[Elecraft] Popularizing CW

[Stephen W. Kercel]

Dan:

I agree that in all likelihood the FCC will drop the CW requirement for all 
classes, and Western Civilization will not collapse as a consequence. 
However, I think it is useful to file comments, in the unlikely case that 
the FCC just might listen.

Nevertheless, as several people including you have mentioned, the real 
issue for us CW jocks is peopling the bands and encouraging non-CW hams to 
take up the mode.

I see several specific steps that could help:

1) The idea that Wayne brought up half in jest, of having an award for lots 
of CW contacts might be useful. I wonder if maybe some respected 
institution like QCWA might sponsor such an activity. In fact, I may bounce 
it off some of my friends in QCWA.

2) KX-1 owners (I'm not one now, but expect to be soon) could show off 
(i.e., actually demonstrate) their rigs in club meeting programs, hamfest 
forums, field days, SETs and so on. Nothing is quite as impressive as 
showing people that you can do effective communications with a rig you can 
fit into a shirt pocket.

3) I think it would be especially useful to have KX-1 owners participate in 
organized emergency drills.  Here in Maine, emergency communications is 
extremely popular. It occurs to me that having several KX-1s in a drill is 
a dramatic demonstration of "here's how we do it when the repeater goes down."

4) I've been discussing with some colleagues of mine in the UNE Psych 
department a radical new strategy for teaching the code by harnessing the 
brain's natural synesthetic abilities. If I get the kinks worked out, I may 
try it on some of the local club members who have expressed an interest in 
learning the code. If I get it right, it will make learning the code far 
easier than conventional strategies.

73,
Steve
AA4AK

At 08:12 PM 9/2/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>Steve--
>
>I don't want to beat a dead horse, but even though I'm about as big a CW 
>man as you can get, I've yet to hear a unique and compelling reason to 
>keep the Morse Code requirement. Without those compelling reasons, filing 
>a comment with the FCC is really a waste of time. This is not an election, 
>and filing a comment is not like casting a ballot.
>
>The biggest waste of resources I've seen to date is the FISTS special 
>issue on the FCC's NPRM. They printed and mailed to every member the text 
>of the NPRM and urged FISTS members to file comments critical of this 
>move. I think the money would have been better spent sending out more K7QO 
>CDs and sponsoring CW classes and contests.
>
>CW is not going to go away should the rules be changed. There are plenty 
>of CW ops, like you and me who love the mode, and the many advantages will 
>keep pulling in new CW ops.
>
>Let's spend our time wisely. And in my humble opinion, the way to do that 
>is to talk up CW when we can, demonstrate it to people whenever and 
>wherever, and teach newcomers how much fun it can be. That will make much 
>more of an impact than filing a comment with the FCC.
>
>73, Dan KB6NU
>p.s. If you really want to file a comment with the FCC on this NPRM, might 
>I suggest that you file one noting that they decided against creating a 
>new entry-level class with some HF priviledges. I think this does more 
>harm to CW operation than dropping the code requirement. Too many 
>licensees get stuck in "Tech hell" where just about all they're prepared 
>to do is talk on a repeater. How boring and useless is that?
>