"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. net...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Jim ... I am not going to waste time, energy, and bandwidth
debating the elimination of written tests, with you playing
"devil's advocate" for elimination thereof ...

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).
[snip]

The political spectrum is filled with all kinds of people, and what
happens in amateur radio and the world depend on which way the currents
are running. Right now, the currents are simply not running toward a
more technically inclined ARS.

That's not what you see if you read the R&O in 98-143 ... the FCC
states that the ARS is "primarily a technical service" ...

Want to get the Present FCC administration's ears to perk up? Phrase it
in "regulatory" terms. Talk a bit about how modern radio's don't require
the level of regulation that used to be needed for proper operation. I'd
bet that would get them listening. I'm glad you support the continued
testing of ARS candidates. You may need to lend your good name to some
pretty robust efforts to retain the tests soon.

I don't think that will fly ... but if someone does toss it up in the air,
I will make every effort to shoot it down.

One thing to remember ... the ITU Radio Regulations require administrations
to verify the technical qualifications of applicants for amateur radio
licenses.
And, there is an ITU-R Recommendation (M.1544) that outlines the things
that amateurs should have a theoretical knowledge of ...

73,
Carl - wk3c