[CW] Re: WRC-03 - Morse code

Sat, 5 Jul 2003 15:04:06 -0400

As much as I hate to admit it, I think we have already lost the war.  Just
listen to the bands today.  Heck I say lets just go ahead and issue tickets
based on receipt of "X" number of Big Mac wrappers...that way we will not
only be dumb and happy, we will be FAT, DUMB and HAPPY.

I've maintained one theory all along,  "Those that can, will - those than
can't, won't and those that don't care, won't even try."

Just my 2cents.

Tony, W4FOA

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
                         -Frank Outlaw

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Alan W.
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 2:18 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [CW] Re: WRC-03 - Morse code

> The effect is actually the same: Morse code is no longer an
internationally
> required qualification for an amateur licence, though an administration
may
> still require it.
          <--- snip --->
> 25.6 Administrations shall verify the operational and technical
> qualifications .... Guidance for standards of competence may
> be found in the most recent version of Recommendation
> ITU-R M.1544.

> The reference to the Recommendation is a non-mandatory reference.

So, that's our warning call, folks!  In the (US) restructuring NPRM in 1998,
the FCC asked if a reduced CW requirement should be compensated with
increased technical skills on the exams.  The FCC's Report & Order of
December 1999  (formally publicized in 2000) they never addressed that
question -- even though many of the over-2000 commenters said, "Yes, they
should."

Everyone was so focussed on the CW debate --including perhaps the FCC
staff -- that they overlooked that detail.

Toward the end of the comment period, there were rumblings from influential
people in the ham radio community - notably W5YI - who declared a victory
over CW and were aiming at making the Technician Class a non-technical
(irony) "rules & regs& operating" exam, and hinted at a General Class less
technical than it is.  The basis of their argument was that hanms buy
commercial gear and no longer build or do their own repairs.  So, the
technical parts of the exam were no longer relevant.

Note that just before the restructuring the Advanced Class exam had the most
"technical" and math oriented questions -- more than the Extra did.  By
combining the two exams, yet not increasing the number of test questions on
the Extra, we ended up with a slight "dumbing down" of the Extra written
exam in 2000.

The 5 wpm requirement we have now was justified by FCC & others as being
"consistent" with our CEPT partners.  So, if much of Europe drops a CW
requirement, expect that "consistent" CEPT argument to arise again.

So, the next big debate is going to look like a code-no code debate.  And we
should start preparing ourselves to argue for retaining CW requirements for
whatever class license we can.  BUT - let's learn from our recent past.

The next line in the sand is only not going to be CW - it is going to be
TECHNICAL standards on the exams.  Let's get ready.

_______________________________________________
CW mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw