[Fists] Re: end of CW

Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:15:30 -0500

   Al, and Jim -- DITTO.
   Members, it undoubtably won't change the Board's decision, BUT will you
be able to look at yourself in the mirror if you don't at least send a
message or a radiogram to your Director??
   Like a few others, I have been in this battle since the packet era when
we had no Internet to debate on, or at least I didn't.
   Really, why do so many of you belong to FISTS? Certificates, it seems.
Those mean activity, which is good. But it does not impress the ARRL
   Mike is right. Al is right. Jim is right. Exercise your power, what
little of it is left. Do it now. Or get just what you deserve.
   73,
   Fred Adsit, NY2V - #1293
   ex-W2ZOJ '48
   W2ZOJ - ZUT ARC - #7900

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Fists] Re: end of CW

Mike....This just goes to show that the ARRL, a publishing company that
dabbles in ham radio now and then, does NOT respond to the wishes of it's
members. I see nowhere in this blurb that a majority, or anything like it,
is in favor of the proposal. This smells about the same as the move they
were making a few years ago, when it "leaked" out that they were formulating
a proposal behind closed doors, to lower the CW testing speed to 5 WPM. They
would now have you believe that they are all pro-code and all that, but
those of us who were actively involved in fighting the decision knew better.

Unfortunately, the results will be the same as before. Most operators will
sit on their hands and then bewail the loss of privileges AFTER they are
gone. It's been proven right here on this reflector...73...Al/W8FAX/2192
           Extra....Heavy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Reid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Fists] Re: end of CW

Hi guys,

I have just sent the following to Jim Maxwell,  the Pacific's Director on
the ARRL board.  I hope you also will express your opinion,  one way or the
other on this issue.  I feel it would be a mistake to allocate additional
SSB spectrum space at the expense of digital/CW spectrum.  And this is
particularly true in light of the less than majority response the ARRL
committee received about the issue in it's earlier survey.  See the
following for more detail, at least as I view it.  Some of my thoughts have
been expressed by others,  and I thank them for their contribution to my
thinking:

"To Jim Maxwell,  ARRL Pacific Division Director

Jim,

I strongly oppose the following implied report to the ARRL BOD as given to
the ARRL membership in the e-mail of 21 Dec. '01:

The ARRL Novice Survey committee WILL recommend to the board of directors
(at their January 2002 meeting) to petition the FCC to reduce 125 kHz of
CW/digital subbands and convert them to telephony use.

I do not believe this is the "will" of a majority of the ARRL nembership;
it certainly was not the will of those who responded to the committee
survey, as follows:

1. "On 80 meters, nearly 40% of those responding opted for a  plan that
would extend the US phone allocation to 3700 kHz,...."

Nearly 40% is NOT a majority of those responding,  of whom, Nearly 61% of
those responding were Extra class licensees."

Of course,  it does serve the  interests of the 75 meter phone mainland
crowd of Extra license holders.

2.  "On 40 meters, nearly half of the respondents picked the plan to extend
the primary US phone allocation to 7125 kHz...."

"Nearly half..."  is NOT a majority!

3.  "On 15 meters, nearly half of those responding wanted the US phone
allocation extended to 21175 kHz...."

again,  nearly half is NOT a majority!

What,  in fact,  was voted by even less than the majority of those
responding, of whom 61% were obviously Extra Class SSB operators, was to
enlarge "their" SSB bands at the expense of CW band portions.

4. In a Dave Sumner editorial, he  promoted the digital hi-tech modes to
radio amateurs. The number of hams who use sound  card digital modes
increases every day. Amateur radio needs to allow for this expansion and
encourage technically savvy computer enthusiasts (i.e., young people) to
join our ranks. Reallocating CW/digital subbands to phone will only hinder
such progress,  not promote and encourage it.

5. Amateur radio needs to remain a hi-tech service. We must justify ur
existence to public officials and bureaucrats who favor selling off/
reallocating our spectrum for the "greater good."  Essentially all of Riley
Hollingsworth's enforcement actions involve SSB operations on either 75 or
20 meter SSB,  and the FM mode repeater service on 2M.  Problems are not
happening among digital and CW operations in our HF bands!

6. Don't let the League misappropriate its limited resources when it should
continue concentration on things like CC & Rs which prohibit our HF antennas
and the Spectrum Protection bill.

Please do not vote to expand phone subbands "to the detriment" of hi tech
CW/digital operation. Please do not vote for the expansion of phone
allocations even if you think others will vote that way. You are my
representative with the League. Vote for the hi-tech future and for long
term good of the amateur radio service.

Mahalo and 73,  Jim Reid  KH7M
On the Garden Island of Kauai"