Fw: [CW] ARRL stand on CW testing?

[Rein A. Smit]

   Hi Ken,

   Thanks for your email. You may be right on maintaining CW testing. I
   am not so sure though . My interest is mainly weaksignal and QRP, I monitor
   what is important in those circles.
   
   I my opinion very few if any pay, any attention to the CW testing issue
   though all use CW! 
   I am also quite confident that if the ARRL or even better the FCC were 
   wanting to enforce, I repeat enforce band plans, these Weaksignal QRP 
   people would all fully support this, all serious amateurs would strongly 
   support it.
   It is to a large degree lack of knowledge I think that people on lets say
   2 meters, just have their little FM QSO in the 144.100 to 144.000
   section. They will tell you "It was a free so why not use it or worse
   I did not hear any signal."
   This is a clear violation but who does anything about it.
   
   IMHO, frequency management should be the FIRST issue in licensing and
   testing, plus enforcement.

   I really believe that the people who participate in these ITU meetings
   are all serious amateurs, with often decades of amateur radio behind them,
   believe in band planning. I am not sure they all believe in code testing
   though.

   I also fail to see why code testing ensures safe cw sub bands. Again, don't we
   we want cw bands in the first place? I believe code testing creates more
   people, specially in this day and age, with less support for cw than more. 

   I also believe that the practice of hamming will at one point or another 
   drive a percentage of amateurs to start using and trying to improve their 
   skills in code.
   The process simply requires it in order to be effective and to enjoy it.
   It is very simple and there is no way around it!
   
   In a way I see it as a lack of confidence in CW as a means of communication
   that drives this code testing issue on this board.

   For me it is quite clear, no cw, no moonbounce, no cw, no QRP contacts,
   no cw, could mean no QSO ever, for apartment people or people with severe
   antenna restrictions.

   73 Rein PA0ZN
   
   

Ken Brown wrote:
> 
> Hi Rein,
> 
> I agree with you that the BPL issue is of number one importance. If BPL
> systems became common across the country (or world) HF amateur radio
> would be virtually wiped out, for any mode. Though CW would probably
> still  be the most likely to get through, it would be miserable trying
> to enjoy it. From what I have seen the ARRL is doing  a top rate job in
> addressing the BPL issue, and they have my support.
> 
> When it comes to the CW testing issue, I believe that it is also
> important to retain morse code testing for at least some license class
> and there should be sub-band privileges to go along with that license
> class. That way we can continue to "enjoy CW and leave others alone".
> Without digital only sub-bands, or even with digital only but not CW
> only sub-bands and with thousands more licensees who are not even
> cognizant of CW, operating CW may be just as badly impacted as it would
> be from BPL.
> 
> After all BPL is just another automated digital mode. Once it radiates
> from the power lines, listening to CW with a fairly narrow bandwidth
> filter, BPL will sound much like some of the other intentionally
> radiated digital modes.
> 
> Both issues are important.
> 
> DE N6KB
> 
> >
> >
> >