"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