[CW] Re: ARRL Proposal -- no credibility all around

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/20/2004 6:28:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, cprstn54@att.net writes:

> 
> 
> ARRL: How can it be reconciled that the new novice class will be limited 
> to 100 watts because of lack of RFI proficiency, but that existing tech 
> and novice classes will get a free pass to legal power? 

Existing Novices will *not* get a free upgrade - unless I missed something.

Current Techs all have full legal power above 50 MHz, including "meat cooking
frequencies". 

> Such a major 
> inconsistency undermines the credibility of the rest.

If a Tech is qualified to run 1500 W out on 6 meters, 2 meters, etc., why not on HF?
> 
> CW snobs:  What difference does it make how fast a CW operator 
> transmits? 

It's only receiving that is tested.

> We don't revoke the privilege to speak in public because 
> someone speaks too slowly.  No one forces you to communicate with a 5 
> wpm operator. The low-end of the bands should be big enough and 
> reserved for CW, regardless of speed.  

I agree - CW-only! There are *no* CW-only subbands on amateur HF. 

> I see no valid reason for having 
> fast lanes and slow lanes for CW.  You want a 20 wpm net?  You can have 
> one without excluding CW operators from the whole sub band..  This is 
> pure snobbery and the proponents of reinstating speed testing lack 
> credibility.

Not at all. 5 wpm is basic skill. 20 wpm is a bit more than basic skill.
> 
> IMHO, the purpose of preserving CW is that it is the communication mode 
> of last resort in major [biblical type] disasters:  Simple equipment, 
> low power, narrow bandwidth. 

That's one reason, but not the only reason, to preserve the mode.

> This purpose is furthered by establishing 
> CW-only sub bands open to everyone, regardless of class. The only 
> parameter I would tie to level of expertise is power.  

FCC has thought for decades that a Tech test is plenty expertise for
full legal power at meat cooking frequencies.

> The fact that 
> commercial CW operators of yesteryear were expected to operate at 20-30 
> wpm is utterly immaterial today.

Hams *today* operate at those speeds, and much faster. Shouldn't the tests
for a license to operate in the amateur bands reflect what hams do?
> 
> With nothing but incredible petitions submitted, the FCC 
> will do what is 
> politically expedient, which will be the worst option.

We'll see...

73 de Jim, N2EY