On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
snip

Y'know, the only reason that we Canadians were able to keep Morse
testing around (as an option) was because our regulatory authority
agreed that it would be valuable for the purpose of reciprocity
agreements with countries that have decided (or will!) to keep Code
testing as a mandatory requirement for their Amateur licensees.

It's a valid point - without a Morse-qualified licence, one may not be
permitted to operate HF in a foreign country that requires Morse for
access should one choose to travel there. Reciprocity has always been
an important part of the worldwide Amateur community.....therefore, we
would have lost something tangible that we already had should this
scenario have played out!

It sure makes a non-emotional, fact-based arguement - which worked
quite well up here. I wonder, if enough people presented this
reasoning to the FCC in their comments, if they might be willing to
buy in to it?

Might be worth a try....?


73, Leo

Leo:

Yeah, an argument like, "We should be "middle of the road", and have one foot
on both sides of the fence, so we can faint either way!"

I think that is what is known as, "The Girly-Man Stance", arnold would find
that disgusting...

John

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

wrote:
snip

Y'know, the only reason that we Canadians were able to keep Morse
testing around (as an option) was because our regulatory authority
agreed that it would be valuable for the purpose of reciprocity
agreements with countries that have decided (or will!) to keep Code
testing as a mandatory requirement for their Amateur licensees.

It's a valid point - without a Morse-qualified licence, one may not be
permitted to operate HF in a foreign country that requires Morse for
access should one choose to travel there. Reciprocity has always been
an important part of the worldwide Amateur community.....therefore, we
would have lost something tangible that we already had should this
scenario have played out!

It sure makes a non-emotional, fact-based arguement - which worked
quite well up here. I wonder, if enough people presented this
reasoning to the FCC in their comments, if they might be willing to
buy in to it?

Might be worth a try....?


73, Leo

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...

wrote:
snip

Y'know, the only reason that we Canadians were able to keep Morse
testing around (as an option) was because our regulatory authority
agreed that it would be valuable for the purpose of reciprocity
agreements with countries that have decided (or will!) to keep Code
testing as a mandatory requirement for their Amateur licensees.

It's a valid point - without a Morse-qualified licence, one may not be
permitted to operate HF in a foreign country that requires Morse for
access should one choose to travel there.

Yet that has not become an issue for any country yet. Indeed,
by the nature of agreements, it has not been an issue with CEPT
reciprocation even before WRC-2003 deleted morse as a requirement
for HF licensing.

Reciprocity has always been
an important part of the worldwide Amateur community.....therefore, we
would have lost something tangible that we already had should this
scenario have played out!

It sure makes a non-emotional, fact-based arguement - which worked
quite well up here. I wonder, if enough people presented this
reasoning to the FCC in their comments, if they might be willing to
buy in to it?

Might be worth a try....?

But as of today, and I'll defer to you to provide an example,
I am unaware of the issue being raised in any request
by any ham for reciprocal licensing.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

K4YZ wrote:
b.b. wrote:

Same stuff, different day. And at the end of the day, Steve's still an
idiot.

Being an "idiot" is not a detriment to one's character. One man's
idiot is another man's genius.

However a liar is a liar, and Brainie Boy, you're a liar.

Proven. Archived.

Steve, K4YZ

Nope. I told the truth when I said that you were an idiot.

It's verifyable.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


Since most of the misbehaviour is on phone, they should not be allowed to
use phone protocols without a "phone certification."

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
.net...

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ast.net...
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:

If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, the majority (if one
looks at the comments already filed) appear to be
running better than 2:1 in support of the ending of
all code testing. Sure looks like a majority to me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I think the ones against the change are worn out. They know that the FCC
didn't listen before and don't believe the FCC will listen now. They are
ready to move on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

Radio needs to fit the people, we need not change the people to fit the
radio...

I know in the world today, we have gotten darn near everything backwards,
someday perhaps sane men will change the world to fit the people, rather
than always, hopelessly, trying to adapt people to someones vision of "the
perfect world."

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:05:54 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


Since most of the misbehaviour is on phone, they should not be allowed to
use phone protocols without a "phone certification."

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Phil Kane wrote:

On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:


If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?

Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to
comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be.
Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they
have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the
deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they
published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew.

Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a
whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy
beltway-style actually works.

Diddy dah dit dah. Dit-DIT.
w3rv


Bottom line here...

1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test
was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC
specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143).

2. Thousands of comments were filed with various
rationals in support of code testing....the FCC
in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every
pro-code test argument....

