Fw: [CW] W5YI groups suggestions on ham radio licensing

[Winston Rogers]

You may be right, Jim.  But, if you are, I believe we (CW ops) are going to
see our frequencies gradually vanish.  I look at 30 meters now as how things
could eventually be on other bands 20 years from now; all digital modes
pushed into a 50 kc band. I am not that ripe with answers, just suggestions.
I feel strongly, though, that CW needs some form of political lobby, and the
ARRL is not that lobby. I also suggest to you that CW ops are big spenders
than you think. I am not sure the venders believe that, though. Many, if not
most, of the CW contesters spend extremely large amounts of money on
equipment. No, I am not a contester.  But, contesting is a big part of the
hobby. I think there are more of us with more potential power than we think.
But, I could be wrong and I am open to suggestion.  For the record, I am an
ARRL member.  I just feel that in this area (an important one to me) they
fall short of representing my interest and that of other CW ops. Perhaps I
have said far too much for this forum. I started out saying that I had heard
it all twice. Now I have been heard twice.

Win W0LZ

----- Original Message -----
From: <N2EY@aol.com>
To: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] W5YI groups suggestions on ham radio licensing


> In a message dated 4/2/2004 8:31:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
w0lz@winlyn.us writes:
> >
> > If code operators separated
> > themselves from the ARRL and established their own lobby, everyone would
> > have to listen. Our form of government is one of capitalism. It listens
to
> > voting blocks and lobbyist.  Such an organization would gain the ear of
the
> > FCC, the vendors, and many others.
>
> They would only have to listen if our numbers were large enough. How many
hams would join such an organization? FISTS has something like 10,000
members worldwide.
>
> Suppose you get 5,000 members. Why should the vendors listen - how many
rigs and accessories will those 5,000 buy? How many dollars will they spend?
How would it compare to what the rest of hamdom spends?
>
> Consider this: One of the advantages of CW *to us* is that we can use low
power, simple equipment, etc., and still get out effectively. We can
homebrew, restore old gear, use stuff manufactured decades ago and still
hold our own on the air in the 21st century. Which means we're Yaecomwood's
worst marketing nightmare...
>
> > The ARRL is not going to change its position.  For every CW operator
that
> > leaves the league they anticipate five "Good Buddies " coming in. The
truth
> > is, the ARRL no longer represents the CW operator. Their agenda is no
> > secret.  It is growth, advertising and sales.
>
> What should it be - fewer members, fewer hams, and operating at a loss?
I'm not trying to be nasty, but a big part of the strength of any lobby
group is size and future trends.
>
> Their position is also the result of the votes cast by elected directors.
If a majority of the members accept the new policy, isn't the Board
fulfilling its mandate?
>
> > A CW "League" would be slow to startup and require strong leadership.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Ninety percent of the cost of membership would probably initially need
to go
> > for lobby and promotion.  I, for one, would support such an
> > organization, both financially and politically.
> >
> How much do you think it would take to start up and run such an
organization? What, exactly, would the policies be, and how would they
change trends than have been in place for many years now?
>
> How many members would it have in a few years?
>
> Most of all, how would such a group effectively lobby the FCC?
>
> --
>
> There is actually a historical precedent for all this.
>
> In the years following WW2, two rival lobbying groups sprang up in the
USA. (I can look up their names if anyone is interested). Total membership
in both groups was about 10% of US hams in those days. ARRL membership was
about 30-35% back then.
>
> One group said that 'phone and technical development (!) were being
neglected by hams and that there was too much emphasis on CW. This group
wanted more HF space for 'phone and tougher technical exams. Back in those
pre-WARCband/pre-15 meter days, the only HF phone available to US hams below
25 MHZ were small parts of 75 and 20 meters, and you needed a Class A
license, too. (160 was lost to LORAN for several years, and it took decades
to get it back without restrictions).
>
> The other group said that CW was under-emphasized.
>
> So in 1951, FCC revamped the old "ABC" license system, created some new
license classes, renamed others, etc. They effectively raised the bar for
full privileges by replacing the old Class A/Advanced with the new Extra.
But then in late 1952 they reversed themselves and gave all privileges to
Generals and above. Soon after, the 'phone bands were widened, 40 got a
'phone segment and 15 had a big 'phone segment when US hams got that band.
>
> The two groups vanished soon after the 1951 restructuring and were never
heard from again.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw