[Fists] ARRL, FCC and elimination of CW testing requirements.

[Larry Makoski W2LJ]

kb2fel at citlink.net wrote:

>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Guess we all know what side of the fence you sit on.
>
> The ARRL did have lots to do with the CW changes.  If they wanted to  
> support it they would have sent all sorts of mailings out....lawyers  
> assigned to the cause and so on.
>

Kinda like the BPL thing?  ;)  I agree with Bob, that while the ARRL 
didn't actively seek the elimination of the code requirement (at least I 
hope not, who knows?) then they are least guilty of a "sin of omission" 
where they didn't do much to stop the changes, either.  I practically 
begged my ARRL Division Director to actually petition the League to do 
an official voting poll once and for all to see where the membership 
REALLY stood with regard to the CW issue.  All we've ever had were 
guesses, estimations, etc - no one has ever actually done a real "one 
man - one vote" membership-wide poll on the issue.  My idea was, do the 
"official poll" and at least we know where membership REALLY stands.  If 
it wasn't "my side", so be it; but at least we would know for sure 
instead of pretending that we knew for sure.

First, I had a tough time getting an answer from my Director because he 
insisted I lived in Arizona and was not in his Division at all.  Where 
he came up with that information I will never know - I have lived in NJ 
all my 50 years!  When I finally did receive an answer, I was told an 
official vote by mail poll would be "too expensive" and a lot of other 
vague things, hints about polls I've never heard of, etc.  Bottom line 
is, I think the League already had their minds made up and didn't WANT 
to risk knowing how membership really felt.  If the results didn't go 
their way, they would have had a hard time defending their lack of 
active support for the  code requirement.

At the same time, Dan is correct -  now, it's just so much water over 
the dam.  But Jozef does have a right to vent, too.  I must admit that 
at times, I have felt the exact way Jozef feels.  Usually my cooler side 
prevails, and I know that Dan's attitude is the only practical one.  If 
we want to bring newcomers towards Morse Code, then we have to show them 
how much fun it is.

However wrong it may be though, you have to admit ...... it's human 
nature.  The code requirement has been in place for a long, long time.  
 From now on, until the last of us who have taken a Morse Code exam has 
passed away, there will be two kinds of Hams.  Those who had to take the 
exam and those who didn't.  That's a fact of life; and we humans have a 
funny way of making note of things like that - it's called history.  The 
tricky and important part  is to make sure that the difference doesn't 
matter. 

Personally, I'm so very torn about this.  In my head, I would rather 
have 10 new Hams go out and about raving about how much fun and how cool 
Morse Code is after they learned it because they wanted to; than 100 new 
Hams go around peeing and moaning and whining about "what a hard time" 
they had learning it; and making it sound unattractive to new 
prospects.  My heart, however, will miss the tradition.  To me, Morse 
Code, is SUCH a part of Ham Radio, that I feel everyone who isn't 
exposed to it is being cheated out of it.  I know it's our job to go out 
and "spread the good news", if I can borrow a Church term; but how much 
can we do - really do?  We (FISTS) do not have the fire power and the 
pulpit that the League has.

Maybe someone needs to write a pamphlet or something entitled "The Fun 
that Morse Code Is" and start distributing it to new license classes and 
at VE sessions.  Unfortunately, an effort like that probably will eat up 
a lot of bucks.  Anyone else have any  ideas?

73 de
-- 

Larry W2LJ
QRP - When you care to send the very least!

http://www.w2lj.qrpradio.com
http://w2lj.blogspot.com/