"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
Would you agree with this statement:

however, at the same time, those who are not interested in building radios
should not be forced to learn how they work in order to gain amateur radio
privileges ...

No ... because, even if you don't build your own radios, you are responsible
for their proper operation.

Do you think every ham understands how their radios work? Do you think
the tests even begin to measure the things a ham needs to know to
determine if a radio is working properly?

How could you possibly know something was
wrong if you had no knowledge of how the radio worked?

By how it behaves. And by how other hams tell you it sounds, or
doesn't sound.

This is an interference control issue ... a technical matter ... and
knowledge
of this IS required in order to be competent to operate a station in full
compliance with the rules.

Do you really think even the Extra test measures that knowledge?
Particularly given the extremely wide range of technologies that a ham
is authorized to use?

Example: New Ham buys old rig, which requires tuning up. Even though
in perfect operating order, said rig can be mistuned by the unknowing
to produce all sorts of spurious responses. Current tests say nothing
about proper method of dipping and loading, grid drive, audio gain,
etc. Heck, most current EEs couldn't get the thing to work without
help.

But FCC trusts that New Ham will seek out a manual, read up, get help
from Old Hams, and be a responsible licensee even though the tests
didn't cover 1% of how his new/old rig works. FCC trusts that New Ham
will educate him/herself on the technology used and not cause
interference. So why should New Ham be forced to jump through a
written test hoop and learn things he/she won't use? Answer: Because
some folks think he/she should have to. And for no other reason.


2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ...

No, I mean "knowledge of". Skills are a form of knowledge, as are facts
and
concepts. Perhaps it would be better to write "practical knowledge"

No, it's proficiency that the test measures

That's a skill.

... proficiency in decoding Morse
in one's head at some specified speed.

5 wpm. Which is not "proficient" by any stretch of the imagination.

And that's ALL it is according to
the FCC (see the "No Code Technician" decision from 1990 and the R&O
in 98-143 ... you'll see EXACTLY that in both documents).

Sure. But just because FCC says it does not make it true.

The Morse test which is Element 1 tests the skill of receiving Morse code
at a very basic level.

Exactly, it measures a specific level of proficiency.

"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

Element 1 is in no way a test of "proficiency". It's a skill test at a
very
basic level. To call it a proficiency test is to demonstrate ignorance of
the
word proficiency.

Proficiency is measured against some "yardstick" ... in the case of Morse,
the FCC has (currently) determined the yardstick to be 5 wpm.
You can argue all you want, but that's the way it is ...

Sure. But just because FCC says it does not make it true.

Yet they wouldn't include a sunset clause back in 2000

True ... they didn't include a sunset clause.

Which means they were not 100% convinced. Otherwise why do the whole
thing all over again?

and they're making all of us go through an NPRM cycle all over again.

How the FCC will handle this is yet to be determined ...

So far it looks like NPRM time. As more and more proposals/petitions
roll in, and old ones remain unresolved, the ARRL forecast of two
years begins to look reasonable.

If FCC thinks there really is
"no regulatory purpose" to a code test, WHY are they dragging their feet
and doing the whole circus AGAIN?

See my last sentence ...

We'll see. Not even 2 months since WRC-03, and the summer is not even
over yet. FCC could, upon review of the petitions, say "Yeah, we went
through this 3 years ago, nothing's changed, bye-bye Element 1".

[snipped unrelated discussion of BPL]

Not unrelated at all. But I understand why you snipped it.

73 de Jim, N2EY