Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... Do you think we'd still have code testing in the USA today if, back in 1998, there had been an overwhelming majority of support for NCI's "5 wpm and sunset clause" idea? Yes, I do ... because the FCC was bound by S25.5 of the ITU Radio Regulations. (The ONLY reason they gave for keeping the 5 wpm requirement at the time.) You misunderstood me, Carl. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Note that I wrote "still have code testing in the USA today" (emphasis on "today") IIRC, NCI asked for 5 wpm right away and a sunset clause that would dump Element 1 if/when S25.5 removed the treaty requirement. FCC did the 5 wpm thing but did not enact the sunset provision. My point was that I think if there had been overwhelming support of both parts of the NCI proposal, FCC would have done the sunset clause thing and code testing would have disappeeared in the USA more than five months ago. YMMV. NCI asked the FCC to eliminate code testing if they could see their way clear, but we frankly were not surprised by the outcome. Was there not a request for a sunset clause that would do it automatically? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... Do you think we'd still have code testing in the USA today if, back in 1998, there had been an overwhelming majority of support for NCI's "5 wpm and sunset clause" idea? Yes, I do ... because the FCC was bound by S25.5 of the ITU Radio Regulations. (The ONLY reason they gave for keeping the 5 wpm requirement at the time.) You misunderstood me, Carl. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Note that I wrote "still have code testing in the USA today" (emphasis on "today") IIRC, NCI asked for 5 wpm right away and a sunset clause that would dump Element 1 if/when S25.5 removed the treaty requirement. FCC did the 5 wpm thing but did not enact the sunset provision. Actually, we asked them to be rid of code testing then, or, in the alternative if they could not find a legitimate "out" on S25.5, to drop the code test to the minimum they thought necessary to meet that obligation and enact a sunset clause. My point was that I think if there had been overwhelming support of both parts of the NCI proposal, FCC would have done the sunset clause thing and code testing would have disappeeared in the USA more than five months ago. YMMV. NCI asked the FCC to eliminate code testing if they could see their way clear, but we frankly were not surprised by the outcome. Was there not a request for a sunset clause that would do it automatically? Yes, but we weren't surprised that they did not adopt it ... the agency typically doesn't like to prejudge the future ... however, the old addage "Don't ask, don't get." has some truth to it ... so we asked anyway. 73, Carl - wk3c |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |