On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:21:07 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

Y'know what? Speaking of words. The whole CW issue is defended (by many)
as being the defense of some premier communication mode and that is usually
enhanced by some submission of why the mode should be revered. However,
aside from that--when the meat and potatoes of the argument (not debate)
comes into play--the only defensible reasoning that is issued from there is
that it "dumbs down" the ARS not to have the CW test, or that "lids" will
come into the ARS, or that....well, you know them all.

I happen to think it's a case of turf defending...the PCTAs feel they
must defend their exclusive little slices of the RF spectrum at all
costs, regardless of what harm is done to the ARS in the process.
They'll kill the mother to save the baby.

I submit, again, that the hidden among the fervor for the appreciation of CW
is the main idea that CW is a filter (no pun intended) to keep people out of
the ARS.

While this may be true, FCC didn't buy that argument from the PCTAs
with respect to lowering the code test speed to 5WPM during the last
restructuring, and I highly doubt that FCC will buy it this time
around, either.

Now...try asking the PCTAs about refarming the Novice subbands once
there aren't any more Novices around to use them, and make sure you've
got your asbestos pantyhose on when you do it. :-)

There's two reasons that's bunk. One: no one should be kept out
of the ARS--let them get their license and stand or fail on their merit.

I think there are definitely people who should be kept out of the ARS,
including some who are already licensed. However, I also think that
the proper way to keep them out is through the self-policing that the
ARS is well known for, along with appropriate enforcement efforts on
the part of FCC - rather than through the use of a testing requirement
that also causes many potentially excellent operators to turn away
from amateur radio.

Two: it's quite obvious that just because someone's passed a CW test--indeed
beyond that: that someone operates CW at high speed even--it does nothing
for proof of being a good ham, more technical ham, or intelligent ham.

Again, FCC did not buy this particular PCTA argument the last time
around. The Commission's response to this, in its Report & Order on
Docket WT 98-143, read as follows:

" We do not concur with the comments alleging that the passing of a
telegraphy examination is an indication of the examinee's good
caracter, high intelligence, cooperative demeanor, or willingness to
cmply with our rules. These traits are also found in individuals who
have not passed a telegraphy examination rather that being exclusive
to those who have passed such a test."

Basically, when the "dumbed down" rhetoric is puked back up--we all know
what the real reason is for the desire of CW testing to stay around: these
folks believe in its power to filter out folks who act just like them.

Or to filter out folks who don't act like them, and thus do not
contribute to the task of holding on to their "turf" in the RF
spectrum. What really sticks in their collective craw is that if you
go back and re-read the comments in the Report & Order that I quoted
from above, the writing is already on the wall for the elimination of
code testing pursuant to the petitions for rulemaking that have
already been filed with FCC - or should I say, the writing is already
on the FCC website:

"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a
tchnical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a
licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of
the service."

The same document also cites the international requirements as the
basis for retaining code testing in Part 97:

"When considering the issue of telegraphy as an examination
requirement to obtain an amateur radio operator license, we begin with
a number of general principles. First, the Radio Regulations contain
certain requirements that an applicant for an amateur radio license
must satisfy. With regard to the telegraphy requirement specifically,
the Radio Regulations require that persons seeking a license to
operate an amateur radio station must prove that they have the ability
to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear texts in
Morse code telegraphy signals. The Radio Regulations also provide
that this requirement may be waived only for an operator of a station
transmitting exclusively on frequencies above 30 MHz. In order to
comply with the Radio Regulations, our rules require that every class
of amateur radio operator license that authorizes privileges below 30
MHz has, as one of the examination elements that an applicant is
required to pass or otherwise receive credit for, a telegraphy
examination element. The other principles that we consider relevant
to examination requirements are that those requirements pertain
to the privileges the operator license authorizes and that they
constitute the minimum requirements necessary to demonstrate that the
control operator of a station can ensure the proper operation of that
station."

The Radio Regulations referred to no longer contain this requirement.
As for the other two principles that FCC states it considers relevant,
Technicians are already authorized full amateur privileges on all the
bands above 30 MHz, with no code test required - so apparently the
code test is not necessary to demonstrate that the control operator of
a station can ensure the proper operation of that station - and to the
extent that the requirements pertain to the privileges the license
authorizes, FCC already authorizes Technicians to operate in CW mode
on the bands above 30 MHz sans any code testing.

I'd find this mighty discouraging if I were on the PCTA side of this
particular discussion, but since I'm not, I'll leave the whining and
crying and gnashing of teeth to the PCTAs. :-)

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York