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

[Will]

Two quick, I would suspect nearly self-evident comments I have to offer here:

First, at this late date in the history of amateur radio, I don't think testing requirements have had much of anything to do with actual CW operating activity. The mode has it attractions, and its practitioners. Those who work CW do so because they like the mode, and in some instances, like moonbounce, because it is the most practical, even the *only* reliable mode. Passing a test has little to do with long term operating practices. Just as the argument is made by those who have advocated the elimination of the CW test requirement that forcing low-level competence won't/doesn't convert the unwilling and uninterested into devoted, or even occasional CW ops, by the same token when the test is gone there will still be a steady supply of *new* CW ops, as more and more people are interested in cultivating the simple, the historical, the "antique and classic," in so many areas, not just radio. 

Second, as for the reduction of CW/data-only subbands, I would urge a second look and listen! With the possible exception of 80M, which I admit seems very little used many nights, I hear almost wall-to-wall CW signals up to 7080 from the bottom of that band. Similarly 20 meters. I suspect one's take on this has a lot to do with operating habits (e.g. time of day) and QTH than anything else. The HF bands are hopping with both CW and to a lesserextent PSK31/RTTY sigs most anytime I listen from here in the Pacific Northwest. In fact, manytimes I tune across a band, any HF band, and I hear absolutely no SSB activity, not one signal, but I almost always hear two or three, at a minimum CW sigs. On the other hand, it is a rare experience for me to poll around a band and hear voice signals and no CW.

Just my experience, FWIW. Right now I would be, and am, a lot more concerned with the potential effects of BPL (broadband HF over powerlines) on the very viability of HF ham radio. Whatever your operating habits/modes, if BPL goes through, HF is royally screwed, and very seriously it may be time to sell the rig(s) and get a new hobby. If you don't know about this problem, check out QRZ or ARRL sites. It's the worst thing to threaten ham radio ever. Sounds like a bit of hyperbole, but read on, I ain't exxagerating.

Will KD7BFX

From: W2AGN <w2agn@w2agn.net>
Sent: 07/11/03 05:30 AM
To: cw@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [CW] (Fwd) An open letter to CW opreators

> 
> 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.

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
>