[Fwd: Re: [CW] Morse Requirement for HF vs. CW only subbands]

[Ken Brown]

  I had intended this reply to John to go to the CW reflector. I am 
resending it now. Feedback anyone?

Hi John,

Yes, I do intend to make that proposal to the ARRL. One thing about it 
that I haven't figured out is how to deal with the increased code speed 
test. If the license that has the 10 to 15 wpm test and gets the CW only 
subband priveleges (sp?) is the Extra Class, then what do we do about 
the present 5 wpm extras? Reducing their present priveleges probably 
would not fly. The ARRL seems particularly resistant to anything that 
would resemble the "incentive licensing" debacle of years past. Maybe 
just let the 5 wpm extras have it all to prevent that uproar. Adding yet 
another license class is also probably not an option, since one of the 
supposed great accomplishments of destructuring was simplification of 
the structure by reducing the number of license classes, even though it 
actually increased the number when you count the eternally renewable 
Novice and Advanced, and the two different kinds of technician.

Establishing CW only subbands is particularly important, to protect CW 
from code haters using the latest whiz bang audio card digital mode, and 
not even using a speaker or phones on their receiver. Their computer 
will not be annoyed by QRM from CW, and they probably won't even notice the 
greater number of retries. Yet CW operations would suffer.

I really do think that a morse test at a speed that is actually useable 
is needed. I think the 5 wpm test is one of the reasons people who don't 
know any better think that CW is painful.

Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to see more.

Ken N6KB