In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

I just read the proposal. Much of the code retention argument
is the same as was raised and dismissed by the FCC in
the R&O for 98-143...howvever, there is a section
21 that I have no clue what they are talking about. It reads:

"21. Finally, it should be noted that by removing the Morse
radiotelegraphy requirements from the General Class and
Amateur Extra Class licenses, the Commission would be
creating the groundwork for a socially divisive caste system
within the Amateur Service - the 'no-codes' versus the
'know-codes'.

We've had hams who never passed a code test since 1991. Where have these guys
been?

To some degree, this is already a fact in
some circles.

Oh?

Amateur radio, by its very nature, is a very
social pursuit. However, by removing telegraphy from the
requirements of the General Class and Amateur Extra
Class licenses as petitioned by some in the community,
the Commission is potentially embarking upon a mission
that is virtually guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare." End of Quoted material

Couldn't that same thing be said of almost anything? Multiple license classes,
vabity calls, operating awards.....

What does dropping code testing for General or
Extra do that is then "guaranteed to become a very expensive
enforcement nightmare."

I have no idea. I had no part in writing the thing, just in analyzing it.

Why not ask the authors? A few of them are all over eham.net

Do the petitioners believe that if a General or Advanced
doesn't pass a code test that he/she wouldn't be
allowed by the FCC to operate morse?

I don't see how, since that hasn't been the case for Techs.

What am I missing here?

I'm not sure what they're getting at, either.

73 de Jim, N2EY