[CW] Morse testing

[Ken Brown]

I sent this to a few specific people. Seems like it belongs on this list
too.

Paul, I like your suggestion that Morse proficiency remains a test
element for the Extra Class license, and access to some small CW band
segments. Unfortunately I don't think this idea stands a snowball's
chance in hell, nor does any other idea that includes bringing back
Morse testing. "Historical preservation" as a reason for any licensing
requirement will not carry any weight, and if it is proposed it will be
ridiculed. I agree that if there was only one Morse test, it should be
at a speed that is actually usable, and 5 WPM is not. I think the
reduction of the test requirement to 5 WPM was intentional and
calculated to make CW appear ineffective to those who have never seen
real CW operation.

I believe that there are two main motivations for the goofy looking guy
with the Harry Potter glasses and haircut, and his henchmen, to
eliminate Morse testing. These guys are lawyers, not radio engineers,
and you don't have to look very carefully to see the $ $ reflections in
the Harry Potter glasses.

The first reason is to protect the government from discrimination
lawsuits by "disabled" people who "can't" (yes we know it is really
"don't want to") learn the code. Remember that the added labor of
administering code tests has not been a burden on the FCC for some years
now, so they wouldn't care whether there were three levels of codes
tests or one, or what the speeds were.

The second reason is that the real agenda is to get Amateur Radio out of
the way for various pocket lining uses of our spectrum. By dumbing down
the tests and removing the code test, the overall expertise of licensees
is slowly but steadily being degraded. The training we all (those of us
who have come up through the licensing
structure, starting as Novices) got as Novices, using CW, cannot be
replaced. What we learned about efficiency of communications, getting
the essential information passed in the first one or two exchanges in a
QSO, using the bare minimum of characters, and using Q signals and
prosigns that are understood by everyone, regardless of native language,
just cannot be taught as effectively by any other means besides real
experience using CW. These lessons are carried over into our phone and
digital operations. People who have never been CW operators *may* learn
it, especially if they have used two way radio professionally in the
military or as policemen or firemen. However it is just not as likely
that hams without CW operating experience will ever be as good at
passing essential traffic efficiently. It is not so much CW OPERATION
that sets us apart from CBers, it is CW EXPERIENCE. As the overall
quality of operators in the Amateur Radio Service degrades to the point
where we look more and more just like CBers, the justification for our
spectrum allocations degrades.

I think the ARRL has had some very tough decisions to make, and while I
can't say that I agree with them 100%, I think they have carefully
chosen their battles. I have heard the word "Lukewarm" used to describe
the ARRL's attitude towards Morse lately. I think this is because they
know it was a losing battle. Better to put their efforts in directions
where they will have some chance of success. Their emergency
communicator course series directly targets the void left by lack of CW
experience. Their spectrum protection efforts and BPL defense have been
very well done, in my opinion. The efforts to expose school children to
radio technology are also very beneficial.

More people in the USA, and probably in the world now, get what little
"news" they get from electronic media than from print. The people who
own electronic media outlets have a direct interest in radio spectrum
allocations. I don't think it has ever been an accident that when
amateur radio is portrayed in the popular media, it is either confused
with CB (how many times have we seen the words "CB Ham Operator" used
together in news coverage) or shown as antiquated. For the ARRL to
continue to put strong support into CW would be used by the people who
want our spectrum to make us look outdated.

If we want to preserve CW operation, and indeed Amateur Radio, our
efforts are better spent in helping people who are interested in CW, and
those who may become interested, than by trying to change the course
that the FCC is on. They have an agenda, and will not be swayed by our
input.

See you on CW,

73 ES ALOHA DE N6KB