[CW] Don't Emulate King Canute

[Pedro J. Santa]

We should all thank John for his "free" advice.  He's been really generous
in sharing that "wisdom" , and more so considering it was free of charge.
However,  those concerned with these issues shouldn't be lured by this type
of arguments.  Even though the colleague is right when he suggests we
endeavor to preserve CW sub-bands, I still view that as a fallback position
which shouldn't seduce us to abandon the efforts to preserve the existing
testing requirements.  I recognize the difficulties ahead, but there's no
worse fight than one that's not battled.

73 Pedro KP3X


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Rippey" <w3uls@3n.net>
To: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:59 PM
Subject: [CW] Don't Emulate King Canute


> King Canute was an ancient Danish king who made himself famous for
ordering
> the incoming tide to retreat. It didn't.
>
> Face it, elimination of the CW test requirement is a done deal. It doesn't
> matter what position ARRL's Board of Directors takes or when it acts. The
> FCC listens closely to the VECs: you can check out the late 2000 FCC
Report
> and Order to see how much the agency relies on the volunteer examiners'
> views. Folks, it's not W5YI, its an organization, as Rein has pointed out.
> Not only that, it is the group that has to administer the tests. So when
it
> speaks, FCC will listen.
>
> The VECs asked for three things. One, eliminate Morse code testing; two,
> meld Technician and Novice privileges on HF; and three, expedite
> consideration by the FCC. You wanna bet they'll get it? No amount of
> complaining from members of this reflector will change the outcome, I
> guarantee you.
>
> So FCC will soon announce a rulemaking proceeding to consider the VECs'
> petition. This announcement will do two things: (1) accelerate the whole
> process for eliminating code testing and (2) provide the ARRL and other
> interested parties 30 days to file its comments. I was fearful we would
> have to wait until 2005 for all this to be worked out, but the VECs have
> jump-started the process. I for one am grateful. I would rather see a
quick
> and humane death for code testing rather than having it strung out over
> many months.
>
> What can we do about this? Nothing.
>
> However, the 30-day comment period will give people like Ken Brown the
> opportunity to file a comment asking for a set-aside for CW subbands.
> Raising this issue will be entirely appropriate in the context of the
FCC's
> consideration of the VECs' petition.
>
> So my advice, which is free: this group should concentrate on lobbying for
> CW subbands on HF and not waste any ammo to make a fuss about the demise
of
> code testing. That particular game is over.
>
> 73,
> John, W3ULS
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw