[CW] Our Position on Morse Requirement

[Darryl J. Kelly]

My suggestion is to keep it simple. Drop code test for general license, ask
(and hope to get) a standard 65 khz CW subband on the main HF bands (that's
what is mostly used anyway now), and maintain current code test for extra
only. 65-100+? khz for digital, expand 80 meters SSB subband downward. They
aren't going to increase the code speed for testing, especially in view of
eliminating code testing altogether. I could live with this longterm.
Darryl, KK5IB
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Brown" <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>
To: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 5:33 PM
Subject: [CW] Our Position on Morse Requirement


> Hi all,
>
> If you have been reading the messages on the reflector for the past week
> you have seen some from me regarding my intention to write a proposal to
> the ARRL, which I hope they will take into serious consideration when
> making their formal stance with the FCC in this matter. I am not
> experienced in this type of thing and do not know exactly how to go
> about it. One thing that I do know is that the better consensus and more
> support we can muster amongst ourselves (meaning CW enthusiasts) the
> better chance we will have of preserving at least part of the HF bands
> for CW operation. So what follows are some of my ideas about what we
> ought to propose to the ARRL. I want your comments, so that we can
> refine it to a point where most of us can agree on it and it is still
> worthwhile.
>
> Our Position:
>
> 1) We believe that a morse requirement for access to all of the HF and
> MF amateur bands should be maintained.
>
> 2) It appears that the lobby which wants to eliminate the morse
> requirement for HF operating privileges is likely to be successful.
>
> 3) Those who are pushing for HF privileges, without having to put in the
> effort to pass a morse test, will get both digital and phone privileges.
>
> 4) The present HF allocations group CW together will all other digital
> modes. Since the computer dependent digital modes do not even require
> listening in order to operate, it is highly likely that CW operations
> would be severely damaged by large numbers of operators, who are
> ignorant of CW, having access to the entire HF spectrum.
>
> Therefore we propose:
>
> 1) At least one amateur license class (probably Extra Class) maintains a
> morse test element.
>
> 2) Every HF and MF amateur band shall have a CW ONLY sub band, at least
> as large as the present Extra Class digital subbands and preferably
> larger. The bands which do not presently have an Extra Class digital sub
> band shall have CW only subbands also. CW will continue to be allowed
> anywhere in the amateur bands, not including the 60 meter channels.
>
> 3) The morse test should be performed at a speed at which morse is
> actually useable, perhaps 10 wpm.
>
> 4) The morse test element should include both receiving and sending.
>
> What do you all think of the above?
>
> Ken N6KB
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>
>