[Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test

[Stephen W. Kercel]

Jessie:

Your point is well taken. If you have not already done so, I would 
encourage you to repeat it in a filing to the FCC.

73,

Steve
AA4AK


At 02:12 PM 9/2/2005 -0700, Jessie Oberreuter wrote:

>      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