an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...



Bill Sohl wrote:



"John Smith" wrote in message
news



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.


If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.



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?


If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.



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.


I disagree, but again....
If that's something you want to see happen in the USA, feel
free to propose it. I won't support it, but you have every
right to bring the idea forward.



*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.


OK...05-235 doesn't do what you want, however.



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


What pretty powerful tools are you thinking of
and for what use? You lost me on that last comment.

Yeah, after rereading it I wasn't very clear, Bill. I just fear that
some of the Anti-Morse arguments might be adapted to gain other, less
desirable changes in Amateur radio.


then you need to read some the treaty requirements, the same treaty
that has been the only keeping code testing the ARS for a couple of
decades

Didn't we cover this before somewhere? There is a long history of
dancing around the treaty requirements. Like medical waivers for
starters....

My notion of a book like "Now You're Talking!", and a signed affidavit
by the prospective Ham could serve quite well for the "test" process.

- Mike KB3EIA -