[Fists] Code requirement

[Dennis Ponsness]

I for one am pleased to see that FISTS will become involved in this issue!  
Nancy is 100% correct in stating that this is NOT a "political" issue but an 
issue that directly impacts on our mode of operation!  If I may, I would 
like to make a few suggestions and/or comments.....

Firstly, the change in the ITU "standards" DID leave it up to the individual 
authorities to decide if they were going to retain Morse testing.  This is 
MUCH better than what the "No Code" proponents wanted, which was the total 
deletion of any statement concerning the requirement for Morse testing.  Now 
the onus is on them to persuade the FCC to eliminate Element 1 and to 
justify that in some way other than stating "It is no longer a requirement". 
  The "No Code" camp will have to justify why Element 1 should no longer be 
required - and we will have to justify why it should be retained.

Second, when the inevitable NPRM is issued, the FCC (I hope) will base their 
decision on the merits.  A lot will depend on the ARRL's position in the 
matter as will the number and type of comments from "interested parties".  
We, as "interested parties", will need to make sure that we DO file a 
comment and that it is "well thought out".  Comments like "I had to learn 
it...." or the like will not be very helpful and may be counter productive.  
  I also would like to see a very detailed comment filed on behalf of FISTS 
as an organization.  I would think the LACK of an "official comment" from 
FISTS would send the signal that we either were in favor of eliminating 
Element 1 or that we just don't care.

Third, we need to seriously think about the "worst case scenario" and what 
we can do to mitigate it.  Perhaps some thought needs to be given to 
petitioning the FCC to set aside some specific portions of the existing 
"Narrow Bandwith Sub-band" to EXCLUSIVE CW operating - no PSK, RTTY, etc 
allowed.  This is not "defeatist thinking" but "contingency planning".  If 
the FCC decides to eliminate Element 1, you can be assured that there will 
be a LOT of new operators running not only SSB but the varioius digi-modes 
as well.  I can easily see a follow on petition to eliminate or reduce the 
existing sub-bands to prevent "overcrowding".  I would expect the phone 
portion of the bands to be expanded, thus forcing the digi-modes down 
farther.  With additional digi-mode users (as you KNOW there will be), we CW 
ops will get squeezed big time.  Also, no matter WHERE the new CW only area 
would be it must be made available to General and Advanced ops as well (even 
if it extends into the "traditional" Extra portion of the band).  We would 
be fighting for our survival here and we should set aside any petty "turf 
battles" over exclusivity to a specific part of a band.  Look at it this 
way, who would you rather work, a General Class op on 14.015 on CW or 
listening to a PSK station there?  We may be Generals, Advanced, Extra 
(Heavies), or Extra (Lites) - but the fact remains that we all ALL hams with 
a love of CW.  That fact should override any other feeling or opinions.


73
Dennis - WB0WAO

EN84ij Iosco County, Michigan
MultiPig+ #3 - K2 #3555
DSW-II-20 - SW-40+ - SW-30+
RM-20 - RM-40

NJQRP #329 - FPQRP #-347 - SOC #499
GACW #622 - ARS #1363 - QRP Canada #248
FISTS # 9299
Charter Member - Michigan DX Association
www.qsl.net/wb0wao
:=)





>From: "Nancy WZ8C" <nancy@tir.com>
>To: <fists@mailman.qth.net>
>Subject: [Fists] Code requirement
>Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 16:27:46 -0400
>
>I wrote the ARRL and asked what the ARRL position on the CW requirement is
>going be -- they have stated before that they will support a code test, but
>I think most of us know that doesn't mean much.
>
>Looks like they are going to do another survey -- maybe they didn't like 
>the
>results of the last one they did - or maybe they didn't believe it?
>
>Unlike the "dumbing down" , this isn't political - now it's fighting for 
>the
>survival of CW on the ham bands. If we lose the test requirement, we will
>lose CW-only frequencies. I'm sure the FCC will be inundated with no-code
>petitions on Monday morning, so get ready to be heard. We are going to need
>everyone to rally and write.
>
>Here is the letter I got back from the Great Lakes Division Director.
>
>73
>Nancy WZ8C
>
>Hi, Nancy,
>
>Thanks for your question.  It is quite pertinent, obviously.
>
>At this moment, the Board is debating how to proceed.  I won't comment
>on the discussions beyond saying there is considerable debate over what
>we should do and how we should determine what we should do.  My
>tentative thought for determining what the position should be is to poll
>the membership, so keep your eyes open for bulletins from HQ or for a
>poll directly from me to the Division.
>
>Tnx, 73,
>
>Jim
>
>Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division
>k8je@arrl.org  -  Tel. 513-459-0142
>
>ARRL -- The reason Amateur Radio is!
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Fists mailing list
>Fists@mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail