wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the
United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to
come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy.

Exactly! FCC need only consider the comments, not act on
them.

What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

I disagree, Bill. Or rather, I'd say it's not that clear.

Back in 1998, NCI supported the concept of "5 wpm
now, complete elimination when the treaty changes".
That position got about 45% support (check Carl's
post of around that time when he reported KC8EPO's
tally of comments).

Now the NPRM proposes "complete elimination now
that the treaty has changed" but the support is
still about 45% of commenters.

So the support for total code test elimination isn't much different
than it was 7 years ago.

The trend is and has been towards ending code.

Ending code or code *testing*?

Ending code testing.

Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

IYHO

Playing your number realignment, you must admit
then that 68% of commentors DO support ending
code for General.

Yep. Exactly as proposed by ARRL.

THAT is dramatic in comparison
to past opinion analysis.

We don't really know that, do we?
There was never a serious proposal
before that suggested "code test for
Extra only" that I know of.

Fair enough.

Agreed.

Consider too that
IF the FCC retained any level of code testing for
Extra then the FCC would/will have to reintroduce
waivers as the international treaty no longer provides
absolute minimal code requirements for any level.

Why would FCC "have to" do waivers? IIRC there's no
mention of waivers in the NPRM. The treaty's been
changed for almost 2-1/2 years but no waivers.

IF the code test isn't dropped totally, the president for
waivers in the absence of any treaty requirement will
rule.

How do we know that? If that precedent really existed,
why didn't FCC institute waivers as soon as the
treaty requirement ended? They wouldn't need an NPRM -
they could cite the 1990-2000 procedures and just change
the words for "5 wpm".

Inactivity in response to the treatty change by the FCC
can certainly be chalked up to digestion of the host
of petitions filed after WRC and the ultimate
issuance of NPRM 98-235 which is now pending.

Maybe - but if there really was a precedent, FCC could
cite it, but they haven't.

IF (let's be hypothetical)

Sure!

the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before
against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't
a right - only access to the tests for one is.

ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already
provided a waiver process.

Waivers of any kind are a real quagmire because they
say the waivered test isn't really necessary for the
license. What's to prevent someone for demanding a
waiver of the Extra *written* test?

Anyone can demand anything. On your first statement
regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and
that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain
any code testing.

That's a path that FCC just won't go down.

Probably not.

PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the
FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code
was only retained for Extra.

Several:

First off, I don't think ADA has ever been successfully
cited against FCC regulations

So? It hasn't been needed on any FCC basis yet.

Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial
thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar.

ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access"
on a broad basis.

Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes,
bands or other operating privileges *except* a little
more frequency spectrum.

That's a contradictory statement. You say
there's no additional privileges
and then you note that there is.

There's also the vanity
call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but
that's about it.

Ditto my last.

Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right
to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only
access to the tests is a right.

I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise.

As an analogy, consider the national parks. There
are places where access to the park by motor
vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that
all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle
because some people can't walk to them?

ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done.
Your national park analogy doesn't apply.

One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep
code testing but change how it is scored. One method is
to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written)
to the following:

Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the
35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark
on the code test.

That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code
test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more.

I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise
would pass ADA requirements.

I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems.

We clearly differ in opinion then.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK