[CW] (Fwd) An open letter to CW opreators

[Mike Brown]

<Snip)


> Note: The following letter was posted on several, shall we
say, NON-cw
> oriented reflectors. Instead of fighting among ourselves, we
might want
> to address this.
>
>
> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
>
> IMO, if (should I say when?) the FCC drops the CW exam
requirement, fewer
>
> people will even bother with CW. With the requirement to learn
it, some
> ops
> (even @ 5 wpm) can be expected to explore the mode and develop
an
> interest.
> Without the requirement to learn code, those newcomers will be
fewer and
> further between.

Sad to say, but how many 5 wpm extras do we have now
that have never made an "on the air" cw contact? I know
in our local club, that number is large. A pity, because as a
novice in '79, I had a blast, even with slow code. And it
was always easy to get an answer to your "cq" back then.
I think the first big mistake was giving the 5 wpm group
voice privledges on 10m. But, that's water under the bridge.

The bottom line is money and selling radios. The No-Code
"rush" is pretty much over. I'm a VE and instructor, and yes,
we still get a few, but nothing like when the "no-code" first
became available. So now, I'm sure the sales of 2m/440
rigs isn't what it was back then, so now, let's give easy
access to the hf bands with a "no-code" hf license. Geez,
this couldn't have come at a worse time, with the sunspot
cycle on a decline. It will be a royal mess. Of course, cw
ops shouldn't feel the pinch unless the FCC realigns the
band plans.

Maybe a positive thing will come of this after all. Maybe
some of the phone ops will get sick of all the qrm, etc,
and become cw ops again. Crazier things have happened.

73 - Mike K9MI

>
> If the FCC doesn't decide get rid of subbands altogether, the
existing
> reserves for cw/digital at least need to be substantially
reduced, due to
>
> the dearth of activity. The present situation, especially on
80m, is bad
> PR
> for CW; it makes the mode look lacking. Non-CW hams tune
through all
> those
> vacant frequencies and decide "CW is dead - nobody works it
any more. The
> CW
> bands are empty. Why bother to learn to comprehend Morse
code?" With all
> the
> QRM, turf wars and childish behaviour in the overly-congested
phone bands
>
> while 50% of the ham band lies practically idle, many phone
ops are
> understandably becoming downright resentful of CW. If the
"narrowband"
> subbands on 80 and 40 were reduced to a maximum of 50 or 75
kHz, the
> remaining cw activity would become concentrated into less
space, and
> working
> CW would be more like it was 20 years ago. Often, with my RX
in the 300
> Hz
> selectivity position, I find it easy to tune right past and
miss a lone
> cw
> station isolated in all the vacant kHz per tuning knob
rotation.
> Reduction
> of the "CW bands" may very well be a key to whether or not CW
survives as
> a
> mainstream mode.
>
> Of course the CW bands do come alive during contests, but
where do all
> those
> CW ops go when the contest is over? Contests add up to only a
few days
> out
> of 365 days per year. Can we justify keeping nearly 50% of
some of the
> most
> heavily occupied HF bands underutilised just for the
convenience of
> contesters a few days a year? After all, many CW ops do not
even operate
> contests.
>
> As far as the "phone" bands go, belive it or not, there are a
few users
> of
> those frequencies who do more than just buy an imported SSB
squawk box
> with
> mic, and get on the air to talk about the weather and their
latest
> ailments,
> and cuss out anyone whe dares come within 5 kHz of "their"
privately-
> owned
> frequency. Actually there is a big controversy going on right
now with a
> rulemaking petition pertaining to bandwidth. It seems that one
group on
> 20m
> has declared war on a small minority of SSB operators who have
dared to
> experiment with the mode, and (horrors!) actually take the lid
off their
> box
> and probe around inside, and (double horrors!!) warm up a
soldering iron
> and
> make MODIFICATIONS to their latest technical marvel. Now a
couple of high
>
> power DX'ers have decided to play hardball by submitting a
petition to
> get
> the FCC involved in their turf war.
> Also, we mustn't forget that there are a few AM and SSTV
operators using
> the
> "phone" segments, and these hams ponder the vacant CW
frequencies while
> they
> ward off the SSB idiots (a small but vocal minority of
SSB'ers).
>
> Unless there is an IMMEDIATE upsurge in CW activity to fill
the CW
> subbands
> 24/7 (I'm talking in terms days or weeks, not months or
years), the
> present
> subband situation will become increasingly disasterous to the
best
> interests
> of both CW and non-CW operators.
>
> Don K4KYV
>
> ------- End of forwarded message -------
> --
> John L. Sielke W2AGN
> http://www.w2agn.net
>
> "Anybody who is spoken about at all is sure to be spoken
against by
> somebody; and any action, however innocent in itself, is
liable, and not
> at all unlikely, to be blamed by somebody. If you limit your
actions in
> life to things that no one can possibly find fault with, you
will not do
> much."
>                        -Dr Charles L. Dodgson (aka "Lewis
Carroll")
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 7/8/2003