They also think that BPL is the best thing since sliced bread.

3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test
was because of the international treaty requiring a code
test.

4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of
any code test requirement in the international treaty with
almost unanomous agreement by the countries
to do so.

5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing
for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty.
The FCC, now has an open comment period for
discussion of the proposed change.

6. Unless some great new and profound reason to
retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235
comment process, any prospect
of keeping any code test is just not going to happen.
The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs
have been rehashing) have no chance of winning
out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc.

7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be
retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't
going to happen either.
For two reasons:
(a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and
(b) The majority of current comments are actually
running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total
elimination of code testing.

Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current
comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of
Hams are of the same opinion?

*Is* it a representative sample?

I agree with what you wrote. Resistance is now futile. Why should I
waste my time commenting?

You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your next effort?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to
ever build anything?


Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.

*Why* should there be any testing?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee Flint wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
.net...

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
mcast.net...

On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:


If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, the majority (if one
looks at the comments already filed) appear to be
running better than 2:1 in support of the ending of
all code testing. Sure looks like a majority to me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


I think the ones against the change are worn out. They know that the FCC
didn't listen before and don't believe the FCC will listen now. They are
ready to move on.

The torch is being passed. We shall enter the brave new world.

- Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Radio needs to fit the people, we need not change the people to fit the
radio...

I know in the world today, we have gotten darn near everything backwards,

Ya mean like WT Docket 05-235 "John"?

someday perhaps sane men will change the world to fit the people, rather
than always, hopelessly . . .

w3rv

Mike:

Funny, there is a "test block" not half a block from me with BPL
(Broadcast Over Powerline) I can't detect it is even there, anyone else
notice noise from it? Where is the demon they were promising us?

Only thing now, I want it!

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:18:45 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Phil Kane wrote:

On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:


If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?

Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to
comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be.
Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they
have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the
deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they
published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew.

Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a
whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy
beltway-style actually works.

Diddy dah dit dah. Dit-DIT.
w3rv


Bottom line here...

1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test
was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC
specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143).

2. Thousands of comments were filed with various
rationals in support of code testing....the FCC
in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every
pro-code test argument....

They also think that BPL is the best thing since sliced bread.

3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test
was because of the international treaty requiring a code
test.

4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of
any code test requirement in the international treaty with
almost unanomous agreement by the countries
to do so.

5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing
for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty.
The FCC, now has an open comment period for
discussion of the proposed change.

6. Unless some great new and profound reason to
retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235
comment process, any prospect
of keeping any code test is just not going to happen.
The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs
have been rehashing) have no chance of winning
out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc.

7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be
retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't
going to happen either.
For two reasons:
(a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and
(b) The majority of current comments are actually
running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total
elimination of code testing.

Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current
comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of
Hams are of the same opinion?

*Is* it a representative sample?

I agree with what you wrote. Resistance is now futile. Why should I
waste my time commenting?

You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your next effort?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Well, seeing all the "terrible mistakes of the past" (none) you would
think most would have learned a lesson, they haven't... still, fun to cry
to call "WOLF!"

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:37:50 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
.net...

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
omcast.net...

On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:


If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, the majority (if one
looks at the comments already filed) appear to be
running better than 2:1 in support of the ending of
all code testing. Sure looks like a majority to me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


I think the ones against the change are worn out. They know that the FCC
didn't listen before and don't believe the FCC will listen now. They are
ready to move on.

The torch is being passed. We shall enter the brave new world.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Kelly:

You sound the alarm, let us watch the future, if you have sounded the
alarm falsely, let us ignore you in the future. As, I expect the future
changes to come much more fast and furiously. If you are valid in your
arguments, it will be shown, if not--equally shown...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:52:43 -0700, kelly wrote:


John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Radio needs to fit the people, we need not change the people to fit the
radio...

I know in the world today, we have gotten darn near everything backwards,

Ya mean like WT Docket 05-235 "John"?

someday perhaps sane men will change the world to fit the people, rather
than always, hopelessly . . .

w3rv

Mike:

Like, what size soldering iron would you need to replace most SMC
components? Or, what card would you replace in your receiver if the audio
goes out? Or, if you are going to operate a webcam what card supplies the
video to the monitor? Or, what card in your computer supplies the
audio to the xmitter card? Etc... I mean get real, radio is about to
become PCI and USB cards you add to you computer. I still see linears
(higher than say 20 watts) at external, and feedline and antennas are
something an avg amateur will work with...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:32:19 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to
ever build anything?


Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.

*Why* should there be any testing?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

Well YEAH! Take a video card from your computer, an audio card, a
processor, a memory chip, a hard drive--then inquire of the cost of
replacing it, as opposed to "repairing it?" One is possible, the other is
NOT! (well, not by rational men!)

You think amateur radio is going to stay in the same archaic state as it
has been held it to this date? Take the cover off of your computer, look
at the circuitry, open your antique radio, look at the circuitry. Do you
know why such a staggering difference exists? Because "millions" perhaps
"billions" use computers, and not enough amateurs exist to make it
worthwhile to bring this advanced technology to amateur radio. I mean,
don't embarrass both of us with a detailed description of how vast the
void is between modern technology and amateurs!

If you can't embrace progress, at least be man enough to step aside and
let others make it happen...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005
23:25:11 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

John Smith wrote:


N2EY:

Yes, your list there shows how quite insane FCC licensing has been,
however, the arrl has to bear a lot of this blame also, they used
political pressures for their personal gains.

The longest journey begins but with the first step, there are many
necessary steps now to bring amateur radio back in line with sanity...

John


So what is your solution?


You must be kidding, Jim!


Not at all, Mike.

Of course some folks who poat to rrap tend to pose a
sort of Zen problem - they tell you what a thing is
not, or what it shouldn't be, but never say what it is,
or how it should be.

You watch. If Element 1 is dumped, as seems highly
likely, there will be a burst of license activity,
then same old same old as far as the numbers go.

f course. My question was who you were asking the question of.

Then watch as the written tests and other regs are
attacked as "barriers".

Heck, it's already started with the free upgrades
thing. FCC rejected that - this time.

I wonder how that argument will form? Without the Morse code as the
great "barrier", the argument will have to change quite a bit. Of course
I will wait excitedly for the next salvo in the requirement easing effort.

- mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Phil Kane wrote:

On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:


If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?

Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to
comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be.
Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they
have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the
deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they
published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew.

Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a
whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy
beltway-style actually works.

Diddy dah dit dah. Dit-DIT.
w3rv


Bottom line here...

1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test
was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC
specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143).

I thought so to. But why didn't FCC simply dump Element 1 two years
ago, after WRC 2003 ended the treaty requirement?

2. Thousands of comments were filed with various
rationals in support of code testing....the FCC
in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every
pro-code test argument....

Yup. But again, why didn't FCC simply dump Element 1 two years ago,
after WRC 2003 ended the treaty requirement?

Note also that the majority of those who commented back then not only
wanted code testing, but wanted at least two speeeds of code testing.
FCC ignored the majority.

They also think that BPL is the best thing since sliced bread.

Yes, FCC seems to think that, despite all the evidence to the
contrary.

3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test
was because of the international treaty requiring a code
test.

Yup.

4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of
any code test requirement in the international treaty with
almost unanomous agreement by the countries
to do so.

Yup.

5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing
for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty.
The FCC, now has an open comment period for
discussion of the proposed change.

The current NPRM *proposes* to dump Element 1. It also denies just
about everything else in the 18 proposals.

6. Unless some great new and profound reason to
retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235
comment process, any prospect
of keeping any code test is just not going to happen.
The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs
have been rehashing) have no chance of winning
out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc.

Is there any chance that *any* pro-code-test discussion will
have *any* effect on the outcome?

Suppose - just suppose - that after all the comments are in, the
majority of commenters support at least some code testing. Will FCC
change their position?

7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be
retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't
going to happen either.
For two reasons:
(a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and
(b) The majority of current comments are actually
running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total
elimination of code testing.

The first reason is clear.

The second is simply what's happening now. Weeks to go yet.

And if the first is true, the majority is irrelevant,isn't it?

Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current
comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of
Hams are of the same opinion?

*Is* it a representative sample?

Does that matter?

I agree with what you wrote. Resistance is now futile.
Why should I waste my time commenting?

Because if the majority supports elimination, FCC will say
'we just gave you what the majority wanted'.

You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your
next effort?

I don't think NCI, Bill or Carl have a "next effort". When Element 1
goes away, they're done.

Fred is a very different issue.

Watch what happens in the next few years. Element 1 will most probably
go away, regardless of commentary.

There will be a flurry of upgrades to General and Extra, and a
flurry of new licenses.

Then the license numbers will go back to about where they were
before all the changes.

And folks like Fred will resurrect the "Communicator" idea
again, and push for reducing the written tests yet again.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to
use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to ever
build anything?

Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they
transmit.

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.

Not so. Part 97 gives reasons AND, the international treaty
still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated
mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge
of radio, etc.

*Why* should there be any testing?

If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file
your comments with the FCC accordingly.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:56:55 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

wrote:
snip

Y'know, the only reason that we Canadians were able to keep Morse
testing around (as an option) was because our regulatory authority
agreed that it would be valuable for the purpose of reciprocity
agreements with countries that have decided (or will!) to keep Code
testing as a mandatory requirement for their Amateur licensees.

It's a valid point - without a Morse-qualified licence, one may not be
permitted to operate HF in a foreign country that requires Morse for
access should one choose to travel there.

Yet that has not become an issue for any country yet. Indeed,
by the nature of agreements, it has not been an issue with CEPT
reciprocation even before WRC-2003 deleted morse as a requirement
for HF licensing.

Perhaps not - but the possibility of interfering with existing
reciprocity agrements was taken into account in their decision - a
quote from the Gazette Notice (the equivalent to the FCC R&O)
follows:



Notice No. DGRB-003-05 – Revisions to Amateur Radio Operator
Requirements Relating to Morse code

portion removed

Assessment of the RAC Proposal and Consultation

Prior to analyzing the elements of the RAC proposal, the Department
first assessed the validity of the following three factors presented
by the RAC as fundamental arguments:

There must be an awareness of the impact of this action (i.e.
elimination of the Morse code requirements) upon existing reciprocal
agreements and other arrangements which permit Canadian radio amateurs
to operate in other countries and foreign radio amateurs to operate in
Canada.


The Morse code examination must continue to be available in Canada for
the benefit of radio amateurs who may require such a qualification for
operation in another country, and for those who wish to acquire skill
in the use of Morse code.


Operation in the HF bands requires special knowledge and skills not
necessary for most operations in the bands above 30 MHz. This
difference should be reflected in the examination arrangements.
Industry Canada has accepted the validity of these three factors, and
consequently, they were taken as the basis from which the specific
recommendations were assessed.

......etc



The first two facctors listed are what I referre to in my original
post.


Reciprocity has always been
an important part of the worldwide Amateur community.....therefore, we
would have lost something tangible that we already had should this
scenario have played out!

It sure makes a non-emotional, fact-based arguement - which worked
quite well up here. I wonder, if enough people presented this
reasoning to the FCC in their comments, if they might be willing to
buy in to it?

Might be worth a try....?

But as of today, and I'll defer to you to provide an example,
I am unaware of the issue being raised in any request
by any ham for reciprocal licensing.

Neither am I - however, the Canadian government was concerned that it
may become an issue in future - concerned enough that Morse testing
remains as an option here today!

Ain't politics grand! :)


Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


73, Leo

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
.net...

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ast.net...
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:

If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, the majority (if one
looks at the comments already filed) appear to be
running better than 2:1 in support of the ending of
all code testing. Sure looks like a majority to me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I think the ones against the change are worn out. They know that the FCC
didn't listen before and don't believe the FCC will listen now. They are
ready to move on.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, the FCC did listen to their comments via NPRM 98-143.
The FCC then gave written reasons why their arguments for code
testing were not sufficient to retain code testing when the
R&O was issued from 98-143.

You state..."they are ready tom move on." That's fine and
we can therefore view those folks willing to move on
as agreeable to the 05-235 changes proposed by virtue
of their silence.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Phil Kane wrote:

On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:


If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?

Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to
comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be.
Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they
have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the
deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they
published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew.

Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a
whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy
beltway-style actually works.

Diddy dah dit dah. Dit-DIT.
w3rv


Bottom line here...

1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test
was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC
specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143).

2. Thousands of comments were filed with various
rationals in support of code testing....the FCC
in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every
pro-code test argument....

They also think that BPL is the best thing since sliced bread.

3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test
was because of the international treaty requiring a code
test.

4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of
any code test requirement in the international treaty with
almost unanomous agreement by the countries
to do so.

5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing
for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty.
The FCC, now has an open comment period for
discussion of the proposed change.

6. Unless some great new and profound reason to
retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235
comment process, any prospect
of keeping any code test is just not going to happen.
The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs
have been rehashing) have no chance of winning
out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc.

7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be
retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't
going to happen either.
For two reasons:
(a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and
(b) The majority of current comments are actually
running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total
elimination of code testing.

Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current
comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of
Hams are of the same opinion?

