[CW] Our Position on Morse Requirement

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/27/03 6:36:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
ken.d.brown@verizon.net writes:


> 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.

The first thing is to understand who inside "the ARRL" needs to be addressed. 
The Directors make policy, not the HQ staff. The Vice Directors are involved 
as seconds-in-command to the Directors, and can vote if their respective 
Director is absent from a meeting. So it is to the Directors and Vice Directors, 
plus HQ, that any proposal should be addressed. They all have email, making it 
easy.

> 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.


Good idea. 

> 
> Our Position:
> 
> 1) We believe that a morse requirement for access to all of the HF and 
> MF amateur bands should be maintained.

Agreed. But the chances of that are pretty slim. 


> 
> 2) It appears that the lobby which wants to eliminate the morse 
> requirement for HF operating privileges is likely to be successful.

Yes, but I think it's more a matter of the FCC wanting out of code testing. 
FCC first proposed a no code VHF-UHF ham license in 1975! Since then, they've 
been whittling away at code testing one piece at a time. The anticodetest lobby 
is small and has only been around 7 or 8 years. Rooster taking creduit for 
the dawn, really.


> 
> 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.

Not really true, many are code-tested hams. Doesn't matter, really.

> 
> 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.

This has already started to happen. 3579 used to be a gathering place for 
"glowbug" CW operations. PSK-31 ops drove most of them away. There are continuing 
run-ins between CW and SSB ops on 160 DX freqs, and the foreign 'phones move 
lower and lower on 40. Etc.

I would add:

5) There are some who think that all subbands-by-mode should be abolished, 
allowing all modes everywhere on HF. This is already done in many other 
coutnries, and on 160. But it's NOT a good idea for the USA

6) The current entry-level licenses (Novice, Tech-with-code) allow too few HF 
privileges on too few bands. This is an artifact of years of patchup work on 
the licenses. A Novice or Tech Plus should have lots more HF access. The old 
Novice bands aren't enough anymore.

> 
> Therefore we propose:
> 
> 1) At least one amateur license class (probably Extra Class) maintains a 
> morse test element.

Not likely. If we want code testing, it should be for all HF/MF licenses.



> 
> 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.

Agreed, but the subband needs to be a lot more than the Extra subband. Take 
80 meters - why not 3500-3575 CW only? 

In a proposal, we have to allow negotiating room. If we propose 3500-3575 and 
get 3500-3550, that's not too bad. But if we ask for 3500-3525 and get 
3500-3510, we haven't accomplished much.


> 
> 3) The morse test should be performed at a speed at which morse is 
> actually useable, perhaps 10 wpm.

I would not say "usable" but rather "a true test of beginning Morse 
proficiency". However, I cannot see FCC ever going for faster code tests. 


> 
> 4) The morse test element should include both receiving and sending.


See 3). The sending test disappeared 20+ years ago, and I doubt FCC will 
allow it to come back under any circumstances. 

So here's what I'd propose:

1) Keep 5 wpm (we'll probably lose, but don't give it up easily)

2) CW-only subbands consisting of:

160: 1800-1850
80: 3500-3575
40: 7000-7060
30: 10100-10120
20: 14000-14075
17: 18068-18088
15: 21000-21075
12: 24890-24910
10: 28000-28100

3) Novice bands abolished. Novices and Techs get about one-half of the HF 
'phone spectrum allocated to Generals, and all of the CW/digital spectrum 
allocated to Generals. Modes allowed are same as those allocated to Generals.  

4)  Written exams are realigned and beefed up to reflect the above.

A lot of this is pure politics - we look dumb if we ask for something that 
has no chance at all. We also need to have some negotiable items. And by 
offering several modes and bands to the entry-level folks, we are being "progressive" 
(whatever the heck that means) we may gain some CW ops.

--

Consider today's newbie - gets a Tech and starts out on VHF/UHF. Using FM 
voice. Takes the code test to get on HF - but what does he/she encounter? 

80 meters is noisy during daylight, requires a big antenna, and often there 
is nobody in the Novice band. Not much DX.

40 meters can be OK during daylight but the Novice segment fills up with SWBC 
quickly, particularly in the East. This is being fixed but the newbies don;t 
want to wait till 2009.

15 meters is decent IF you're on the air when it's open. 

10 meters is OK but doesn't have a lot of slow CW. 

Both 15 and 10 can often be so changeable that a slow CW QSO has little 
chance. The 599 station who answers your CQ may be 229 by the time you exchange RST 
QTH and name at 5 wpm.  

73 de Jim, N2EY























--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---