In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

More experienced and more qualified in what, Jim? Morse Code only, not as
a ham operator. With the Technician license, the FCC has already established
that Morse Code is not a qualification needed to be a ham radio operator.

Dwight:

Incorrect. The Technician class license infers that knowledge of Morse
code isn't required to be an *entry-level* amateur radio operator. There
are two higher classes which require a code test.

Therefore, Morse Code cannot be used when deciding who is "more experienced"
or "more qualified" as a ham radio operator.

Of course it can, since becoming a General- or Extra-class ham still
requires a code test, and always has.

If and when the Element 1(a) code test is abolished, that will simply prove
that the FCC has a low opinion of the ARS as a whole, and that it responds
to political pressure -- i.e. petitions to remove code testing, and the
comments
which support them.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
More experienced and more qualified in what, Jim?
Morse Code only, not as a ham operator. With the
Technician license, the FCC has already established
that Morse Code is not a qualification needed to be
a ham radio operator.

Incorrect. The Technician class license infers that knowledge
of Morse code isn't required to be an *entry-level* amateur
radio operator. There are two higher classes which require
a code test.


Are those "*entry-level* amateur radio operators" something other than
Amateur Radio Operators, Larry? If not, my statement is correct - Morse code
is not required to be an Amateur Radio Operator.


If and when the Element 1(a) code test is abolished, that will
simply prove that the FCC has a low opinion of the ARS as
a whole, and that it responds to political pressure -- i.e.
petitions to remove code testing, and the comments which
support them.


No, it simply means the FCC is responding properly to the realities of the
world around us. Larry.

"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." - FCC WT Docket No.
98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196

The exact same arguments could be made when talking about the elimination
of the Element 1(a) code test.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Incorrect. The Technician class license infers that knowledge
of Morse code isn't required to be an *entry-level* amateur
radio operator. There are two higher classes which require
a code test.


Are those "*entry-level* amateur radio operators" something other than
Amateur Radio Operators, Larry? If not, my statement is correct - Morse code
is not required to be an Amateur Radio Operator.

Dwight:

I didn't deny that they were "amateur radio operators," I just clarified the
fact that they are *entry-level* amateur radio operators.

If and when the Element 1(a) code test is abolished, that will
simply prove that the FCC has a low opinion of the ARS as
a whole, and that it responds to political pressure -- i.e.
petitions to remove code testing, and the comments which
support them.

No, it simply means the FCC is responding properly to the realities of the
world around us. Larry.

"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." - FCC WT Docket No.
98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196

I am quite familiar with the text of the Restructuring R&O, Dwight. The
FCC's language seems to be geared mainly to pander to those commentors
who favored the reduction/elimination of code testing, and for good reason.
The FCC, if they can get the code testing requirement lifted, faces a smaller
administrative burden in running the ARS licensing system, an important
consideration since the ARS is an economically irrelevant communications
service. For this reason, I fully expect code testing to be abolished. I am
certain that it *will* happen.

The exact same arguments could be made when talking about the elimination
of the Element 1(a) code test.

And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who
don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an
administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much
more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before,
follow the money, and you learn the truth.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Incorrect. The Technician class license infers that knowledge
of Morse code isn't required to be an *entry-level* amateur
radio operator. There are two higher classes which require
a code test.


Are those "*entry-level* amateur radio operators" something other than
Amateur Radio Operators, Larry? If not, my statement is correct - Morse
code
is not required to be an Amateur Radio Operator.

Dwight:

I didn't deny that they were "amateur radio operators," I just clarified
the
fact that they are *entry-level* amateur radio operators.

If and when the Element 1(a) code test is abolished, that will
simply prove that the FCC has a low opinion of the ARS as
a whole, and that it responds to political pressure -- i.e.
petitions to remove code testing, and the comments which
support them.

No, it simply means the FCC is responding properly to the realities of
the
world around us. Larry.

"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." - FCC WT Docket No.
98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196

I am quite familiar with the text of the Restructuring R&O, Dwight. The
FCC's language seems to be geared mainly to pander to those commentors
who favored the reduction/elimination of code testing, and for good
reason.

Translation: "Because Larry doesn't agree with the FCC's determinations,
it's "pandering" ..."

And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who
don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an
administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much
more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before,
follow the money, and you learn the truth.

What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial. NCI doesn't even have
mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life. What
money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by
any manufacturer ...)

