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....

robert casey wrote:

N2EY wrote:

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.

No, they're not.

But they ARE in the business of making sure that thier rules meet
the test of the enabling regulations.

Part 97.1 establishes the Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service. The B&P continues to establish an expectation of self
training and communications skills that prepare the licensee to meet
the needs of the B & P.

So...Until Part 97 is altered per process otherwise, Morse Code is
still required for access to HF allocations.

And as Jim noted, so far, the overwhelming opinion of those who
have cared to express an opinion is "Morse Code skills are
needed"...Even if Lennie says they aren't...

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
robert casey wrote:

N2EY wrote:

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.

No, they're not.

Nor merit badges. The Amateur Radio Service is not the Boy Scouts.
The FCC is not BSA Headquarters.

But they ARE in the business of making sure that thier rules
meet
the test of the enabling regulations.

They should start with the "rule" requiring a Morse Code Exam at 5WPM
refer to another "rule" defining Morse Code and how to derive a 5WPM
rate. Then then need to explain how a 13-15WPM character rate can be
legal for a 5WPM exam. Or not.

Part 97.1 establishes the Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service. The B&P continues to establish an expectation of self
training and communications skills that prepare the licensee to meet
the needs of the B & P.

The Basis and Purpose does not specify your favorite mode as the one,
true path to rightiousness.

So...Until Part 97 is altered per process otherwise, Morse Code
is
still required for access to HF allocations.

5WPM. Not the 13-15WPM exam currently administered by the ARRL and
W5YI VECs.

And as Jim noted, so far, the overwhelming opinion of those who
have cared to express an opinion is "Morse Code skills are
needed"...Even if Lennie says they aren't...

73

Steve, K4YZ

Then Jim and his commenting cronies march to the beat of a different
drummer. The ARRL's scientific survey of 1998 said that there was no
clear concensus. Since then the ITU has eliminated the requirement for
a Morse Code Exam for HF access.

K4YZ wrote:
robert casey wrote:

N2EY wrote:

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.

Where and when did the FCC note that?

There have been 5 wpm hams with General, Advanced and Extra class
licenses since 1990 (medical waivers).

Trouble spots like 14.313 predate that by many
years.

And for many of those years, FCC did very little enforcement
on the ham bands. Those problems were allowed to exist for
*years* without FCC doing much of anything, despite
complaints.

So 13 or 20wpm doesn't serve a regulatory purpose,

What mode are those folks on 14.313 using? Hint: It's not
Morse Code!

Recently an overzealous ham sending code practice 24/7
was the subject of an FCC enforcement action. Guy was
sending Bible verses (which isn't a rule violation) but
didn't answer FCC letters about his method of station
control (which is).

You've got to go back years and years to find another
enforcement action of similar magnitude against a
ham using Morse Code. Compare that to enforcement
actions against hams using voice modes.

and
the FCC isn't in the business of handing out "gold star"
awards.

20 wpm is hardly "gold star" performance.

And if that is the case - would you support dumping the General and
Extra class licenses, and giving all privs to everyone with a Tech or
higher?

No, they're not.

But they ARE in the business of making sure that thier
rules meet the test of the enabling regulations.

Part 97.1 establishes the Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service. The B&P continues to establish an expectation of self
training and communications skills that prepare the licensee to meet
the needs of the B & P.

All of which are interpretations and opinions.

So...Until Part 97 is altered per process otherwise, Morse Code is
still required for access to HF allocations.

And as Jim noted, so far, the overwhelming opinion of those who
have cared to express an opinion is "Morse Code skills are
needed"

I didn't say "overwhelming opinion". I said "majority opinion". *BIG*
difference.


73 de Jim, N2EY

So 13 or 20wpm doesn't serve a regulatory purpose,


What mode are those folks on 14.313 using? Hint: It's not
Morse Code!

Yes, but everyone there had to take (or be waived) a 13wpm code
test.

wrote:

Recently an overzealous ham sending code practice 24/7
was the subject of an FCC enforcement action. Guy was
sending Bible verses (which isn't a rule violation) but
didn't answer FCC letters about his method of station
control (which is).

It -is- a rules violation if he is sending the bible verses to no one
in particular, thus the FCC letter.

=A797.113 Prohibited transmissions.

(b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting,
nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as
specifically provided in these rules; nor shall an amateur station
engage in any activity related to program production or news gathering
for broadcasting purposes, except that communications directly related
to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may
be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to
the public where no other means of communication is reasonably
available before or at the time of the event.

wrote in message
oups.com...


[snip]

Why? Keeping the closed-out license classes costs them little or
nothing. Tech Plus will disappear in a little more than 5 years, as the
last Tech Plus is renewed as Tech. The other two closed-out classes are
slowly dropping, yet may last a lot longer because of renewals.

Maybe I'll write a proposal...


Please don't! There's too many proposals now!

73 de Jim, N2EY


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:1109760226.362991.253290
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


[snip]


Making a requirement optional is indistinguishable from abolishing it.
It's
just a different form of words used to keep some countries happy.


Abolishing the requirement would have meant that all countries would have
had to drop code testing. That is not what the ITU did.

[snip]


I think they have beleived that since the '70s, but have hung onto the
code
test under pressure from some hams, including the League. The question is
not whether their minds have changed (I beleive they haven't) but whether
they beleive they can get rid of the pesky code test without upsetting too
many hams. At this point in time I think they can, but it depends on one's
definition of 'too many'.


In what ways is the code test a nuisance to the FCC?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
.. .
Michael Coslo wrote in
:


[snip]

It's not particurly difficult, but I can see no need to continue the
closed
classes. All those who would get a 'free upgrade' have held their licences
for some time, so I foresee no impact whatsoever from eliminating those
licences and upgrading them.

Alun N3KIP

Why not simply cancel their licenses unless they take the upgrade exam by a
certain date? It gets rid of the closed classes yet gives no one a freebie.
Those who are active or care about their license but are inactive due to
circumstances in their lives currently will upgrade. Those who don't care
won't be any great loss. Let's shake the dead wood out of the tree and find
out how many hams we really do have.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


5WPM. Not the 13-15WPM exam currently administered by the ARRL and
W5YI VECs.


There are only 5 words sent in each minute of time. There are no tests
being administered at this time in the ARS where more than 5 words are sent
in one minutes time.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE