[Fists] RE: FISTS vs the ARRL

[w0oow]

I don't think that topic/subject is accurate.  FISTS vs the ARRL????  I
don't think that is the question.  How about the preservation of the art?
Yes, BPL is important, but the preservation of the art is too.  Without CW
and reasonably tough test, we have nothing but CB.  This hobby has always
been for those that were willing to prove their abilities and even learn.
Yep, hams can even read and learn.  Why should anyone give in to what has
been said is inevitable?  Personally, I don't think that is true.  I would
rather believe that CW testing and tougher tests will become a reality in
the next year.  What?  Is the new breed to give up and surrender what is
just?  This country was not founded upon nor perpetuated on "give in".  Many
persons paid a high price that we might have the freedom to continue this
hobby.  So, why give in now?  Support CW, tougher theory tests, and then
support the fight against BPL.
73.oow


> Message: 2
> From: YoDoc@aol.com
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:10:57 EST
> To: fists@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Fists] FISTS vs. the ARRL
>
> Dear Fellow FISTS:
>
> I have been following the threads recently involving comments from certain
> ARRL Officials when questioned regarding their position on the future of
Morse
> code testing in Amateur Radio licensing in the U.S.  While I do not
condone the
> tone of their replies, which have, at times, been quite pointedly
sarcastic,
> I do understand the thinking that lies beneath the attitudes expressed.  I
> think it can be analyzed thus:  A.)  They are faced with what they
consider to be
> a much more important issue which has far greater potential to do
permanent
> harm to the ARS, that is, BPL.  B.)  The no-code/pro-code factions
represent a
> single interest which causes the proponents of each faction to have a
"take no
> prisoners" attitude, one which is unwilling to compromise with the other.
> This leaves them in a position where, on the code issue at least, they
have no
> way to satisfy every ham concerned with the issue of code testing,
therefore,
> there is nothing for them to look forward to but endless controversy.
>
> While I as a FISTS member, and a radio amateur who has been at the sharp
end
> of the code-testing debate for my entire 23-year career as a ham,
certainly
> would have preferred to retain the status-quo of code testing in the
> Pre-Restructuring Era, I cannot with any sort of intellectual credibility
deny that there
> is bound to be change.  Unfortunately, that change will inevitably take
the
> form of the total elimination of code testing as a part of the amateur
radio
> licensing process.  There, I've said it.  Code testing will go away.  In
view of
> the elimination of the ITU Radio Rules S25.5 International Treaty code
> testing requirement at WRC-2003, it will be almost impossible to justify
the
> retention of a code testing requirement in any country with an Amateur
Radio Service.
>  There are bound to be a few exceptions, but it is highly unlikely that
the
> United States will be one.
>
> What concerns us most, particularly those of us who are ARRL members, is
the
> fact that the ARRL seems to be intransigent on this issue.  Whether they
> actually are or not is a matter of perception; however, I have had the
saying
> "Perception is reality" drilled into me most of my adult life.  The fact
that ARRL
> officials appear to respond to the concerns of pro- or no-code factions in
a
> less than satisfactory manner is, IMHO, a perception which will not ever
be
> resolved to the individual satisfaction of any given member.  However, I
will
> state that I do firmly believe that when they say that BPL is a more
important,
> if not overriding consideration, is, in fact, the proper position for the
ARRL
> to take.  BPL is something which can make our HF frequencies virtually
useless
> for most radio amateurs.  The big problem with BPL is that it is a
technology
> which has the potential to create literally billions of dollars of new
wealth
> in the telecommunications industry, and we all know the old saying, "Money
> talks."  In this case, the corollary would be, "Hobbies (like amateur
radio)
> walk."
>
> Fortunately for amateur radio, we have some powerful forces on our side in
> the battle against BPL, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)
> and commercial broadcasters and utility communications services which
employ
> the HF spectrum.  With any luck, and with intelligent and dedicated effort
on
> the part of the ARRL in representing the primary interests of all radio
> amateurs, we may possibly prevail over the BPL interests.  However, in
order for this
> to happen, all radio amateurs, regardless of our passions regarding
Morse/CW,
> need to rally on this one, common, and universal objective.
>
> As far as the code testing issue is concerned, I think it is time to
realize
> that we (those who favor continued code testing) are not going to win.
And,
> as FISTS, I believe that the reason we're about to lose is because we blew
our
> chance to make a real difference as far as this issue is concerned.  At
the
> 1997 Dayton Hamvention, Nancy Kott, WZ8C, made a quite devastatingly
effective
> presentation in favor of Morse code testing against the then head of No
Code
> International, Fred Maia, W5YI.  However, instead of taking that momentum
and
> rallying the FISTS membership to take an active role in fighting against
any and
> all actions to further reduce or eliminate code testing, Nancy seemingly
> abandoned the issue, pretty much leaving it up to the individual FISTS
members
> whether or not they would take the matter seriously.  Well, since then,
we've
> seen the "Restructuring" of the amateur radio licensing system in the U.S.
to
> where the only code test is now down to a mere 5 WPM.  I have no doubt
that if
> the FCC had received a response to the Restructuring NPRM from thousands
of
> FISTS members, each individually supporting the retention of the status
quo in
> code testing, that the outcome would have been quite different -- perhaps
a
> workable compromise such as a 5 WPM and ultimately Zero WPM General, and a
> permanently fixed 12- or 13-WPM code testing requirement for the Amateur
Extra Class.
> But, that didn't happen, because the overwhelming support was not there.
The
> support was not there because there was no leadership to make it happen.
So,
> we must now live with the consequences. BTW -- I'm not blaming Nancy for
the
> outcome of Restructuring, because any other FISTS member, myself included,
> could have "led the charge" as it were.  We all share equal blame for the
> complacency which led to our present situation.
>
> The FISTS CW Club calls itself "The International Morse Preservation
> Society."  I believe that this particular taxonomy has a very hollow ring.
In
> reality, all we are as FISTS are a bunch of mainly old-timer hams who
already know,
> use, and love CW, who simply get together on-the-air to exchange
meaningless
> numbers in order to achieve even more meaningless awards.  While all this
was
> happening, the code testing issue was won by the opposition.  In effect,
the
> FISTS fiddled while Rome burned to a cinder!  Don't get me wrong, I'm not
opposed
> to the FISTS "mission" of creating ever escalating awards programs and
> encouraging OTA use of CW, but I don't call that "preserving" the Morse
code, when
> the one and only thing which gets people to learn to use CW in the first
place,
> code testing as a licensing requirement, has been shot down in flames by
our
> opposition.  So, the question now is -- what happens next?
>
> I predict that code testing will be abolished by the FCC before this year
is
> over.  That is, of course, unless they simply don't consider it an
important
> enough issue to take action that quickly.  However, with all the Petitions
for
> Rulemaking (on both sides) currently on the FCC docket, something will
happen,
> and I believe it will be sooner rather than later.
>
> Do not look for the ARRL to be on our side in this matter now, or at any
time
> in the future.  Their unspoken, but nevertheless clear objective, is to
> simply watch code testing die away, hopefully as quietly as possible.
They (the
> ARRL Board of Directors) see code testing as something which has the
potential
> to limit the growth of new radio amateurs, and potential ARRL members.
There
> would be no "upside" for them if code testing were either retained or, as
in
> the FISTS Petition, increased for the Extra Class.  The ARRL wants to make
> getting a ham ticket as quick, easy, and painless as possible for the
purpose of
> increasing the total number of hams, selling more equipment, and keeping
their
> organization alive in the only way that matters -- financially.  If you
follow
> the money, you learn the truth.  Therefore, don't be surprised when your
> local, Section, or Division-level ARRL officials don't respond with upbeat
> enthusiasm to your demands to support code testing.
>
> One last thing -- it will never be a useful response to threaten to cancel
> your ARRL membership simply because they can't, or won't, give you any
> satisfaction on the code testing issue.  Think about it -- what other
organization has
> the legal, technical, and political resources to even put up a fight
against
> the powerful commercial interests behind BPL?  I'll give you two hints:
It
> isn't NCI, and it certainly isn't FISTS!
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
> FISTS 2008
> Member, ARRL
>