[CW] Our Position on Morse Requirement

[Rein A. Smit]

   Hi John,

   Thanks. I have no real idea about "echolink" either other than that it allows licensed
   amateurs to link via the internet ( TCP/IP ) to repeaters, nodes, etc and via these
   gateways to get into radio communication. I am not sure whether this is all FM,
   or also sideband / perhaps even caw?

   In fact it is a remote control for some radio somewhere as I understand it.
   
   It appears to be growing quite a bit and for many it is a way to do a little radio at least

   The reason I brought this up is that really those of us who can still participate
   in real radio as with a rx/tx and an antenna, should be thankful and be aware that this 
   is becoming for more and more radio amateurs  just a dream in particular the antenna
   part. It is in my opinion in the area of QR. that one could promote caw as often the only
   way to operate legally or illegally from apartments, housing developments and that
   by guiding people towards this mode, instead of forcing them, the final outcome might be
   a lot more positive and more people would use CW in the end.
   In my opinion it is the desire to master and to be able to USE cw that is a much more
   powerful drive, than a license requirement. I have always seen it that way during
   my 50 yrs plus of amateur radio. The administrations should make sure that those who are
   given the privilege to use a transmitter that they use it properly and respects others.
   Not for the sake of the licensing process.
   That, in my opinion should be the guiding force in licensing. It is up to the licensee
   what he or she should do FM, weak signal, moon bounce ATV, RT. etc. etc. as long as it happens
   without interfering in other services, it should be fine. All the training should be directed
   towards behaviour on the air in communicating and in the radiating part.
   Using a radio is different from driving a car or flying an aircraft where accidents often
   effect other peoples lives or health.

   Also overriding all this in practice, is free radio spectrum for caw. I believe that even good willing
   haters of cw can be made, supportive of set-a-side bands for cw. 
   
   73 Rein PA0ZN
      

John Rippey wrote:
> 
> Well, Ken:
> 
> It seems to me that you have received some good ideas on this reflector.
> (Be careful what you volunteer for!)
> 
> N2EY's listing of proposed CW-only subbands seem to me to be just about right.
> 
> As an aside, I hope realigning Novice/Tech/Plus/With Code Certificate as
> discussed by N2EY will not take as long as will any process regarding the
> CW subbands. The FCC has had a proposal of mine to accomplish realignment
> pending since April 2001, and one of the ARRL's since March of 2002!  I
> hope it will act on these petitions sooner rather than later, and not wait
> for a whole new round of ARRL policy deliberations which won't be completed
> until early 2004! If the FCC waits, we are looking at 2005 at the earliest
> for any action. Ugh.
> 
> Rein, as far as I'm concerned, you are making perfectly good sense and I,
> as well as others, I'm sure, welcome your comments on this reflector.
> However, I have no idea what "Echolink" is.
> 
> 73 to all,
> John, W3ULS
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw