[Fists] FISTS vs. the ARRL

Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:22:46 -0700

Larry,

Why don't you do us all a favor and cancel your membership to FISTS.  With
members like you, I am sure we'll succeed with "our" fight to retain CW
testing in the ARS.  "...meaningless numbers," meaningless awards," why the
hell did you join FISTS in the first place?

I have been a ham over 25 years, as far as I remember there was no
"code-testing debate" until a few years ago.  Yes, BPL is dangerous to the
ARS, but it is not the same debate as the no-code issue, lets not compare
the two.

"...bunch of mainly old-timer hams," I had a 30 min QSO with a 16 year old
FISTS from WV on Sunday.  I am only 42, I wouldn't call myself and old-timer
just yet.

I have been a ARRL Life member since I got my Novice ticket in 1977.  While
I don't always agree with them, I certainly do not publicly criticize them,
as I feel their aims are usually in the best interest of the ARS, as are
FISTS.

Paratransit Operator, please, you drive a Van for the handicapped!

Go play someplace else!

Bruce WB7RHT
FISTS 8618
ARRL (Life)

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 21:10
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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fists mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists
>
>