Yes I do. Some 10 years ago the ARRL conducted a survey
of asking about code retention and the results then were pretty
close. With 10 years now passed, lots of new hams, many older hams
now SK, the results today would, I believe, show a majority
in favor of ending code testing.

*Is* it a representative sample?

Is the vote for president of the USA a representative sample?
Bottom line, you get a chance to comment and that's it. FCC
rules, ultimatly are not determined by majority voting via the
comment phase.

I agree with what you wrote. Resistance is now futile. Why should I waste
my time commenting?

I'm not here to convince you to comment or
not. Your choice, your opportuity to speak.

You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your next effort?

Can't speak for Fred and Carl, but my next effort...actually my
continuing effort...is to support amateur radio as Local Gov't
Liason (LGL) within the ARRL field org.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:


Whoa Bill, slow down before you pop something, take a deep breath and
relax. It's only ham radio and it's only USENET.

I fully agree, the code test game was over years ago.

Be gracious Brian. They need to beat their chests a bit!

.. . . if I was any more "gracious" I'd have to commit Hari-kari to get
there . .


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say
IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a
person to use code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine
protocols...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


Since most of the misbehaviour is on phone, they should not be allowed
to use phone protocols without a "phone certification."

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



If you had to be able to speak the Queen's English that would clean up 80m
phone no end!

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
.net...

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ast.net...
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:

If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, the majority (if one
looks at the comments already filed) appear to be
running better than 2:1 in support of the ending of
all code testing. Sure looks like a majority to me.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

I think the ones against the change are worn out. They know that the FCC
didn't listen before and don't believe the FCC will listen now. They are
ready to move on.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, the FCC did listen to their comments via NPRM 98-143.
The FCC then gave written reasons why their arguments for code
testing were not sufficient to retain code testing when the
R&O was issued from 98-143.


That they gave their arguments makes them no more valid and no less valid
than before. It is a difference in beliefs, no more and no less.

You state..."they are ready tom move on." That's fine and
we can therefore view those folks willing to move on
as agreeable to the 05-235 changes proposed by virtue
of their silence.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK



No I am not agreeable to the change but I would rather spend time elmering
people than composing a comment on it. To do the type of job that I would
want to do is time consuming. Of course I could just comment that I am
against it and let it go at that but I think that one should state why they
think the change should not go through.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
hack

Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current
comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of
Hams are of the same opinion?

Yes I do. Some 10 years ago the ARRL conducted a survey
of asking about code retention and the results then were pretty
close. With 10 years now passed, lots of new hams, many older hams
now SK, the results today would, I believe, show a majority
in favor of ending code testing.

the fact that the ARRL hasn't tired another poll now suggests they at
least are far from sure that Code testing is majority position ( of
course they could simply feel it is a done and not worth fighting)


*Is* it a representative sample?

Is the vote for president of the USA a representative sample?
Bottom line, you get a chance to comment and that's it. FCC
rules, ultimatly are not determined by majority voting via the
comment phase.

I agree with what you wrote. Resistance is now futile. Why should I waste
my time commenting?

I'm not here to convince you to comment or
not. Your choice, your opportuity to speak.

Indeed I supect that even at this late hour someone were to come up
with a realy good reason esp one the FCC had not heard they might
relent, at least awhile to consider it


You win. Shouldn't you and Carl and Fred be working on your next effort?

Can't speak for Fred and Carl, but my next effort...actually my
continuing effort...is to support amateur radio as Local Gov't
Liason (LGL) within the ARRL field org.

good luck to you

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
. ..
"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say
IF, you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a
person to use code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine
protocols...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


Since most of the misbehaviour is on phone, they should not be allowed
to use phone protocols without a "phone certification."

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



If you had to be able to speak the Queen's English that would clean up 80m
phone no end!

Even Polite American would do the trick.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in
oups.com:

From: "Bill Sohl" on Fri 5 Aug 2005 13:50


wrote in message
Phil Kane wrote:
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:


[snip]


Len, I think, although I am not 100% sure, that the ARRL already does do
Morse proficiency certificates, or maybe I am mixed up and it is only the
RSGB that does that?

I have noticed that a lot of the PCTA don't actually operate CW (present
company excepted). There are a lot of people who take the view that they
had to do it, so others should have to. Naturally, that group aren't much
interested in CW certificates, 'cos they probably wouldn't be able to get
one!

