[CW] ARRL stand on CW testing?

[N2EY@aol.com]

The following is just my own thoughts...

In a message dated 8/7/03 5:07:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, k8la@arrl.net 
writes:


> 1.  Why has there been no announcement from the ARRL of the NCVEC's 
> decision to petition the FCC to immediately drop the Morse Code testing 
> requirement?  Considering that the last two surveys of the US ham 
> populace indicated a majority in favor of retaining a Morse Code test 
> element, this was very big news.  And since the ARRL participated in 
> the meeting, there is no lack of knowledge defense.

Good question. Part of the answer is that ARRL is formulating their own 
petition. Best not to say anything until that is done.


> 
> 2.  One member of the reflector was informed by ARRL HQ that the ARRL 
> representative on the NCVEC board refrained from voting.  Further that 
> he had no choice about it since he lacked guidance from ARRL 
> leadership.  How could this be?  Leadership has long been aware of the 
> ham population's preference that I mentioned in the first question.  
> That alone should have been enough to give guidance to anyone needing 
> it to vote to retain, or at the very least, wait while ARRL conducts a 
> more up to date survey.  Further, it has been known for a while that 
> the most likely outcome of the Morse Code issue at WARC would be for it 
> to cease to be an international requirement.  There was no lack of 
> warning, being caught off guard, etc.  Thus ARRL leadership should have 
> had guidance in place based on the likely outcome of WARC and the 
> likeliness that some person/group would move fast to petition for the 
> removal of the Morse Code testing element.  It seems to many of us that 
> the ARRL representatives vote of abstain was a disguised vote in favor 
> of the resolution.  It is difficult to see it any other way with the 
> ARRL knowing the desires of the ham population but failing to carry 
> them out with a no vote.

The most recent survey was in 1996  - seven years ago, long before the 
restructuring. And that survey was flawed in several ways. 

ARRL is formulating their own petition/proposal, which will probably be far 
more comprehensive than the NCVEC one. Supporting or opposing NCVEC would tip 
their hand. So they abstained. 

> 
> 3.  In the August, 2003 issue of QST, page 49, in the article on the 
> latest Hamvention, the author states "Haynie also noted the great 
> success in licensing new hams enjoyed in the United Kingdom with the 
> new Foundation License.  The Foundation License is similar in concept 
> to the original US Novice ticket, but without a hard Morse 
> requirement."  The author of the article was K7CCC, Assistant News 
> Editor for QST.  This suggests that the ARRL management has already 
> decided that the Morse testing element should be done away with.

No, it just reports the facts of the situation. The old Novice required 5 wpm 
sending and receiving (one minute solid receive, etc.) Much "harder" than the 
"Morse assessment" used with the Foundation. 


> 
> 4.  In the past, whenever there has been a petition to alter the 
> licensing requirements, the ARRL has been quick to file comments on the 
> issues raised by the petition.  We see no such response yet from the 
> ARRL to the NCVEC petition.  It would seem logical that at the very 
> minimum, you file comments asking for consideration of the petition to 
> be delayed while ARRL HQ conducts a new survey to ascertain the 
> feelings of the current ham population on the subject.

They're between a rock and a hard place. Either they support Element 1 or 
oppose it, there just ain't much middle ground. And whatever they do will tick 
off a large part of the membership. 

Back in '98 they proposed 4 classes of license, two code test speeds, better 
writtens and instant upgrades for Novices and Tech Pluses. Instead, FCC gave 
us 3 classes of license, one code test speed, chopped-down writtens, and no 
instant upgrades. Betcha the BoD is still smarting from that.

> 
> All in all, the lack of even a breath of air coming out of ARRL HQ and 
> it's actions (and inactions) to date seem to scream that the ARRL is in 
> favor of dropping the Morse testing requirement and is desperately 
> seeking a means of doing so without losing the >50% membership that 
> supports retainment of the test element.

The big unknown here is what the majority of the membership actually wants. 
There was a majority in favor of code testing back in 1996 - but is that still 
true? We don't know. How are the emails and letters being received by Hq and 
the BoD split between pro- and no-? We have no idea. 

If the majority are anti-code-test, what should ARRL do?

Way back in 1990, I had a good long talk with our then-Director, W3ABC. I had 
sent him a detailed letter in support of code testing for all hams. The big 
debate back then was whether to support or oppose a nocodetest VHF/UHF only 
license. He said that the Board was guided by three things:

1) The feedback they were receiving from members on the specific question of 
a nocodetest VHF/UHF license was split 50-50. 

2) FCC had made it clear that they (FCC) really, really, REALLY wanted a 
nocodetest ham license of some kind. FCC had been stopped twice before (1975 and 
1983) but were determined this time.


3) 220 was under threat of reallocation to other services. The biggest 
weakness in defending it was that hams did not use 220 nearly as much as 2 meters or 
440. Some folks thought that a VHF/UHF nocodetest license with no 2 meter 
privs would populate 220. 


> 
> I'm looking forward to your response on this vital issue.  Further, I'm 
> looking for ARRL HQ to start treating it like the vital issue that it 
> is to the previously mentioned >50% membership.


How do we KNOW we are the majority? Or rather - is the majority speaking up?

I hope you get a reasonable answer. Please post whatever they tell you.

73 de Jim, N2EY


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---