[Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test

[Jessie Oberreuter]

      I'm a little behind on QRP-L, and I'm trying to avoid contributing 
noise on the topic, but this one slipped through and caught my attention.

      I'm not sure how compelling this might be to the FCC, but it means a 
lot to me:  I think of Extra Class licensees as elmers and mentors.  As 
such, I expect an Extra Class holder to be at least knowledgeable about, 
if not proficient in, a much wider range of radio activities than the 
other classes.  Indeed, I expect an Extra to have explored activities and 
modes that he or she may not even be personally interested in simply 
because without doing that leg work, one can't be an effective mentor for 
other hams with different interests.  For example, I have virtually no 
interest in operating PSK31, but I took the time to build a warbler and 
play with the mode simply so I could offer the option to a friend who 
likes radio, but has a hard time hearing in the presents of typical band 
noise. Similarly, I have no interest in ATV, but spent time pursuing it 
just so I could help a friend who /was/ interested get a start.  Thus, 
when I run into an Extra Class op on the air who can't exchange a name and 
RST at 5wpm, I feel let down: how can you claim to be a contributor to the 
art and community without making even the most basic investment in the 
second most popular operating mode?
      The incentive to become an Extra should not be the bandwidth -- it 
should be the recognition that you are a person who cares enough about the 
hobby to become a well versed contributor.

      Thanks for the bandwidth, de kb7psg.


>>      Some ideas:
>>      1)  Don't  compromise on what you really want. FCC has a history of
>>      going  a step farther, so a comment for Extra only code tests looks
>>      to  them  like  a  comment  for none at all. If you think Element 1
>>      should stay, say so!
>>      2)  Point  out  the  wide  use  of  Morse  Code  on HF by hams, and
>>      particularly   its  use  by  hams  who  are  technically  inclined,
>>      homebrewers, etc.
>>      3)  Despite  the  popularity of the mode, hams using Morse Code are
>>      rarely the subject of FCC enforcement actions.
>>      4)  Take  the  time  to  read  the  NPRM  a  couple  of  times, and
>>      specifically  comment on FCC statements that you disagree with. For
>>      example,  FCC  called  the  FISTS  recommendations  of written-test
>>      changes  "vague",  yet they specifically spelled out exact steps to
>>      be taken to improve the written tests.
>>      5) The reductions and eliminations in Morse Code testing since 1990
>>      have  not  resulted in longterm changes in the growth of US amateur
>>      radio.   Nor  have  they  resulted  in  an  increase  in  technical
>>      development, etc.
>>      6)  Suggest  that  FCC  could  do something similar to Canada (they
>>      still  have  code  testing, but the grade is considered part of the
>>      overall testing, not a go/nogo standalone element).
>>      7)  Suggest  that if the code test is eliminated, the bottom 15% of
>>      each HF band should be set aside for Morse Code only.
>>      8)  Write  your  comments  in  the  standards  form  used  by  many
>>      commenters.  (search  ECFS  for my comments to previous proposals -
>>      last name "Miccolis")
>>      9)  Include  a  brief  description of your amateur and professional>>      experience, education, etc. Whil it may feel like bragging, the FCC
>>      does look at who is commenting as well as what they say.
>>      10) Take your time, spellcheck, proofread, etc. It really matters.
>>      Just IMHO
>>      73 de Jim, N2EY