several petitions under
consideration,
and almost certainly more on the way. Lots of comments, etc., to be
considered.
Everyone can have their say and then FCC will do whatever FCC wants, based
on
whatever FCC thinks is the best thing to do.

And no matter what FCC does, some folks will think it's the wrong thing.
But at
least we can have our say.

especially in light of the entire international community endorsing
the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement?

"entire international community"? I think not! Just those few who get to
decide
policy.

They are the only ones that count.

For example, a poll of German hams found them overwhelmingly in favor of
keeping code tests. Didn't matter.

As well it shouldn't since this isn't a matter determined by popular vote
only by already licensed hams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
You must have been upset too when states eliminated mandatory
testing on manual gearbox autos and allowed testing to be done
using any car.

Not me, just the folks filing their insurance claims and/or licking their
wounds after someone who didn't know how to negotiate the clutch AND the
brake pedal simultaneously rear-ended them at a red light.
73 de Bert
WA2SI

P.S. My first drivers license was "manual shift endorsed." ggg

How long ago was that. I was first licensed in NY state in 1958 and took
my test on an automatic and then taught myself in a short time
(30 minutes or so) to drive a stick.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Clint" wrote in part ...

you are mad simply because something that you had to do that was very
difficult has been removed for the most part, and may be totally removed
finally due to it's archaic irrelavence.
__________________________________________________ ___________

Very difficult? Oh please. I passed all three tests (5, 13, 20) with 10 of
10 right on the written and solid copy for each. Passed all five writtens
first time out every time. Hmmmm ... I guess it must be you. As to CW
being archaic, well let's have your expert thoughts on those outdated and
archaic modes known as Single Side Band, Amplified Modulation, and RTTY.
I've noticed that the written exams still include material on each of them.
Surely you would be in favor of eliminating that irrelevant nonsense as
well, right?

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Clint" wrote in part ...

KB5ZHT, living in reality and modern times.
__________________________________________________ __________

Now that's just too funny.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Bill Sohl" wrote in part ...

So far the UK, Netherlands and several other countries have done exactly
that. Once all code testing is ended by the FCC will you accept that action
as supporting the FCC position that morse isn't needed to be a "fully
qualified ham?" Additionally, I don't recall anywhere seeing any FCC
reference to the concept of a "fully qualified ham". Is that a new license
class?
__________________________________________________ ______________

I believe that a person who aspires to be an Amateur Extra Class *should* be
able to send/receive Morse Code at a minmum level. You and I both know that
even if testing for CW goes away, the mode will remain a very popular one in
the ARS for a very long time. To me, at least, it just makes sense that a
person holding the highest class of license should have a working
(practical) knowledge of the second most popular mode we have.

Arnie -
KT4ST