[CW] Code Test? YES!

[N2EY@aol.com]

To the Board and ARRL Hq Leadership,

I'm a long time active ham (1967) and League member (1968) even though I'm 
only 49. I'm also an EE (BSEE U of P 1976, MSEE Drexel U 1992). I am primarily a 
CW operator but also use other modes. 

The League should continue to support code testing. It's as simple as that. 
There should also be continued support for non-phone subbands and improved 
written testing. 

I was disappointed that the ARRL representative abstained from voting at the 
NCVEC meeting, but it is obvious that you folks are reconsidering ARRL's 
position and did not want to commit one way or the other. I also appreciate that no 
matter what policy is adopted, a large part of the membership will not be 
pleased and may either drop ARRL membership or refuse to join.

Reasons for keeping the code test:

1) CW/Morse is a big part of HF amateur radio today. Maybe it's not as big a 
part as it once was, but it's still right behind SSB on HF in popularity. The 
fact that other services have stopped using CW/Morse has little bearing on its 
continued popularity with amateurs.

2) The 5 wpm code test (Element 1) and the varied adaptations and 
accomodations available make the test passable by almost anyone. Improved training 
methods make the code easier to learn than ever before

3) The dropping of the code test from the Technician back in 1991 did not 
result in a technological revolution in amateur radio from those new hams who 
were highly technically skilled and knowledgeable, but who did not want to pass a 
code test. There is no reason to expect a technological revolution if the 
code test is completely eliminated.

4) The dropping of the code test from the Technician back in 1991 did not 
result in significant long-term increased growth in the number of hams in the 
USA. There was an initial surge for a few years only. There is no reason to 
expect significant long-term increased growth if the code test is completely 
eliminated.

5) Enforcement actions by the FCC against amateurs using CW/Morse are 
conspicuously absent. The violations which are becoming all too prevalent on voice 
modes are all but unknown on CW/Morse, even though it is almost as popular as 
voice modes. 

6) While organization NCVEC has petitioned for elimination of the code test, 
it is not an organization that is representative of the amateur radio 
community as a whole. Neither are small but vocal organizations such as No-Code 
International, which will not even divulge the size of its membership, yet claims to 
speak for amateur radio around the world..

7) The trend in amateur license testing for at least 20 years has been to 
make the tests more accessible and easier to pass. The first trend is good but 
the second trend is not. It makes sense to have an easy-to-pass entry level 
license, but continued reductions in the knowledge and skill levels required for 
the higher level licenses is unjustified.

8) While the ITU and a few other countries have dropped code-test 
requirements, support for code testing is still very strong in the amateur community. 
Surveys and polls continue to show support of code testing as the majority 
position among American amateurs. Asking for input is not the same thing as a survey 
or poll.

--

I have read that the code test is not the only license/structure issue to be 
considered for revamping. I will be sending some ideas on other license and 
test issues shortly.

I urge the Board and ARRL leadership to support continuation of Element 1 for 
HF/MF amateur licenses. 

73 de Jim, N2EY