The United States was the LAST country of the world requiring it for
testing. Now there is NO country requiring it. Does that not say
something? It's fun, it's great, it has some definite uses but so
does RTTY. Should that be required too? I teach it to my kids in
school. They drive teachers bonkers with it. They will never cease
using it. But they also use many other digital modes.
73
Les
At 12:42 PM 2/19/2007, you wrote:
Charlie,
No reasonable person can deny that the FCC no longer considers CW a
necessary skill for radio amateurs to have. At one time it was something
of significance, now it is not. At one time, CW skills were something
the government wanted maintained within a subset of the population
because it might be needed during wartime. This is no longer true since
even the military (with a few exceptions) no longer uses CW.
CW was only a necessary skill on amateur frequencies during the earliest
days. Once voice modes, and much later, RTTY modes, became common, CW
was no longer a necessary skill for ham radio. For many hams, CW was
abandoned for the remainder of their operating years. The percentage of
radio amateurs who operate CW for at least part of their operating
time, has been decreasing drastically and will likely continue to
decrease, but this is something left up to each individual to decide.
If you listen to the ham bands today, compared to a few decades ago, it
would be obvious that there are many fewer operators sending CW.
BPL issues just go to show you how incorrect bureaucrats can be when it
comes to new technology. Just because something is new, does not
necessarily make it useful or even desirable.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Charlie Wilber wrote:
>"KV9U" <<mailto:mrfarm%40mwt.net>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Clearly, the FCC no longer considers CW a necessary skill. No
>reasonable person can deny that."
>==========
>
>No "reasonable person" can deny what? That CW is no longer a necessary
>skill or that the FCC no longer considers it to be so? If you meant
>the former, your arrogant generalization is unfortunate and incorrect.
>If the latter, we need only remember that the FCC also considers BPL
>to be a benign technology that has no effect on amateur radio to
>understand the error of that statement. Any reasonable person will
>understand that.
>
>Charlie Wilber
>N1AOK
>
>
>
