[CW] ARRL BOD Jan. 19-20, 2001

[n3drk]

That was two years ago, before WRC. Things have changed. We went from 20 WPM
to 5 WPM. But if one considers this as saving or not removing CW I do not
consider this a victory. It is a defeat by a very Poor Administration who
lacks leadership.

On the other hand when the league asked the FCC for access to the 60 meter
band and the NTIA advised against it, the FCC proposed to the league 5
channels with very prohibitive restrictions. The league took and david
sumner proposed victory. This was NO victory. If the league had any type of
leadership and clout they should have told the FCC NO THANK YOU. Instead of
obtaining a band they settle for 5 channels which are very prohibitive to
say the least. CB'ers have more privileges that what they got for the
members.. This is NOT LEADERSHIP. It shows insecurity in conflicting times.

Like someone said in an earlier post. The CW issue is a done deal and we the
members didnt know a thing about it. If we would have read between the lines
we would have seen it. But why should we? We elected these people to be OUR
representation.

Is this a sign of something in the future?

2002 Second Meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors
July 19-20, 2002


64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at
the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise
Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode.





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@arrl.net>
To: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:30 PM
Subject: [CW] ARRL BOD Jan. 19-20, 2001


> Lovers of CW:
>
> Your attention is directed to this web page of the ARRL where the Board of
> Directors (BOD) directs the following actions:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0101/
>
> NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ARRL Board of Directors recognizes
> and accepts that suppression of the Morse code requirement in Article S25
is
> likely to occur at WRC 2003; and be it
> FURTHER RESOLVED, that deletion of the requirement from Article S25 should
> not automatically or immediately mean a similar removal of the Morse code
> from Part 97 of the FCC rules; and be it
> FURTHER RESOLVED, that each administration should determine if Morse code
is
> retained as a testing element; and be it
> FURTHER RESOLVED, it is the opinion of this Board at this time that Morse
> code should be retained as a testing element in the U.S.; and be it
> FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Morse code is deserving of continued support as
> an important operating mode including providing for the protection and
> maintenance of sufficient spectrum in band planning; and be it
> FURTHER RESOLVED, that staff develop a program designed to promote the use
> of Morse code; and be it
> FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution supersedes all previous statements
of
> policy related to suppression of the Morse code requirement in Article
S25.
>
> No subsequent action by the BOD or the Executive Committee of the ARRL has
> been made on this subject according to a complete reading and a manual
> search of the minutes of all later BOD and Executive meetings for the word
> "morse".
>
> 73
>
> David Ring, N1EA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>