[CW] FCC degrades Radio Officers

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

Thanks!  You said a mouthfull - and I agree with you 100%.

73

David Ring, N1EA

----- Original Message -----
From: <N2EY@aol.com>
To: <n1ea@arrl.net>; <geneb@deltasoft.com>; <cw@mailman.qth.net>

> The idea they're selling is simply that radio isn't supposed to require
radio
> operators, just as the telephone network and the internet don't require
them.
> That's
> why they avoid the word "radio" and instead say "cellphone" or "wireless
> network" or "broadband" or "satellite" - *anything* but "radio". The
"modern"
> equipment is supposed to be so automatic that there's no need for
operators, or
> their skills.
>
> Of course they can't just come out and say that, nor eliminate the RT
> licenses  as long as there is any maritime CW left. But are there any US
flag ships -
> or even non-third-world ships - left that still have CW capability or ROs?
Queen Mary
> may be the closest thing to a "ship" that does!
>
> I don't see how arguing the point with FCC can accomplish anything but get
> them mad at us, which we don't need.
>
> I think the FCC and others are trying to slowly but surely declare radio
> operators "obsolete" - along with their licenses.
>
> All that's left is us hams to keep the concept alive.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
> to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>