[Fists] Re: Fists digest, Vol 4 #77 - 1 msg

Tue, 5 Aug 2003 22:30:46 EDT

In a message dated 08/05/2003 4:02:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

<< Message: 1
 From: "Casey" <[email protected]>
 To: "Fists" <[email protected]>
 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:59:18 -0700
 Subject: [Fists] Response to FISTS postcard request

 Hi All FISTS'rs,

 Being in the fine tradition of the cheapskate ham I thought I'd say 23 cents
 and post my response here to the recent request from Nancy. Pretty sure
 she'll see it! :) Also, I can ramble on quite a bit more without having to
 write so small it would take a microscope. :) :)

 First off, I'm a bit puzzled by the reasoning stated in the explanation on
 the flyer about FISTS not taking a public stand when we were last faced with
 restructuring and the CW requirement was being undermined. Here it states
 that FISTS stayed out of the fight "... because that was a political matter
 and it was impossible to reach a consensus among our diverse membership."<<

Casey:

I never bought that particular cop-out.  First of all, I was present at the 
'97
Dayton Hamvention when Nancy Kott, WZ8C, literally demolished Fred
Maia in the debate on code testing during the ARRL Forum "Town Meeting."
>From that very moment, she started the ball rolling on what could have been
a VERY effective "political" movement within FISTS.  I strongly believe 
that reaching a consensus among the membership at that time would have
been possible if only Nancy had been more willing to capitalize on the
fact that she had just broken the inertia of the "pro-code testing" movement,
and got it rolling.  Instead, she somewhat inexplicably stepped back, and
allowed Fred Maia and the No-Code International (NCI) faction to snatch
victory out of the jaws of defeat.

<< The word politics here is pretty broadly used, since no official election 
is
 or was at hand. I fail to see how the current situation is any less
 "political". Nor do I understand why consensus needs to be achieved. >>

Good point.  All we need to do is present the FISTS membership with the
facts:  We either coordinate our efforts to convince the FCC to retain 
whatever
is left of code testing, or we continue to sit on our thumbs and collect CC,
Diamond, Silver, Platinum, Zirconium, and whatever other "elemental" 
award we're working on at the moment while the Morse code testing 
requirements vanish, and SSB frequency allocations are increased to 
accommodate the new batch of non-code tested, HF-privileged hams. 
Unfortunately, the ball is already rolling, and the U.K. was one of the
first countries to totally eliminate  Morse code testing from their amateur
radio licensing requirements.  How the expect to gain new CW operators
in the future, I simply haven't a clue.  More on that, later. >>

<<It's
 unlikely, IMHO, that consensus is any less "impossible" now than then. So,
 frankly, these seem like after-the-fact excuses for not taking up the CW
 cause more fervently then. Furthermore, I think the barn door has been open
 for quite some time now and the horse has fled, perhaps never to be seen
 again. Too little, too late.>>

Precisely.  All we need to know now is -- why did we let our golden
opportunity slip through our fingers, and are we going to hold anyone
accountable for this? 

<< We didn't require a unified stand then and we don't now. What we needed was
 an urgent, persistent charge from the top of FISTS on down to get people
 involved in the issue and taking action.>>

Right.  I believe we must also ask, why didn't we get it?

<< Any actions should have been
 publicezed in order to encourage more action, even if it was just getting as
 many FISTS members as possible to write their *personal* (vs. consensus)
 opinion down and spread to any relevant local, state, or federal person or
 agency or publication. Instead, we just took our beating with barely a
 whimper. The no-code "opposition" was better organized, probably better
 funded, and did their job well. Perhaps the end result would have been the
 same had we organized better, but we would have gone down fighting.>>

You said it!  Frankly, I have to admit, that I give more than grudging 
respect to Fred Maia, Carl Stevenson,  Bill Sohl, and the rest of the 
so-called
NCI "Directors" for quitely literally beating the pants off of FISTS in this
regard.  However, in fairness to the FISTS membership, I will have to 
state that a significant contributing factor in our "defeat" was a disastrous
lack of leadership.

<< That's all "water over the bridge" however, and I'm not sure that 5 WPM is
 much more of a barrier than no-code at this point. >>

I agree that 5 WPM is not a significant barrier to an HF-privilege license,
but it would still serve as a useful introduction to Morse code as a useful
communications skill for radio amateurs.  However, unless this requirement
remains in place in the U.S. amateur radio licensing structure, carrying the
whole of HF CW/voice/data privileges with it as an incentive, all but an
insignificant few newcomers to amateur radio will ever be bothered to 
give it a try.  

<<The CW bands to this ear
 seem less used each passing year. Digital modes are all the rage, and
 unhappily and reluctantly I am having to admit that we CW'rs are looking a
 bit scaly and fossilized.>>

A large part of the reason for this is that we seem to have accepted the 
notion that Morse/CW is somehow an "obsolete" mode of communication,
when nothing could be further from the truth.  It is a simple fact that 
Morse/CW *does* get through "when all else fails," but only those of
us who know the code and have gained on-the-air operating experience
with the CW mode know this to be true.  I am a great aficionado of the
digital modes, and have been using PSK-31 extensively since it was
introduced to radio amateurs.  However, for all the claims of it's bullet-
proof reliability under poor band conditions, there have been many
times when the only part of a particular PSK-31 transmission I've been
able to copy is the CW ID at the end!  

<< We may even retain CW sub-bands, >>

I wouldn't count on that, OM!  If , or should I say, when the FCC eliminates
the Element 1 5 WPM code test, there will be a lot of "instant upgrades"
among present Technician licensees.  This will cause an immediate spike
of activity on the present HF phone allocations, and the demand to expand
these allocations will not be far behind.  I think we can count on losing 
virtually all but the bottom 25 kHz of each HF band as CW/Data 
exclusive allocations.  Moreover, I'd look for those with this agenda to 
include the phone band expansion along with their petitions to the FCC for
action on the WRC 2003 elimination of code testing -- just to save themselves
and the FCC time and future effort.  

<<but the
 handwriting is on the wall, folks. FISTS recognizes it, but ARRL just wants
 to sell more ad copy, and thus are promoting the quick "fix", which will
 ultimately lead to the HF bands becoming the new CB craze. How many CB radio
 shops do you see around anymore?>>

One thing the FCC has historically stated during the years of debate over
code testing is that there appears to be no consensus among radio amateurs
to retain a code testing requirement.  I believe that a fairly unified, if not
universal, stand among FISTS members, coordinated at the top and resulting
in the FCC's receipt of literally thousands of replies to any future NPRM on
the WRC-03 action, could convince them (the FCC) to leave things as they
are, indefinitely.  I believe that the best way to do this would be to attempt
to convince them that licensing requirements in the ARS are already 
reduced to a level of virtual insignificance from a standpoint of personal
effort in test preparation, that a basic familiarization with the Morse code
would lead to the continuation of this useful communications skill in the
future, and retaining the status quo would be the most cost-effective use
of the FCC's administrative resources.  

I am not presently a paid-up member of FISTS.  I have withheld my 
financial support for the last few years due to what I believe is the FISTS'
failure to live up to their organizational identity as "The International
Morse Preservation Society."  I don't believe that we're going to "preserve"
the Morse code by swapping numbers over-the-air, writing lame poems
about the "music" of CW for inclusion in the newsletter, or otherwise 
preaching to our own choir.  If I were a teenager, and read an issue of
the Keynote, I'd not be at all convinced that CW users were anything 
other than a bunch of old fogeys playing around with their quaint, old-
fashioned beeping machines for nostalgia's sake, and little else.  If we
really do want CW to continue to exist in whatever future the ARS may
have, we must act NOW to keep the marginal code testing requirements
that remain.  It may be "too little, too late," but if we don't bother to try,
then we have no one to blame but ourselves for the outcome.

As for myself, If I see some positive feedback from this posting, and
some encouraging support for a last-ditch effort to keep the present
5 WPM code test, I will renew my membership and do my part.  How
about it, FISTS?

73 de Larry, K3LT
FISTS #2008, CC #0703 (For what it's worth!)