Yes the ARRL does do Morse proficiency certificates. However they are
sought only for personal satisfaction and have no connection to licensing.
I have them for 10wpm and 15wpm. When I took my 5wpm and 13wpm license
tests, I was dissatisfied with my copy. Even though I successfully managed
to answer the required 7 out of 10 questions, I had nowhere near solid copy.
So I undertook to earn the certificates simply to satisfy myself that I
could get solid copy. Although my 20wpm license test also lacked solid
copy, I wasn't as dissatisfied so did not seek the higher level
certificates. However, now that I'm into CW contesting a bit, I may go for
the higher ones as a goal to help me up my code speed.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
.. .


Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to
use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to ever
build anything?


Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they
transmit.

however, we can greatly simplify the testing process and regulatory
burden by not allowing hams to build anything. I believe that there are
examples of this already in some countries.


Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.


Not so. Part 97 gives reasons

Cannot Part 97 be changed to simplify the process and ease the burden
and eliminate the barriers?


AND, the international treaty
still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated
mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge
of radio, etc.

There are ways around that. I believe that many countries, including
ours have worked their way around the rules.

I believe all it would take is issuance of a booklet, and a signed
affidavit that the prospective ham has read and understood it. This
would be akin to the old Morse sending test elimination.


*Why* should there be any testing?


If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file
your comments with the FCC accordingly.

I do not, Bill. I personally think there isn't enough testing now,
Morse code issue aside. I think I'm on record as being accepting of
elimination of Element one if there is a corresponding increase in the
testing requirements. If not, I am now.

I raise these questions because there are some pretty powerful tools
available to people who feel otherwise.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Frankly, I would NOT be too worried about hams building anything, first
they will have to know how... it may sound good, but as a early teen it
took me many books and a few failed attempts to get those first complex
circuits going... by the time they can build it and it works, they will
darn sure be able to answer any necessary questions on how they did it!

Get real, teenagers would still be building this stuff today, if amateur
radio had stayed current, but they lost 'em decades ago with the
protectionist philosophy a few control freaks and spin doctors were able
to hoist over on the unwitting...

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:13:28 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Bill:

Frankly, I think you should have to take a CW test... IF, and I say IF,
you are going to use CW, and perhaps they can "CW certify" a person to
use
code--otherwise let them only use phone and machine protocols...


Do you also think one should take a keyboard (i.e. typing) test to
certify ability to use digital modes?

How about a speed profficiency test for using phonetics
in voice mode?

How about any electronic oriented questions if you are not going to ever
build anything?

Because you can never be certain that the ham will NOT
ever build anything. Additionally, all hams have technical
responsibility for their stations and the RF signals they
transmit.

Bottom line, there is no minimum code speed required
for anyone to use morse code as a ham. That is the
case now and has always been the case.

A little bit more bottom line is that you cannot provide me with a
regulatory function for any testing whatsoever.

Not so. Part 97 gives reasons AND, the international treaty
still requires verification of knowledge. WRC-2003 eliminated
mandatory code knowledge...it did not end general knwoledge
of radio, etc.

*Why* should there be any testing?

If you believe there shouldn't be any testing, then file
your comments with the FCC accordingly.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Kelly:

I mean like a bunch of over-reactors too many are running around
half-cocked. The future will have to see the cb'ers get here, have them
voice their thoughts and needs and we see where this all starts going...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:52:43 -0700, kelly wrote:


John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Radio needs to fit the people, we need not change the people to fit the
radio...

I know in the world today, we have gotten darn near everything backwards,

Ya mean like WT Docket 05-235 "John"?

someday perhaps sane men will change the world to fit the people, rather
than always, hopelessly . . .

w3rv

Leo wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:56:55 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:19:36 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.com...

wrote:

snip

Y'know, the only reason that we Canadians were able to keep Morse
testing around (as an option) was because our regulatory authority
agreed that it would be valuable for the purpose of reciprocity
agreements with countries that have decided (or will!) to keep Code
testing as a mandatory requirement for their Amateur licensees.

It's a valid point - without a Morse-qualified licence, one may not be
permitted to operate HF in a foreign country that requires Morse for
access should one choose to travel there.

Yet that has not become an issue for any country yet. Indeed,
by the nature of agreements, it has not been an issue with CEPT
reciprocation even before WRC-2003 deleted morse as a requirement
for HF licensing.


