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

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/26/03 3:41:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
ken.d.brown@verizon.net writes:


> 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. 

In the end, I think trying for a higher code test speed is just not going to 
fly. 

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.


True, but the deadend classes are slowly disappearing. The number of Novices 
is down to ~33,000, Tech Pluses down to ~67,000, and Advanceds to ~88,000. 
Even if nothing else changes, the last Tech Plus will disappear in 6 years and 
8-1/2 months because Tech Pluses are being renewed as Techs.

> 
> 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.

This is where we need to focus our efforts. I don't think the threat is as 
much from digital ops, though, as it is from those who want to eliminate all 
subbands-by-mode and even subbands-by-license-class. IOW, just allow anything 
from bandedge to bandedge. Much of the rest of the world does just that - but 
they don't have nearly so many hams as the USA.


> 
> 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.

Koch showed in 1936 that the way to teach people code was NOT to start slow 
and speed up. Do we talk vvvveeeeeerrrrrrrryyyyyy 
ssssslllllllooooooowwwwwlllllllllyyyyyy to babies? Of course not!


73 de Jim, N@EY


--- 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  ---