btw, the FCC's words were "serves no *REGULATORY* purpose"

(emphasis

added) not "useful purpose". BIG difference!


Thanks for correcting the wording, but it really isn't much of a
difference


The code test is no longer *required*, but is *optional* for
countries to test prospective hams for HF licenses. Which
means that the treaty doesn't *forbid* code tests or code use
for that matter.


What if their minds *have* changed? Perhaps they have looked at the
arguments
provided by pro-code-test folks, and at the results of the
reduction/elimination
of code testing in the USA and other countries, and have concluded that
Element 1 is no big deal. Maybe they've even concluded that it *does*
serve a useful,
regulatory purpose!

The FCC noted that there's been no noticeable increase in
violations in HF since they let 5wpm'ers loose on it back
in 2000. Trouble spots like 14.313 predate that by many
years. So 13 or 20wpm doesn't serve a regulatory purpose, and
the FCC isn't in the business of handing out "gold star"
awards.




One alleged violation of the treaty (no sending test) does not justify
another.


Way back when (1976) I had to do a sending test. On a straight
key mounted to a school desk test station. I pounded a few
words of code and the examiner said, "okay, you pass".

It seems that it was extremely rare that someone who passed
code copying failed sending, so why bother?


There
is no consensus, so I think they will choose from whatever has

been

proposed those things that suit their own organisational
objectives, i.e. reducing administrative burden. IOW, fewer

tests

and fewer licence classes suits the FCC.

Then keeping code for extras but not generals doesn't
satisfy the above. Either the code test exists or
it is gone completely. If they decide to keep the
code test, the FCC might decide to leave things the
way they are now. That requires minimal effort on
their part, and then they can do something else like
make rules that one company can own every broadcast
station and paper in every city.....



Advanced licence with some of the theory and some of the privileges

of an

Extra and not admit new people to it.

The FCC could equate 13wpm with the old element 4b (the old
pre-restructuring written) and declare that every advanced
is now qualified to be an extra and make them all extras.
I don't have a problem with that.



IF OTOH, you counter that by saying that there's little difference in

the

theory level, then why not grandfather the Advanceds to Extra?


Because there *is* a difference.

See above


Enforcement is a nonissue; the

FCC

folks know where the subbands are. And it's the rare ham who

strays,

judging by enforcement actions.

That means that few hams violate that rule, or many do
and the FCC doesn't much worry about it. Though with
databases like QRZ.com other hams may question why you
seem to be out of you subband. I had this happen for a
few weeks after I upgraded, and I said that I just upgraded.
"Congrads" was the usual reply. I had neglected to
do "whiskey alpha two india sierra echo slash alpha echo"
to mark my new upgrade. No biggie.



The fact is that comments to FCC show no consensus on a number of
issues. In fact, if you look at the number of *individuals* who comment
pro-or-con on code testing, you find majority support *for* the test.
Now since everyone is free to comment on FCC proposals, why shouldn't
the majority opinion decide?


It's not a popularity contest, a *good* reason will trump
many "votes" for a weak reason. Who decides "good" vs
"weak" is another issue....