Perhaps not - but the possibility of interfering with existing
reciprocity agrements was taken into account in their decision - a
quote from the Gazette Notice (the equivalent to the FCC R&O)
follows:



Notice No. DGRB-003-05 – Revisions to Amateur Radio Operator
Requirements Relating to Morse code


portion removed


Assessment of the RAC Proposal and Consultation

Prior to analyzing the elements of the RAC proposal, the Department
first assessed the validity of the following three factors presented
by the RAC as fundamental arguments:

There must be an awareness of the impact of this action (i.e.
elimination of the Morse code requirements) upon existing reciprocal
agreements and other arrangements which permit Canadian radio amateurs
to operate in other countries and foreign radio amateurs to operate in
Canada.


The Morse code examination must continue to be available in Canada for
the benefit of radio amateurs who may require such a qualification for
operation in another country, and for those who wish to acquire skill
in the use of Morse code.

I always thought Canadians were pretty smart folk! Then again, I
believe that they don't believe in faith based regulation.

Operation in the HF bands requires special knowledge and skills not
necessary for most operations in the bands above 30 MHz.

Kinda. If we can make Ham radio similar to CB, that is channelized
operation, (which will help with digital voice too) prohibitions on
homebrewing equipment, requirements for commercially built equipment
from antenna to rig, operations on HF need no special qualifications.


This
difference should be reflected in the examination arrangements.
Industry Canada has accepted the validity of these three factors, and
consequently, they were taken as the basis from which the specific
recommendations were assessed.

.....etc



The first two facctors listed are what I referre to in my original
post.


Reciprocity has always been
an important part of the worldwide Amateur community.....therefore, we
would have lost something tangible that we already had should this
scenario have played out!

It sure makes a non-emotional, fact-based arguement - which worked
quite well up here. I wonder, if enough people presented this
reasoning to the FCC in their comments, if they might be willing to
buy in to it?

Might be worth a try....?

But as of today, and I'll defer to you to provide an example,
I am unaware of the issue being raised in any request
by any ham for reciprocal licensing.


Neither am I - however, the Canadian government was concerned that it
may become an issue in future - concerned enough that Morse testing
remains as an option here today!

It is the law of untended consequences. Reciprocal licenses are an
issue. Probably isn't important to a lot of Hams, but that doesn't mean
it isn't important.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...


Phil Kane wrote:


On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:



If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?

Writeth this OF on 21 July: "This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to
comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be.
Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they
have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the
deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they
published today a done deal." Ignore the speling and thankew.

Anyone who thinks that flooding the FCC with "comments" will make a
whit of difference on this one doesn't understand how/why democracy
beltway-style actually works.

Diddy dah dit dah. Dit-DIT.
w3rv


Bottom line here...

1. The discussion as to value or need to have any code test
was completely discussed prior to 2000 when the FCC
specifically called for such discussion (NPRM 98-143).

2. Thousands of comments were filed with various
rationals in support of code testing....the FCC
in their R&O reviewed and dismissed every
pro-code test argument....

They also think that BPL is the best thing since sliced bread.


3. The ONLY reason the FCC kept even a 5wpm test
was because of the international treaty requiring a code
test.

4. The WRC-2003 review resulted in elimination of
any code test requirement in the international treaty with
almost unanomous agreement by the countries
to do so.

5. The current NPRM, in short, deletes code testing
for USA amateurs as allowed now by the international treaty.
The FCC, now has an open comment period for
discussion of the proposed change.

6. Unless some great new and profound reason to
retain code testing surfaces via the 05-235
comment process, any prospect
of keeping any code test is just not going to happen.
The old arguments (and that's all that any PCTAs
have been rehashing) have no chance of winning
out since they failed in 98-143, WRC-2003, etc.

7. Any argument or claim that the code test should be
retained if a majority of hams want it so isn't
going to happen either.
For two reasons:
(a) The FCC doesn't make the rules that way and
(b) The majority of current comments are actually
running better than 2 to 1 in favor of total
elimination of code testing.

Um, Bill. Do you *really* believe that because the majority of current
comments are in favor of elimination of the test, that the majority of
Hams are of the same opinion?


Yes I do. Some 10 years ago the ARRL conducted a survey
of asking about code retention and the results then were pretty
close. With 10 years now passed, lots of new hams, many older hams
now SK, the results today would, I believe, show a majority
in favor of ending code testing.

I'm surprised, Bill. If a scientifically structured poll was made, I
would likely accept the results, whether I agreed with those results or
not. The comments in this case are largely useless as for any thing
representing the majority of amateurs.

You have a good thesis in your last paragraph, but that is your thesis,
which you are willing to validate by an amazingly imprecise poll.


*Is* it a representative sample?


Is the vote for president of the USA a representative sample?

