What makes you '...sure it was the ARRL'? ARRL opposed changes in the code requirements for decades. Indeed, in this instance, ARRL proposed a two-tiered set of code tests, 5 WPM and 12 WPM, in response to FCC's proposal. ARRL response to FCC proposal I fear you're taking too much of the anti-League propaganda on this website for real. Much of it is hogwash. Indeed, this little blurb is very educational, in that it reminds us of what ARRL proposed back then. They proposed to grandfather Novice and Tech + to General, making the General the minimum for entry to HF. They proposed at this time refarming the Novice bands to give the Generals more room. They also asked FCC to greatly increase the number of test questions for the exams. They formally opposed dropping the code requirement for General in these comments. Please note that this is in late 1998 - less than 8 years ago. They asked for a 5 WPM test for General and 12 WPM for Advanced and Extra. Doesn't that sound like what FISTS has been asking for lately? The best part of their proposal was to grant the NoCode Techs (who were created 7 years earlier) CW priveleges on the HF bands without passing a code test. Would we be better off today if FCC had done that instead of their current proposal? What greater incentive could someone possibly have for learning the code? Learn the code and work DX! Imagine how much less pressure there would be for eliminating the code test altogether today! FCC's response was to eliminate the Advanced license, and all but the 5 WPM test, which they said they had to do only so that they would comply with the International requirement - also the reason they rejected the proposal to give Techs HF CW priveleges. FCC has since agreed to do the rest of the proposed Novice Band restructuring. I am still hoping they will surprise us and give the Techs these CW priveleges when they write the final R+O on that NPRM.