Danny, Are you sure about the decision of the ARRL to one day support the majority view and then reverse themselves a few weeks later?
The only reason that CW was a requirement was for governments to get the benefits of having the pool of trained operators in case of emergency or especially wartime. I believe that it has been a bit more than a year or two ago that the international rules dropped morse code testing as a requirement. In 1997 ARRL, based upon membership input, still supported no changing the internation rules. Eventually, after most other countries in the world changed their views, the U.S. was about the last country to do so because of the influence of the membership on the ARRL Board of Directors. Even when there were international rules to require each country have some level of CW testing for any amateur radio license, some countries ignored the rule. The country with the most amateur radio licensees in the world did this long ago for their entry level license. And that is why they rapidly became the country with the most hams. When criticized by other governments, their position was that they were doing this as public policy to increase hobby activities for citizens. Several decades ago we had a ham from Lesotho visit our ham club here in SW Wisconsin. He was an engineer from a Scandanavian country who I believe was living there for an extended period and working on the construction of the hydroelectric plant. When asked how fast the code speed was required for the license, he explained that there was no code test and he knew nothing about CW. The idea of setting aside a CW only band is not something I could support. Nor do many other hams, based upon past comments to the ARRL or the FCC. That is why your idea did not get any traction. If you really want people to even try CW, you would need to at least give them an area to try it out. It will be interesting to see if there are some new folks who will try out the HF CW bands when all Technician class licensees have substantial CW priveleges on 80/40/15/10 meters. Some have complained that the higher speed licensees won't work them on CW. While it is true there are some neurotic lids on CW, many of us will QRS as needed. Yes, it is a bit annoying to slow down to say 3 to 5 wpm, but you have to start somewhere. Also, if the Technicians with their new priveleges get on the CW bands, they will find other slower speed Technicians calling CQ. Maybe it will be like in the "old" days when you would often hear 5 wpm (at most) signals on 80 and 40 meters calling CQ in what was then the Novice portion of the bands. 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: > Unlike any of the other modes, it is a SKILL SET, and not just >something from memory, or which can be picked up in a few minutes of >operatin,such as PSK. When they first started making noises about dropping >the CW rule (way back in the mid 60s) it was ILLEGAL for any government to >allow any ham who had not demonstrated their SKILL in CW (It did not mention >a code speed)was not to be allowed operations on the HF bands. That was an >international law and no government had the right to go against it in their >own country whether they wanted to or not. It was only a year or two ago, >that this rule was changed to allow countries to determine for themselves if >they wanted to go that way or not. ONLY at that time was any government >allowed to do so. I re-impressed on the FCC, the ARRL, and my local ARRL >reps my suggestion that we could immediately allow ALL amateurs the use of >the HF bands, but we SHOULD continue the testing for CW operations, for the >above reason. Not only did they completly ignore my suggestion, but those >of many others who were of like mind. The ARRL took at least one survey >asking members what our wishes were, and according to their own >representatives, the MAJORITY desired the continuation of CW testing, which >the ARRL apparently and reluctantly agreed to. Suddenly, a few weeks later, >the board of ghastely representatives of the ARRL turned complely around and >so advised the FCC that they (the ARRL) agreed there was no need for further >testing in CW for ANY amateur band. Suddenly the ARRL no longer represented >the majority. > >Had they taken our wishes to heart, you and others who never have, and never >wanted to pass CW, would have been able to upgrade and used ALL amateur >bands - except those which were ONLY CW sub-bands. The intent, at that >time, was not to have CW and digital operations mixed up in the same >sub-band such as we have now. Non-code amateurs could still have worked the >digital modes, in their own sub-set band. > >So yes - the way they put it is pure B A L O N E Y ! > >The concept of CW testing did not have to discourage or put a burden on >ANYONE from " advancing their skills and participating more fully in the >benefits of Amateur Radio" If they did not wish to participate in CW - they >would not have to. But if they wanted to work on the CW mode, they would >have to pass a test like everyone else had. > >They threw the whole concept of the Extra class code, and its selective >sub-band right out the window, the same as the other bands where CW was the >mode of choice within the subbands. > >So - I am happy you and others are able to now advance your technical skills >and participate in the SSB and other modes you may have not been able to do >before. It IS still advancement. And I have taught many techs over the >years - but I also taught them CW. > >I am unhappy that you or anyone else can now come direct to the CW bands and >operate the mode without having proven your skill to do so, in advance. I >have taught CW to hundreds of would-be amateurs and EVERY ONE of them was >able to pass 5 WPM, sometimes within a day or less. Remember - the Majority >of those who responded to the surveys said there should be a CW test >continuation - and every one of them I spoke with, agreed to my concept, and >said they could support it - EXCEPT OUR ARRL REPS. And of course the FCC >who did not bother to respond at all. Frankly, it was a done deal, no >matter how many of us responded, unless of course, we responded the "right" >way.' > >It will be a death knell to CW, eventually, because withs fewer ops, the >narrow subbands will become even more narrow, to the point they wont exist. >Slow but sure. I already have students who have said "why should we >bother?" Many, in the past probably never went on to use it - but they >COULD. > > >Danny Douglas N7DC >ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA >SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all >DX 2-6 years each >. >QSL LOTW-buro- direct >As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > or hard card. > >moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] >moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk > >
