"K4YZ" wrote in message
ps.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's my submission to the FCC.


[snip]


However I am in favor of allowing access to the HF allocations
without the benefit of a Morse Code examination with the restriction
that non-Morse tested Amateurs not be allowed access to those parts of
the spectrum wherein voice (wideband) modes are not permittted.
Without the basic skills of being able to recognize whether or not they
are potentially interfering with other communications, the non-Morse
tested operator should be restricted to areas wherein they will have
less likelyhood of causing such interference.

Steve, I have to disagree with you on the concept that only Morse tested
operators be allowed to operate Morse.

That's not what I said, Dee...

I said that non-Morse tested licesees shouldn't be allowed to
operate in areas where voice modes are not permitted.

There is a difference.


Yes I do see the difference. May I suggest clarifying that in your
comments. i.e. They can operate code in the areas they have voice
privileges but that there be an "exclusive" section for those who are code
tested.

If the FCC is going to drop the code
requirement (which seems certain now), the operators should be allowed
the
privileges of the comparable classes of today. Besides you don't have to
be
familiar with a mode to hear that someone is using the frequency and thus
to
know that you should go find another.

But you need to be able to be able to inquire as to the use of the
frequency, etc. Just because I tune to 14.0xxMhz and not hear anything
for a minute or so does NOT mean the frequency isn't being used.


Technically we have the same problem today in some modes. If I want to
operate on a "RTTY frequency" with some other mode (although I wouldn't do
so), I cannot currently use RTTY to ask if the frequency is in use.

Besides, if they are going to try to operate code, they will have studied it
some and it won't be a major issue although it will happen now and then. In
addition, the way for them to get better is to have the chance to
communicate with the experienced.

If they elect to go Code/Extra-NoCode/General, then we should
consider some band plan allowances to give the NCG's a place to
practice away from the skilled users. However that can be done on a
"Gentleperson's Agreement" (notice the PC there...?!?!?!) , not a new
"Novice" class license.


I do NOT like the "Politically Correct" results of butchering the language.
People are putting the em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-LA-ble. If one studies
the development of the English language, the term and suffix "man"
originally simply meant human being. Females were "women" and males were
"wermen". Instead of butchering the language perhaps we should resurrect
the male prefix "wer-"?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE