[CW] ARRL refused to support code requirement

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/1/2003 11:42:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, n4xy@earthlink.net writes:

> 
> 
> At 06:58 AM 8/1/2003, N2EY@aol.com wrote:
> 
> >In a message dated 7/31/03 9:01:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >n4xy@earthlink.net writes:

> > > BUT with no requirement at all, the significance of a
> > > code-only band segment becomes a good deal less tenable.

> >Why? I think it becomes much more tenable.
 
> Simple: the word "significance" is the key point here: as members of a 
> minority (CW users) whose importance in the scheme of things has just been 
> pronounced to be zero; the question may be asked: why should they have any 
> exclusive bands.

That's where we have to step up and make the case:

- our importance is not zero, and there are lots of us. 
- we use far less spectrum
- we are far less of an enforcement problem than the users of other modes (how many hams using CW in the CW/data bands have gotten an NAL in the past 5 years?)
- we're trying to avoid interference
- if it's really about the test and not the mode, then what's the problem? (to be asked of those who say they are only against the test)
> 
> >The ARRL is in the classic rock-hardplace situation. There are lots of ARRL
> >members, and directors, who are procodetest and lots who are anticodetest. 
> >The directors are elected by the membership, and full voting membership is 
> >open to anyone with a valid FCC ham license and a few $$. Neither side has the upper
> >hand. and so the policies that come out are compromises at best. Look at the
> >'98 proposal (5 wpm General, 12 wpm Advanced & Extra) - just about halfway
> >between the old status quo and 5 wpm for all.
> >
> >But if we abandon ARRL membership because they don't support us on code
> >testing the way we want, all we're doing is abandoning them to the nocodetest
> >folks. And those folks are not all newbies or Techs.
> 
> Where did I suggest that we "abandon the ARRL"? 

You didn't, Ed. I was responding to others who have done so. Sorry if that wasn't clear - I've read too many postings from other folks who have said they are quitting ARRL over one issue or another, not realizing they were leaving it open for the opposition.

> Don't read words into other 
> people's mouths Jim. I said I was "grumpy" about it-and I am. I personally 
> resent the daylights out of it. 

So do I. 

I wasn't trying to be argumentative or put words in your mouth, Ed, just trying to figure out the best way to go from where we are now.

> I agree they have to represent ALL their 
> members-I am unconvinced that they did that-much less 'us' CW persons... 
> whatever percentage of that "all their members" we may represent.

Perhaps. But what's to be done when they're in the boardroom trying to make policy and one camp insists on opposing code tests and the other insists on keeping them? 

There's also the fact that they have been the lone pro-code-test vote recently. Some time back (2000?) there was a Region 3 IARU meeting, and ARRL cast the one and only keep-S25.5 vote. 

> > > The "FIGHT", if there is one left to us, is to retain those exclusive
> > > band-segments. Those segments are ALL WE HAVE LEFT. Somehow we have to
> > > convince them that they will not; they cannot, weasel about that.

> >As pointed out elsewhere, we have no exclusive CW-only spectrum below 30 MHz.
> >It's all shared with every data mode allowed on HF. You can run PSK-31 on
> >3501 under the current rules.
> 
> Don't be disingenuous. The RTTY and digital modes people have VASTLY better 
> manners than their SSB brethren, and you know it. They have obeyed 
> voluntary band plans for years and years. 

Then we need to band together with them to prevent all of us being overrun by SSB.

And all is not perfect. 3579 used to be a popular "glowbug" CW spot (old color TV xtals, of course). Then it became a popular PSK-31 frequency, and the glowbuggers were driven away. 

> The only band plan the SSB crowd 
> has obeyed is: "how can I get more band to be rude in-since my 5KW is 
> crowding out by all the OTHER 5KW stations?" It's not the "camel's nose" 
> they want to get under the edge of the tent, it's the other 
> end.

Agreed! 

So how do we counter this argument, which I have heard several times in recent years: 

"Most other countries don't have subbands-by-mode. They just have voluntary bandplans. They don't seem to be having any trouble in (fill in the country or continent of your choice)."
> 
Ideas, anyone?

73 de Jim, N2EY
FISTS #4360