Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: snip Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by James Miccolis! That is odd indeed - I would have thought that Jim would have been one of the first to state his concerns to the FCC regarding the elimination of Morse testing - considering that this is the last opportunity to do so before the final ruling. Do you think it will make any difference, Leo? Do you think there's any chance FCC will retain Element 1? Will multiple comment filings make any difference? Besides, a good comment takes time to write. Why hurry, if it's so important? -- I think FCC will just drop Element 1. Sure, I'll file comments. So will plenty of others. But the stage is set for FCC to just drop Element 1. Here's why: 1) Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers because Papa Bush wanted to do a now-dead King a favor. In the R&O, FCC said that they could not waiver 5 wpm because of the treaty - and only because of the treaty. 2) Back in 2000, FCC dumped all but 5 wpm code, again citing the treaty. 3) Now the treaty's gone. End of story. Have you seen a significant increase in the number of Canadian radio amateurs since code testing was made optional? Has there been a significant increase in the number of radio amateurs in any of the other countries which have eliminated code testing? By "significant", I mean sustained growth, not a short term flurry of new licenses and then back to the same old levels of growth or decline. If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a problem in the first place. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Docket 05-235 Scorecard | Policy | |||
Stonewalling on WT Docket 05-235? | Policy | |||
Stonewalling WT Docket 05-235? | Policy | |||
Status of WT Docket 05-235 | Policy | |||
WT Docket 04-140 | Digital |