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

(If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by
any manufacturer ...)

Carl - wk3c


Whether or not they're being honest or just spiteful, there's a lot of
hams that accuse the largest ham radio equipment producers of
financing the "beat the morse code" campaign (as they see it)...
the implied reasoning is that the producers & manufacturers stand
to gain more profit if the code testing is dropped and more hams
flood the market and buy thier products. A little too conspiratorial
for me but there's many who buy it.

Clint

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:

Whether or not they're being honest or just spiteful,
there's a lot of hams that accuse the largest ham
radio equipment producers of financing the "beat the
morse code" campaign (as they see it)... (snip) A
little too conspiratorial for me but there's many who
buy it.


I agree. Only a handful of companies have ever said anything publicly
about code testing and even less have stated a position on the matter. For
many of the larger companies, Amateur Radio is a tiny market. Even if this
market doubled in size, the profits would still be small compared to other
markets (military and so on). In other words, there's just not much
incentive for these companies to go out of their way to push towards the
elimination of code testing in an effort to manipulate this market. There is
even less incentive to finance an effort to do so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who
don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an
administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much
more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before,
follow the money, and you learn the truth.

What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial.

Carl:

Yup. That's correct. The ARS is non-commercial, and therefore is an
unproductive drain on the FCC's administrative resources.

NCI doesn't even have
mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life.

That's just swell, Carl, but I don't recall this being about NCI and it's
funding sources.

What
money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by
any manufacturer ...)

Carl - wk3c

The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER
commercial radio services administered by the FCC. This is where
the FCC's true mission exists, and to a far greater extent than in what
is now primarily a hobbyist service (amateur radio). Even the "money"
you allude to, represented in the business done between radio amateurs
and the manufacturers of our radio equipment and accessories, is a
spit in the ocean compared to that represented by the commercial
broadcasting and communications services. So little, in fact, that the
FCC obviously needs to direct it's administrative resources away from
amateur radio and toward the commercial services to the greatest
extent possible. The best way for them to achieve this is to reduce
licensing standards to the greatest extent possible, in order to keep
from repeatedly dealing with the same issues.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who
don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an
administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much
more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before,
follow the money, and you learn the truth.

What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial.

Carl:

Yup. That's correct. The ARS is non-commercial, and therefore is an
unproductive drain on the FCC's administrative resources.

The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource.

NCI doesn't even have
mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life.

That's just swell, Carl, but I don't recall this being about NCI and it's
funding sources.

I was just trying to address what appeared to be a "someone's going
to make money off of this" scenario ... your text came across that way.

What
money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions
by
any manufacturer ...)

Carl - wk3c

The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER
commercial radio services administered by the FCC.

Oh ... why didn't you say that?

This is where the FCC's true mission exists,

The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio
spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that
includes the ARS.

and to a far greater extent than in what
is now primarily a hobbyist service (amateur radio).

YOU view it as primarily a hobby ... and it is a hobby, but the
FCC and Congress look at it as a public service *provided
for free to society* by folks who do it as a hobby. They also
value the educational opportunities it presents in a society that
increasingly requires people who are trained in radio/electronics.

Even the "money"
you allude to, represented in the business done between radio amateurs
and the manufacturers of our radio equipment and accessories, is a
spit in the ocean compared to that represented by the commercial
broadcasting and communications services. So little, in fact, that the
FCC obviously needs to direct it's administrative resources away from
amateur radio and toward the commercial services to the greatest
extent possible.

Sure, services that affect/are used by 10's of millions of people will
get more attention ... that's logical.

The best way for them to achieve this is to reduce
licensing standards to the greatest extent possible, in order to keep
from repeatedly dealing with the same issues.

That's nonsense ... all they have to do is set reasonable, logical,
and justifiable licensing standards and then stick to their guns.
Just because some yahoo asks them to do something stupid
(like the Petitions for Reconsideration that came out immediately
after restucturing, asking the FCC to re-institute 13 and 20 wpm
code tests) doesn't mean they have to honor them ... such nonsense
should be summarily dismissed with virtually no consumption of
FCC resources.

Carl - wk3c

They also
value the educational opportunities it presents in a society that
increasingly requires people who are trained in radio/electronics.

The present written test, and the complete lack of knowledge by most No-Coders
proves that stament WRONG.

all they have to do is set reasonable, logical,
and justifiable licensing standards and then stick to their guns.

Which they havent done.