[CW] W5YI groups suggestions on ham radio licensing

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

Win,

I don't understand what you mean when you say:  "I look at 30 meters now as
how things could be eventualy be on other bands 20 years from now."

Do you mean it is not used?  Too crowded?  I find that 30 meters is fairly
active and a good hangout for the CW operator because it is not used for
contests.

Unfortunately, I tend to forget it exists!  I QSY'd tonight from 20 to 40
without even a thought of passing through 30 meters.

Shame on me!

I find that CW activity is lower than it was 5 years ago - and tending to be
at a much slower speed.

73

DR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Winston Rogers" <w0lz@winlyn.us>
To: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 4:49 PM
Subject: Fw: [CW] W5YI groups suggestions on ham radio licensing


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>