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 -