Bill Sohl wrote:

In all of the procode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been
offered?

Yes.

Forget even if such an argument is valid or
compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument
not previously raised and dismissed by or in past
FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.)

Why?

Most of the "old" reasons are still valid, IMHO.

My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I
haven't read all comments) is that there are no
new arguments raised... because if there had been
we'd have seen it or them by now.

Here's one:

While several countries have eliminated code testing
(23 the last time I looked, but you probably have
more recent information, Bill), there are still plenty
who have not. Japan, long the darling of the nocodetest
folks, still has code testing for some of its license levels.

Many countries have reciprocal licensing agreements
with the USA, so that American amateurs traveling
abroad can get licenses for countries they visit,

Many of these countries do not extend full-privilege
license privileges to foreign hams who are not code
tested. If there is no code test in the USA, US amateurs
won't be able to get licenses in those countries unless
they take a code test there.

The "Canadian compromise" gets around that problem
neatly.

--

Now a challenge:

In all of the anticode test arguments and comments has
even one NEW reason to eliminate code testiing been
offered?

73 de Jim, N2EY