When I go to the polls, I know that my vote is counted (barring
shennagins!) and if I vote for the winner, my candidate wins, if I vote
for the loser, my candidate doesn't.

posting any comment on this issue has no effect on the outcome. I know
that, you know that, and I choose not to comment for that reason.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

If you had to be able to speak the Queen's English that would clean up 80m
phone no end!

There's not much danger of that becoming a requirement on *75m* phone.
Your lot lost a key war and thus began the downhill slide of an empire.
Some of its citizens even had to come here to make a living amongst
the former colonials. ;-)

Dave K8MN

From: "Dee Flint" on Fri 5 Aug 2005 20:07


"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:

If nothing else, all of us can at least say that we let FCC know where
we stood.

And the FCC let us all know where it stood when the NPRM was
released. Does anyone deny that the horserace is fixed and that the
majority wishes have nothing to do with the outcome?
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, the majority (if one
looks at the comments already filed) appear to be
running better than 2:1 in support of the ending of
all code testing. Sure looks like a majority to me.

I think the ones against the change are worn out. They know that the FCC
didn't listen before and don't believe the FCC will listen now. They are
ready to move on.

Tsk, tsk, the FCC did listen to the majority in 1990 and again
in 1998. One big problem with the Elite is that they don't
understand THEY are the MINORITY.

"Moving on?" [a fairly good one-hour TV show years ago...]

You have a choice: Move ON and go with the majority flow to
the future or keep on recreating the past, a past before your
life existance began. Your choice.

Better yet, "adapt or die." Remember what happened to the
dinosaurs...

din din

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat 6 Aug 2005 16:06

wrote in
From: "Bill Sohl" on Fri 5 Aug 2005 13:50
wrote in message
Phil Kane wrote:
On 4 Aug 2005 15:22:35 -0700, wrote:

What is most strange to me is that there is so little
mention of the Against side on establishing an "ex-officio"
(i.e., not by federal regulation) radiotelegraphy award or
certificate of merit by a NEW group to demonstrate the
alleged efficacy of morsemanship skills. I can see only two
commenters hinting at that. Now if morsemanship is so darn
good, so superb, so attractive to all who try it, then it
would be natural to assume at least one new group to spring
into existance pushing for morsemanship. All that appears
in the comments Against are the tired old cliches and
morsemyths which have been seen by me for a half century.
Those old warhorse maxims just haven't done the job to
attract enough. Those who have made it through the federal
tests rationalize that "it is still good" but they are just
whistling in the graveyard...they are in the MINORITY now
and they are (as they should be) very uncomfortable.

dit rid



Len, I think, although I am not 100% sure, that the ARRL already does do
Morse proficiency certificates, or maybe I am mixed up and it is only the
RSGB that does that?

The League does or did, but that is irrelevant since the ARRL was
first organized in 1914. The year 1914 cannot possibly be
considered "new" by anyone, save for our resident Worshipper of
the Past, the redoubtable Nun of the Above. [the Radio Club of
America, still an organization, was formed 5 years prior in 1909]

I haven't noted what year the Radio Society of Great Britain was
formed other than the RSGB publishing EXCELLENT handbooks plus
having some excellent commentary by Pat Hawker in his very long-
running column in their membership magazine. In the past three
decades there has been MORE actual pioneering in radio by the
radio amateurs in the UK and Europe than in North America. Two
specific cases: The polyphase audio quadrature network permitting
generation/decoding of SSB without high-tolerance R-C components;
The innovation of Peter Martinez' (G3PLX) PSK31 and its trials in
the UK and Yurp well before that mode was published in the USA.


I have noticed that a lot of the PCTA don't actually operate CW (present
company excepted).

Actually, that would be irrelevant. WT Docket 05-235 affects ONLY
those who wish to ENTER U.S. amateur radio through licensing OR
those who want to "upgrade" to a "higher" class U.S. amateur radio
license. The ONLY effect on those U.S. radio amateurs ALREADY
licensed as amateur extras is EMOTIONAL.

The FCC is NOT chartered to act as an emotional sustenance
provider for whining crybabies who want to be Elitists in the
OLD way of doing the HOBBY of amateur radio.

There are a lot of people who take the view that they
had to do it, so others should have to. Naturally, that group aren't much
interested in CW certificates, 'cos they probably wouldn't be able to get
one!

No, no, Alun...these Mighty Macho Morsemen WILL absolutely pass
each and every morse code test ever devised/done/contemplated
and lots of them have implied that in here! :-)

"...look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!" - Tennyson

fax you