"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

wrote in message
...

FWIW, I support keeping the code in and I am a technician that is
trying hard to learn this. Code still has a use and it makes one
commit effort to upgrade to higher classes.

"Making one commit effort" is not a legitimate regulatory purpose
for the FCC.

Then why all the different classes of license?

Different levels of knowledge, of course. Many people already
HAVE the technical knowledge to pass the written tests with ease.
The issue is that SOME people think that those who are in that
position "should be made to expend some (additional) effort" to
get their ham license (they ignore the effort ALREADY spent in
acquiring the aforementioned knowledge).

If YOU want to learn and use Morse, fine ... same for anyone else
with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

It causes those that are
not willing to work to be left out and does anyone want people in this
activity that are not willing to put effort into learning?

I want all the technically competent folks we can get ...

"Technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level? Competent
enough to
use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from scratch,
or
something in between?

According to the FCC, competent enough to pass the written tests.
I'd like to see folks even more competent than that, but everyone has
to start somewhere.

with homeland
defense spuring increased demand for use of HF frequencies, we need
to increase our numbers to protect our spectrum

Every increase in technical competency requirements works against
increased
numbers.

NOTE: I said "technically competent folks" ... I am NOT in the
"ham license in the Cracker Jacks box" camp AT ALL.

Again - "technically competent" as defined by whom? At what level?
Competent
enough to use a ham rig, or competent enough to design and build one from
scratch, or something in between?

See above.

Are the current written tests adequate for the technical competency
requirements of the ARS, or not?

That's the FCC's call ... as I said, I'd like to see folks actually learn
more
than the tests require (and would welcome more folks who ALREADY
know more than that, but aren't interested in Morse).

The point goes back to Garry Coffman's statement of some years ago
(where is Garry anyway? anybody know?) to the effect that too many
people view the license as a "graduation certificate" rather than the entry
permit into a lifelong learning experience. And too many people value the
license for what they had to do to get it, rather than what it allows them
to do.

If YOU want to increase your technical competency, fine ... same for
anyone
else with the same desire. But that does not give you (or anyone else)
the right to force it on everyone else.

I'm not bitching about today's tests ... the only issue I have is that I
think the Tech test is "light" for the power level it allows at frequencies
that can cook meat. Other than that flaw (IMHO, it's a flaw and the
power limit should be more in line with the technical knowledge required
for the license), I'm content with the tests we have today ... they are
"entry level" for the priveleges granted.

I just don't believe that forcing folks to learn Morse to get an HF
license is a reasonable requirement.

Yet even if the code test disappears tomorrow, to get an HF license with
reasonable privileges, folks are forced to take a written test that goes
beyond
the test required for ALL VHF/UHF privileges. To get all HF/MF privileges,
folks must take two written tests that go far beyond the test required
for ALL
VHF/UHF privileges.

Again, I think the Tech test/priv ratio is flawed WRT the power levels
allowed.

I think that the FCC uses HF as a "carrot" to induce folks to learn more
about radio ... and that they are more comfortable with Tech privs because
propagation generally limits the ability for Techs to cause interference
beyond
our borders. (note I said "generally")

Those who want to use it
will have to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in
Morse, but could contribute technically, in public service
communications,
etc. should not be excluded because of their lack of interest in Morse.

Those who want to be involved in the technical end of amateur radio will
have
to (voluntarily) learn it ... those who have no interest in technical
subjects,
but could contribute technically, in public service communications, etc.
should
not be excluded because of their lack of interest in technical subjects.

Read your paragraph above ... it's flawed ... how can "those who have no
interest
in technical subjects" "contribute technically" ???

73,
Carl - wk3c